Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/15/2000_Regular
CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 10 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER 00 -10 MAY 15, 2000 7:00 P.M. C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS (3-8) 1 } Petition from Residents of North Park Addition RE: Condition of Subdivision Streets (9-10) D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (11-12) 2) Agreements with Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Relating to the Regional Sports Complex (13-14) 3) Resolution Consenting to the Olmsted County Revenue Bonds for the Olmsted Medical Center (15-16) 4) Council Authorization for City of Rochester to Extend its Land Use Controls within Marion Township Orderly Annexation Areas (17-18) 5) Community Charities of Minnesota Donation to Police Department (19-20) 6) Request to Advertise for Bids to Purchase One New 4-Wheel Drive 1,500 Gallon Fire Truck with Accessory Equipment (21-22) 7) Request to Advertise for Bid Proposals for Five On -Airport Rental Car Concessions (23-24) 8) Bid Award to Road Constructors, Inc. for Terminal Building Entrance Road Improvements, Entrance Road Signage Improvements, and Parking Lot Expansion (25-26) 9) Change Order #1 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for Terminal Building Improvements (27-28) 10) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (29-30) 11) Approval of Accounts Payable (31-32) 12) Amend Airport Fund 2000 Budget (33-36) 13) Quarterly Investment Report/First Quarter, 2000 (37-38) 14) Advertise Bids for 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck Council Agenda May 15, 2000 Page 2 (39-42) (43-44) (45-46) (47-50) (51-52) (53-54) (55-56) (57-62) (63-70) (71-80) (81-98) (99-100) (101-102) (103-104) (105-106) (107-108) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35) (121-122) 36) (123-124) 37) (125-126) 38) E) HEARINGS Resolution Implementing Chapter 356 of Laws of Minnesota 2000, Probationary Period of Rochester Firefighters Award of Contract to Purchase a Rescue Truck State of MN Hazardous Materials Team Program Promotional AppointmentlMotor Operator/Fire Department Rochester Public Library Accessibility Grant Appointment to RCVB Board Reappointments to Joint Airport Zoning Board Joint Powers Agreement Between City of Rochester and University Center Rochester Amend Existing Park Ordinances Revised Tall Grass and Weed Ordinance Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel Hills Development Development Agreement with Hartman Farms, Inc. Joint Powers Agreement Amendment #1 for TH 63 South Development Agreement/South Pointe 51h Development Development Agreement/George Townhome Development Storm Water Management Agreement for Portion of Olmsted Medical Center Owner Contract/Emerald Hills Second Subdivision Owner Contract/Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision Owner Contract/Rochester Marketplace Owner ContractlOrchard Hills South First Subdivision Phase II Petition Requesting Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in Crocus Hills Area Advertise for Bids/Foxcroft Storm Water Pond Improvements Advertise for Bids/Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Advertise for Bids/Portable Engine Driven Pump (127-154) 1) Amendment to General Development PlanlAll Pointe Development (155-162) 2) Zoning District Amendment by Randy Reynolds to Change Zoning Designation on 23.14 Acres from R-1 District to R-2 District/Property is Located South of 600 Street SW, West of TH 63 (163-172) 3) Final Plat to be Known as Orchard Hills South First (173-184) 4) Type lll, Phase I, Final Plat to be Known as Century Hills 4� Sub. (185-194) 5) Final Plat to be Known as South Pointe Fifth (195-218) 6) Type 111, Phase II, Land Sub. Permit (Preliminary Plat) by Freedom Development & Consulting LLC to be Known as Valley Side Estates Council Agenda May 15, 2000 Page 3 (219-234) 7) Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat by Quinstar LLP to be Known as Pinewood Meadows 2"d Subdivision (235-252) 8) Type III, Phase It, Preliminary Plat to be Known as Kingsbury Hills Subdivision (253-274) 9) Final Site Plan Amendment for the Arboretum Special District (275-278) 10) Project Hearing/Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block Between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW (279-280) 11) Assessment Hearing/Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block Between Broadway and VtAvenue SW (281-284) 12) Project Hearing/Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block Between Broadway and 1 s� Avenue SW (285-286) 13) Assessment Hearing/Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block Between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (287-310) 1 } City Administrator - Consideration of Proposed Downtown Development Projects (311-312) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I DATE: 5115100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having -the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this fonun 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. COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. LETTERS AND PETITIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR G 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PETITION FROM RESIDENTS OF NORTH PARK ADDITION RE: PREPARED BY: CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION STREETS S. KVENVOLD Residents of North Park Subdivision have submitted a petition indicating the poor quality of streets in the subdivision and requesting that the streets be repaired at the sole expense of the developers of the subdivision (see attached). COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: �1p Request a motion referring the petition to the Public Works Department for the preparation of a report indicating the age, current condition of subdivision streets and estimated repair costs for the City Council's fimher review and consideration. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by. to: 11 7 OM Dear Rochester City Council, After passing an informal petition among the residents of the North Park Subdivision, it was quickly evident that 100% of the folks believe that the poor condition of the roadbeds is the responsibility of the developer. He chose to build a inferior quality road that will not last very long, simply due to profit motive. Please realize that responsibility must fall to the builder. Not residents property taxes or any City funded road repair initiative. The builder was granted a license to build an entire neighborhood, and has already been compensated for all his offsite improvements. It is not right to have turned over streets that were built wrong. And for the sake of all legal entities, on record, this has been brought to the attention of the Public Works Dept, The City Council on numerous occasions and all the engineers involved. So far nothing has been done, and the roads are a mess. Please make it right for all the family's. Sincerely, The North Park Residents Co�v /p C, COVOUC Page 1 PETITION FOR ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE HOMEOWNERS OF THE NORTHPARK SUBDIVISION We The Homeowners, Do Hereby Petition The Members Of The Rochester City Council, and Public Works Dept. For immediate action regarding the current disrepairs of the roadways within the development. We The homeowners petition that all Home Builders do have the responsibility to repair damage to the roadbed. We believe that it is not the city's responsibility to repair damage that has been directly caused by heavy equipment, used in the construction of new neighborhoods. We petition that the repairs be made in accordance with fair building practices, at the sole expense of the Developers responsible. I sign that I agree it is the Builders Responsibility to repair. Page 1 55 Page 1 33 35. 36. 37: A 39. 42. 43. 44. 47. 48. ti 77 ? FIII,,-r,A? Ur. .4q - L1. . ", Ppr Yj W 1W aLo L nl Xl u) 50. 51._ 52. 53. _ 54. The above signed agree that it is the Builders Responsibil ity To Repair, The Roadbed. And it should not be taxpayers who foot the bill fo: damages caused by their heavy equipment. Page 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9 DATE: 5115100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-38 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: D-1. Approval of Minutes D-2. Agreements with Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Relating to the Regional Sports Complex D-3. Resolution Consenting to the Olmsted County Revenue Bonds for the Olmsted Medical Center D-4. Council Authorization for City of Rochester to Extend its Land Use Controls within Marion Township Orderly Annexation Areas D-5. Community Charities of Minnesota Donation to Police Department D-6. Request to Advertise for Bids to Purchase One New 4-Wheel Drive 1,500 Gallon Fire Truck with Accessory Equipment D-7. Request to Advertise for Bid Proposals for Five On -Airport Rental Car Concessions D-8. Bid Award to Road Constructors, Inc. for Terminal Building Entrance Road Improvements, Entrance Road Signage Improvements, and Parking Lot Expansion D-9. Change Order Al with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for Terminal Building Improvements D-10. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-11. Approval of Accounts Payable D-12. Amend Airport Fund 2000 Budget D-13. Quarterly Investment Report/First Quarter, 2000 D-14. Advertise Bids for 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck D-15. Resolution Implementing Chapter 356 of Laws of Minnesota 2000, Probationary Period of Rochester Firefighters D-16. Award of Contract to Purchase a Rescue Truck D-17. State of MN Hazardous Materials Team Program D-18. Promotional Appointment/Motor Operator/Fire Department D-19. Rochester Public Library Accessibility Grant D-20. Appointment to RCVB Board D-21. Reappointments to Joint Airport Zoning Board D-22. Joint Powers Agreement Between City of Rochester and University Center Rochester D-23. Amend Existing Park Ordinances D-24. Revised Tall Grass and Weed Ordinance D-25. Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel Hills Development COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by. to: Request for Council Action Approval of Consent Agenda Items May 15, 2000 Page 2 D-26. Development Agreement with Hartman Farms, Inc. D-27. Joint Powers Agreement Amendment #1 for TH 63 South D-28. Development Agreement/South Pointe 5 h Development D-29. Development Agreement/George Townhome Development D-30. Storm Water Management Agreement for Portion of Olmsted Medical Center D-31. Owner Contract/Emerald Hills Second Subdivision D-32. Owner Contract/Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision D-33. Owner Contract/Rochester Marketplace D-34. Owner Contract/Orchard Hills South First Subdivision Phase H D-35. Petition Requesting Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in Crocus Hills Area D-36. Advertise for Bids/Foxcroft Storm Water Pond Improvements D-37. Advertise for Bids/Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation D-38. Advertise for Bids/Portable Engine Driven Pump r �.6.- � COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/0 CONSENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: AGREEMENTS WITH MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES RELATING TO THE REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX ITEM NO. 1�-o� G. NEUMANN MnSCU will be opening bids for the Regional Sports and Recreation Center Building on May 25, 2000. If bids are obtained within budget, they hope to award the bids on or about June 8`s. In order for MnSCU to proceed to award the bids for the projected $13.9 million facility, arrangements need to be in place for the City's estimated share of $8.9 million to be available for deposit with MnSCU by June 8"'. A number of agreements need to be approved to set out how the City funds will be provided to MnSCU and how they will be managed by MnSCU and to detail how the use of the Regional Sports and Recreation facility will be jointly used. The agreements are as follows: 1. Regional Snorts Complex Joint Use Agreement. The Council reviewed the terms of this agreement at the October 18, 1999 Committee meeting and appeared in agreement. The basic terms remain unchanged. It has been reviewed by the Park, Finance, City Attorney, and Administration departments and is recommended for your approval (copy attached). The main provisions of interest include: - the City has priority usage of the field house facility on weekdays from 5:00 p.m. to closing and from 8:00 a.m. to closing on weekends; - there is priority use of the field house for high school and college graduations; - the City is required to provide 26% of the operating costs for the facility which was determined based on the percentage of the space used and the hours that the City will have priority use; - the City will receive credit for any revenues generated during its hours of priority use for rentals to sports groups (the Park and Recreation Dept. staff believe that the revenues should substantially offset costs); - there is an annual process for MnSCU/RCC and the Park Dept. to set the budget and determine user fees; - the City has the authority for joint use of the facility for the life of the facility; - MnSCU shall own the building and is solely responsible for future capital improvements for the building and grounds. 2. Joint Powers Agreement. The Joint Use Agreement is one component of an overall Joint Powers Agreement between the City and MnSCU for this project. The Joint Powers Agreement is the master agreement that spells out how the parties are cooperating on the facility; how the City's $8.9 million will be provided; that there is a joint use agreement; and the City's involvement in design and construction meetings (copy attached). MnSCU is in charge of the design and construction. The City will, however, participate in construction review meetings as we have done in meetings concerning the design of the facility. RCA — Agreements with MnSCU May 15, 2000 page two 3. Letter of Understandine Between the City and MnSCU on Funding for the Rerional Sports Facility. The Finance Director prepared the attached letter of understanding relating to how the City's $8.9 million will be handled. An escrow account approach is used. The Council is requested to authorize the Finance Director to adjust or revise the agreement if needed so long as it is consistent with the concept of the City depositing the $8.9 million in funds but retaining interest earnings thereon. The Council is requested to approve all the recommended agreements so that this project can move forward. NOTE: AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE COUNCIL SEPARATELY DUE TO THEIR LENGTH. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Approval of the Joint Powers Agreement; 2. Approval of the Joint Use Agreement; 3. Approval of the Letter of Understanding with authorization for the Finance Director to revise the Letter of Understanding if necessary as long as it remains consistent with the intent of depositing the funds but providing for the City to retain interest earnings. ua/IV, uu 13:0d rnA 601 28i 1ZJ3 AFIUKNE1 Gh.NEKAL Ut-tKE I¢1001 01- -I -oo STATE OF MWESOTA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES SECTION PUBLIC FK4NCE,/OF%IONS/M4LL sOAROS DIVINKIN Mike Hatch 2[b 5 Strict Capkiel Office Attorney Attorney General TITANS SbN ��' '� St Pail, MN 55103 Fax No.: (651) 297-1235 The information contained in this Fas Is inended oajy for the use ur the individual or entity named bdow. ff tie reader'.. of this Fax is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended red en you are requested to (a) refrain from examtm the materi P nd tic als, (b) imoaediatdr notify the srndiog person of the ntisialc� and ..',. (e) abide by any iatitructions of the seeding person regarding the rdum of the doeument(s). DATE: To: LOCATION: FAX NUMBER: FROM: May 10, 2090 Dale Martinson, Finance David Goslee, Attorney City of Rotltester (507)287-7979 Director of Deputy City STEVE BUFFINGTON, Assistant Attorney General Suite 208,525 Park Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 TELEPHONE NUM ER. (651) 297-1139 EMAIL: steve.buf'fington@state.tnn.us NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover naee): 21 SUBJECT: RCTC Field House Revised Documents David and Dale, attached are the revised versions of the joint powers agreement, the joint use agreement and the letter of understanding as to funding. They are arranged as they ultimately will be, with other documents as attachments to the JPA. 05/10/uU 13:JJ rAA OJl Zkol 1ZJJ .111UR.'Ll bL.�Ortn,. �. a.,o u..... I will get you a draft JPA for the northeast athletic fields shortly in a separate message. Changes I have made are as follows: 1. Joint Powers Agreement (version 3 of 19 Slav 20ft This is still in draft fornL Earlier undertioes and cross-throughs from version 2 of December 1999 are still in place. a_ M.A.: I have deleted the reference to bonds because the City is now using cash. b. M.C.: I have revised the City review and oversight language to make sense as of now. C. M.D.: Again, 1 have removed the reference to bonding, substituting a recitation about the use of cash or near cash, and also deleted the reference to arbitrage. d. As to the change: relating to encumbrance and an escrow, see below in my discussion of the changes to the funding letter of understanding. 2. loint Use Aereement: a. In the WHEREAS clauses and paragraph 1, 1 deleted several instances of "provisions contained in" to shorten it up. b. In paragraph 5, 1 have added the language we discussed on Monday that clarifies that MnSCU is responsible for all design, construction, installation, maintenance, repair and upkeep of not only the structure itself, but its surrounding parking lot and grounds. C. As we agreed on Monday, in paragraph S, I added language that made "net revenues" as to concessions and novelties only the figure for budget deduction before division, defining "net revenues" and adding a sentence that makes "any revenues" (not just net revenues) from signage the figure for budge! deduction before division. d. I added "or self-insurance" to paragraph 9, to take into consideration that MnSCU covers its exposure through the state Rids Management Fund. I also limited the coverage to the City that MnSCU can provide by reciting it to be what is cognizable under the state torts claims act, the law that controls MnSCU and any other state agency. Finally, Ua/lU/UU la:ad MA nai :Vi 1[da All kOhi �,c.cxnL Urrll,t C uue to the extent that the City believes there are exposures from which the State/MnSCU under law cannot protect it, I have provided that the City should insure or self -insure such exposures. e. Paragraph 10 is ile "conditioned indemnity clause" that I described at our meeting. See attached, my standard explanation sheet why the State cannot indemnify in the ordinary manner. However, inasmuch as MnSCU has coverage with the Risk Management Plan (which is "operatioualized self-insurance" where state agency members pay a premium and are covered like commercial insurance), it therefore has coverage "encumbrance" to the torts claims limits Therefore, in these particular circumstances, it can enter into assurances to that dollar limitation without thereby vioiatift the prohibition of promises of remedies to another in the event of a happening which has not yet occurred and may not occur. I have made the "conditional indemnity" coverage to torts claims limits reciprocal between MnSCU and the City by adding the City upunicipal torts claims act language. In the alternative, we could replace all this paragraph 10 language with the following "mutual liability clause: Each party agrees that c` will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shill not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The liability of MnSCU shall be governed by provisions of the Minnesota Torts Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.732 and 3.736, et sfg. and other applicable law. f. I have added a mutual audit clause and data practices clause at new paragraphs 14 and 15 (renumbering subsequent paragraphs)_ I this is mostly "for good measure" because both parties here are governmental units. g- I altered the merger clause slightly with a savings clause, so that the joint powers agreement wasn't possible to be construed to be of no effect by exclusion. 3. better of UnderstandiRtt_ a. In the WHEREAS clauses, I inserted statutory references, and put in "and required" in reference to MnSCU's design and construction responsibilities. b. I deleted bonding and arbitrage references- C. As to paragraph I, I discussed the matter of escrows at some length with Assistant Attorney General Christie Elier, who is the supervisor of my AG division (Public Finance Division). Christie is counsel to the Department of UJ/1V/VV 1J. JJ l.ln VJL LCf 1JJ.a n44VaL..L1 laG..LI..'..v.. .a.., �VV� Finance, the State Board of Investment and is very knowledgable regarding bonding matters and issues relating to encumbrance and expenditures. I was apparently not completely correct in taking the position that the City contribution had to be on deposit with the Department of Finance; in fact, there could be problems with such a course of action if the City is to get back interest on ongoing unexpended balances. A ttwdified version of the City's escrow idea may be satisfactory. The reason for the escrow approach arises from the requirements of Minn. Stat. 16A.72 (attached). It basically requires that all inco to the state is generally to be credited to the date general fund. This would e a problem if the City did not want to get interest: the city's $9_9 minion would join MaSCU's $5.0 million appropriation and be disbursed for construction and other authorized field house uses. However, if the City IS to get the interest, then you have to look at 16A.72(6) which is an exception to "deposit to the general fund" for `investment earnings" (i.e. interest) resukin g from (see list), which "investment earnings" are to be credited to the fund or account and appropriated to the purpose for which it (the corpus from which the earnings come) was received. The problem with this is that the reason for which the corpus of the funds (the City contribution) would be received by MnSCU would be to design and build the field house, not provide the City with money. Thus "investment earnings" would, under this excepion, still end up with the contribution in the design/construction payment pool of money. One possible solution to this is for the total City contribution under the letter of agreeount to be determined, and that figure be discounted for payment purposes and the City remit the discounted figure and take no interest The discount would, of course, have to assume 1) the interest rate on an internal state (16A.72(6) interest -bearing account, and 2) the rate of usage of the corpus of the fund. The other passible solution is to have an "external" escrow account, as the City has proposed: in a bank, for instance. However, regardless of location of the money outside the state system, 100% of the necessary money would have to actually be on deposit when the contract award was made and the escrow would have to be 1) irrevocable by the City: i.e. the City could net alter the escrow and get at the tuoney under any circumstances and 2) the state would have to have unilateral authority to draw money out of the escrow wbm it found it necessary to transfer into disbursement accounts in the State Treasury to make timely payments to the contractors. Under this scenario, MnSCU might well be able to encumber the contract. U3/1U/UU 13:34 rAA 031 Lai leJJ .41/U1(%L1 ULNhXAL UrriLn d. In paragraph 2, I have made provision for the 5% allowance for supplemental agreements. e. In paragraph 3, I have made provision for spending up the state appropriation before the City amtribution is drawn upon. f. In paragraph 4, I have made provision for interest to be paid out of the "external' escrow account to the City as it accrues or according to whatever other schedule the City and the agent agree upon. g. In paragraph 5, I refer to the "approved" external escrow account, to conform to the above. I have to discuss this fu Wizg and escrow mechanism further with Al Johnson and probably some MnSCU financial people, and again with Christie Eller and possibly people from the Department of Finance. It has been very dil5cult to get hold of any state executives from MnSCU or any other agency because it it the last several days of the legislative session. Let me know what you think of the materials so far. FOR TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS, PLEASE CALL: Steve Buffington at (651) 297-1139 AG: 381730.,•. 01 vmr i= 3: 70 Nar 2000 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 471.59, "Joint Exercise of Powers". The parties to this Agro!w*ent are the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, on behalf of Rochester Commuait) and Technical College ('%(nSCU/RCTC") and the City of Rochester ("City"). I. Purpose of the Agreeamt This joint powers agreement relates to the Rochester Regional Recreation and Sports Center ("Center"). The purpose of this joint powers agreement is to express the agreement of the parties to: 1) Provide for the contribution of the City to the cost of the design and construction of the Center. 2) Provide for the sharing of the operating and nsanagement costs of the Center. 3) Provide for the participation by the City in the review of the design of the Center and involsement in ongoing oversight during construction of the Center. 4) Provide for cooperation between the State and the City on design and construction funding natters. II. Governing Body The governing body of this Joint Powers Agreewwnt is the President of Rochester Community and Technical Co&W or his/her designee and the Pfesident of the City Comm Rochester City Administrator or his/her designee_ III. Agreements of MnSCU/RCTC and the City of Rochester VJ, Ill, UU L4. J4 rAA OJl .Ja ♦:JJ S++a�N.\Ll bL.\LB.U. +/C�+•.G k�aoa A. Financial Contribution of qig_f @ ! - ist Parties to Cost of DeMien and Construction of the Center:. The City agrees to commit S8.9 million Arad the State of Minnesota agrees to commit SS million towards the estimnated $13.9 million cost of the design and construction of the Center, pursuant to the u4tching requirements of Minnesota Laws 1998, Chapter 404, Section 22. The City contribution shall he made from the receipts of the additional local sales and use tax as author• ized by Minnesota Laws 19", Chapter 399, Section 43, subd. 1. Resolutions of the City Council authorizing the City's funding cotwmitrnent are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 1. B. Use Agreement: Pursuant to Minnesota Laws 1998, Chapter 404, Section 22, the City of Rochester and MaSCU/RCTC are required to share operating and management costs of the completed Center proportional to their relative use of the facility. Such costs shall be shared in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit 2 "Regional Sports Complex Joint Use Agreement", attached hereto and made a part hereof. This Joint Use Agreement shall be executed by the parties in addition to their execution of this Joint Powers Agreement and shall be independently enforceable pursuant to its terms. C. Design and Construction Oversitkt: MnSCU/RCTC has been authorized by Minnesota Laws 1998, Chapter 464, Section 22 to predesign, design and construct Phase I of the Center. However, in consideration of the City's financial contribution to the cost of design and construction, as well as its continuing shared use of the Center after completion of construction, the MnSCU/RCTC agrees that the City has heretofore participated and should in the future continue to participate in review of the design and oversight of the construction. Review of the design shall eassisE before this date has, among other involvements, consisted of a presentation of the final predesign of the. Center (prior to completion of construction documents) to the City Council for its examination and comments. Said comments shall be were incorporated into the design to the degree that MnSCU/RCTC and its designers find found feasible as a financial, timing and design matter. Ongoing [o]versight of construction by the Ciq shall consist of attendance, if desired, of a City official at periodic construction meetings during the course of the erection of the Center; however, final authority relative to construction shall remain in MnSCU/RCTC. D. Cooperation as to City Funding: As of the time of the award of the construction contract for the building of the Center by MnSCU/RCTC, the State is required bylaw to encumber the entire construction contract amount biah ueewdingly mast be on deposit with the MiLmesela Dqwhnew of" --- Fe 4@pr-ovWedw.S%* the $8.9 million dollor City eonumiloseat for dais pmovese; i4 is mpected that the City wig required to issue revenue (sales tax inereopent) modsipefies debt obligations at some prior- to the award of the eonshmesionsonweet. It is anticipated that the City will be able to Provide its $8.9 million commitneat from e_ristine cash or near -cash reserves and it will not be required to issue revenue (Saks tax increment) anticipation debt obligations for this purpose. uS, iu, uu io:55 FAX 651 :7lJ t26.3 AIIHWStA (,LNERAL uFHL6 tQUuh Accordingly, the City and MaSCU auee that as appropriate escrow of the City funds, as provided in their Letter of Understanding (attachd hereto and aria a port hereof as Exhibit 3, shall be created and the City funds deposiW in said escrow prior to the award of the construction contract. The parties agree to cooperate regarding interim investment and disbursement of the City contribution such that funds are available to MnSCL'/RCTC when necessary for expenditure, all prrs ant to the terms of the Letter of Understandi IV. Other Provisions Nothing in this joint powers agreement shall operate in any manner to pass any title or right to the City in the Center except such rights as are identified in the attached Joint Use Agreement Neither the City nor M 6CL/RCTC shall do any thing or perform any act, the effect of which would be to create a lien or charge against the other that is not authorized by the other. The City and NWCU/RCTC agree to comply with aH applicable federal, state and local regulations pertaining to unlawful discrimination on account of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, nuirital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability or age. Neither the City nor Mn;iCU/RCTC shall assign any interest in this joint powers agreement in any manner without the consent of the other. Any amendment to this joint powers agreement shall be in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of MnSCU/RCTC and the City. This joint powers agreemen the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall ceustitu entire agreerent between the City and MnSCU/RCTC on those matters covered therein except as otherwise provided. V. Effective Date This agreement is effective when signed by the last of the parties necessary for its execution. It shall continue indefinitely until terminated by mutual written ant of MnSCU/ RCTC and the City of Rochester. ua%lu-uu io:Sa FAX dal 297 12J6 Al-l'UR]Et GENERAi. UeHCE 44009 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Minnesota State Coiieges and Universities/ Rochester Community and Technical College, by its President, and the City of Rochester, by its City Administrator, pursuant to resolution of the City Council, have caused this agreement to be signed, intending to be bound thereby, CITY OF ROCHESTER By: CWY Ainrnisteater Mayor t® ATTEST: Approved as to form and execuldon By: of its city C_w City Clerk Date: Assistant City Attorney �� Date: -- Clefrlt Date: MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ON BEHALF OF ROCHESTER COMMUNITY AND TECTMICAL COLLEGE Approved as to form and execulion By: (Authorized Signature Date: Title: Date: AG: 381678,r. Of President, Rochester Community and Technical College Un, La, uu io:oa rAA ooi cap t[JS Al iutt.Nzc ULNERAL Utr lit 1 U I U REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX JOINT USE AGREEJ&ENr This Agreement, made and entered into this day of _., -- _1 by and between the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (hereinafter "MnSCt t" ). WHEREAS, tinder the provisions contained in Minn. Laws 1998, ch. 404, section 3, subd. 22, MnSCU has been given the authority to ptedesign, design and construct phase 1 of a regional community recreation and sports activity complex adjacent to the University Center Rochester, including as a part of the complex a field house and sport and fitness center, hereinafter "the facility", and thereafter to own and hold title to the faeiliri; and, WHEREAS, the City has, hrough a Joint Powers Agreement with MnSCU, obligated itself to provide S8,900,000 towards the construction of the facility: and, WI.3EREAS, under the pfeAsier6 ecintair" i Minn. Laws, ch 404, section 3, subd. 22, the operation and management costs of the facihty are to be shared by the City and MnSCU in proportion to their relative use of the facility; and WHEREAS, the City and N4nSCU desire to formalize the manner in which the facility use is to be determined and by which the operation and management costs are to be determined. NOW, TIIhREFORE, in consideration of the terms and mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the manner by which the use and cost sharing of the facility shall be coordinated and determined The parties are authorized to jointly use the facility as a regional community recreation and sports activity complex pursuant to Ua'IU, UV 1J: JJ r.1.1 061 LJI aCdd A IIIX-NL1 1,c,\cXAL Ui't I6c 41U11 the previsietts of Minn. Stat. sections 471.15 through 4-11.191, and !he provisions in Minn. Taws 1998, ch. 404, section 3, subd. 22. 2. Term. The term of this agreement shall be for the life of the facility. The parties shall meet on an annual basis to review and consider whether the provisions of this agreement, including the cost allocation calculation, remain appropriate. Any modification to this agreement shall be in written form and shall be approved by the respective parties. 3. Construction of Facility. MnSCU shall construct the Facility pursuant to the plans and specifications agreed to by tht: parties under the Joint Powers Agreement entered into between the City and MnSCU. The City shall be notified of and may participate in all construction meetings between MnSCU and its consultants or contrartors. 4. Management of Facility. Rochester Community and Technical College (hereinafter 12CTC), a higher education institut on within the MnSCU system, shall be responsible for all aspects of the operation, management, staffing and maintenance of the Facility, subject to City's right to use the Facility as set forth herein. The sharing of these costs shall be as indicated in para rah 8 of this agreement. The management/staffing responsibility shall include the scheduling and fee collections as provided for hereafter. 5. Maintenance: Capital ImDrvvements. In addition to the desigIl and construction of the facility structure itself. MnSCU shall also be responsible for the design, installation, maintenance, repair and upkeep of the parking lot and grounds surrounding the Facility, at its sole cost and expense. MnSCU shall also be solely responsible for all capital improvements to the facility and its parking lot ar dgounds that it deems necessary or desirable. Costs associated with 2 eU rAA aai .a, acu.1 AI IU!{NLI k,c.�cA-A. U C r IIG r/JUA: the maintenance of the interior if the facility shall be shared according to the provisions of paragraph 8 of this agreement. 6. City's Use of the FactlrM Graduations. City shall have priority use and occupancy of the field house from 5:00 p.m. until closing Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to closing on the weekends. The City shall not pay any amounts to MnSCU for this usage. The City shall determine and shall inform RCTC of the operating hours for staffing purposes. City shall also be entitled to use the performance gymnasium and wrestling room during those times when ROTC is not using them for school purposes. The Cary shall pay ROTC a rate to be determined by the parties for this usage. It is also expected that the field house will be used for high school and college graduations and this shall be considered a priority use. Reasonable time for setup and clean up must be allowed- RCTC may charge a fee for the use: of the field house for graduations. 7. RCTC's Use of the Facili�. RC`rC shall have priority use and occupancy of the offices, weight rooms, classrooms, and locker facilities. ROTC she have priority use of the field house at all times other than those hours and times identified in paragraph 6 above. RCTC will have priority use of the field house from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m on Monday through Fnday. RCTC &hail also be entitled to use the field house during those hours in which the City has priority usage if the field house is not otherwise being used by the City and upon payment of a rate to be determined by the parties for this usage. RCTC shall have priority use of the performance gymnasium, classrooms and wrestling room for college purposes. 8. Budget. The parties shall jointly establish an annual operating budget for the Facility which shall include the following expenses that are directly related to the operation and 3 uj.;ru:uu is:j8 FAA 651 Z8i LZ35 AFIIJ NEt GENERAL OFHIA7. m013 maintenance of the facility: personnel, utilities, supplies, equipment, insurance, parldrlg, maintenance, and repairs. Adnunistrative costs shall not be included as an expense in determining the relative cost sharing. Any nel revenues received by RCTC related to concessions; *gFAge or novelties shall be deducted from the budget prior to a division of the casts, "net revenues" in this context meaning a commission paid to RCTC by concessionaires periodically permitted to operate at various events or functions at th. facility. In addition any revenues received by RCTC related to sifmage shall be deducted from the budget prior to a division of the costs. MnSCU shall pay 74% of the costs referred to above and Ciry shall pay 26% of these costs. These cost shares represent the City's use of 52% of the facility (6),000 sq. feet/114,670 sq. feet} one half of the time. The City shall pay its share of the respective maintenance and operation costs on a quarterly basis after receiving an invoice .."rom RCTC The City shall receive, as a credit against this payment, all revenues generated by fees paid by the community, or RCTC for using the facility during the City's priority use times, or fees paid fat the performance gymnasium and wrestling room during the City's permitted use times. In the event that revenues received that are attributable to the City exceed its share of ca.penses, ROTC shall forward any excess fees to the City on a quarterly basis. 9. Insurance. MnSCU shall be responsible for obtaining and maintaining public liability insurance or self-insurance ifisunng-bei► covering the City and MnSCU beet for liability for claims arising out of the use and occupancy of the Facility, to the extent permitted by the provisions, limits, terms and exclusions of the Minnesota State Torts Claims Act. The City shall insure or self - insure any of its own exposure for use or occupant of the Facility to the extent that such coverage is not pgrntted under the provisions limits, terms and exclusions of the state torts claims act. 4 US%LU, UU 15:5d FAA 651 297 1235 n'MJRSEF UNERAL OFFICE 11h014 MnSCU shall also keep the Facili'y insured of self insured against loss by fire, extended coverage perils, vandalism, and malicious mischief in at least its full insurable value. 10. Indemnity. heid harmAess and -def+y_ j � el ted A.r SCU' ..-..... , ......�... o acv, cazma vi MnSCU is a Minnesota State Agency and is self -insured through the Minnesota Risk Management Fund. The State's liabilities are stated in the Minnesota Torts Claims Act, Minn. Stat. 3.732 et seq which prescribes the settlement of claims and the a licable limits and exclusions thereunder: 300 000 per persorq41,000,000 per occutrance for Mrsonal _injury, death and property da_maae MnSCU agrees subject -o the $300,000/$1,000,000 limits described above and also expressly subject to all other provisions and limitations of the Minnesota Torts Claims Act, and further only for those periods when_it has in effect self-insurance through the Minnesota Risk Management_ Fun to hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its employees. and agents for liability for personal inLy, death or property dame wising out of the negligent acts or activities of MnSCU and its employees while within the scope of this atareement or any addendum or alteration thereof. The City is a Minnesota municipality and its habibties- are stated in the Minnesota Municipal Torts Claims Act Mlnn. Stat. 466, which prescribes the settlement of claims and the applicable limits and exclusions thereunder: $300,000 per person/ 1 000 000 Mr occurrance for personal iniM. death andgroaert V_damage. E 0.5/10, UU 15:57 FAX 651 297 1235 .1TTORSE1 GENERAL OFFICE t 015 The City agrees subject to the $300 V11,000.000 limits described above and also expressly subject to all other provisions and limitations of the ]Kinnesota Municipal Torts Claims Act, to hold harmless defend and indemnify MnSCU, its employees and agent for liability for Personal injury, death or pro2W.y damage arising out of the. neghgent acts or activities of the City and its employees while within the scom of this agreement or any addendum or alteration thereof. 11. Dispute Resolution. In the event that a dispute shall arise between the parties, the parties agree to submit such disputir to non -binding mediation by a neutral qualified mediator agreed to by the parties. Either party ma} invoke this provision by giving the other party written notice of its intent to engage in mediation. Upon the giving of such a notice, the parties shall endeavor to choose a mediator that is acceptable to both of them. In the event that the parties are unable to agree to a mediator, the matter shall be submitted to the Olmsted County District Court for appointment of a mediator from the roster of qualified neutrals providing mediation services in Olmsted County. The mediation process shall take .)lace in the mannei determined by the mediator in consultation with the parties. 12. Termination. This Algeement may he terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (a) If one party breaches a material provision of this Agreement and, after 60 days' written notice of such breach by the other party, fails to cure such breach within such 60 days. (b) The parties agree to terminate this Agreement. 13 ASsignment. Neither party shall assign any of its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party M 05/10iOO 15:57 FAX 651 297 1205 ATTORSER GENERAL OFFICE ®018 14, Mutual Audit Clause: The books, records and documents of the City and lio C relevant to this joint use agreement shall be subject to examination by MnSCU the legislative auditor, the City and city auditors all to the extent permitted law. 15. Data Practices Clause: MnSCU and the City agree to comply with the terms of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minn Stat, Ch t r 13 as to all data related to this joint use agreement. 16. Notices. Any notices given by one party to the other shall be effective upon deposit, postage prepared, addressed to the appropriate party at the following addresses: MnSCU/RCI'C Attention: RCTC President (Don Supalla) 851 30'ti Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 City of Rochester Attention: Superintendent of Parks and Recreation (Roy Sutherland) 201 Fourth Street SE, Rocin 150 Rochester, MN 55904 17. Merger Clause. This agreement, subloct to thjoint Powers Agreement between the parties relating to the facility constitutes the entire agreement between the parties as to those matters contained therein, and supercedes any prior agreements between the parties relative to the matters contained herein. No waiver consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement Shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, small be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. Subject to the ayjsions of the Joint Powers Agreement, there The are no understandings, agreements or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement, 7 05/1.0/00 15:57 FAX 651 297 1235 ATTORNEY GENERAL. OFFICE I017 18. Applicable Law. M.s agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. LN WTINESS WI133REOF, the parues hereto executed this agreement the days and year first above written. City of Rochester Minnesota State Colleges and Universities ,by: -- -- By. Its Mayor Its: By: --- — By Its City Clerk Its_ K1ucr.doc AG: 391611.v. 01 I 0S/1O/00 15:57 FAX 651 297 1235 ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE Zola Letter of Understanding Between the City of Rochester ' (City) and The Miesesots State Crtieg�es and Uaiversities (MnSCU) for the Funding of the Design and Construction of the Rochester Regiesal Recreation and Sports Center at the University Center Rochester May , 2000 This letter of understanding details the funding requirements for the design and construction of the Rochester Regional Recreation and Sports Center ("Center') as called for in the Joint Powers agreerrtent dated 49W 2000 relating to this project. Whereas, t#re State MnSCU has agreed to contribute $5.0 million in appropriated funding toward the construction of the facility pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Laws 1999 Chapter Section; and Whereas, the City has agreed to contribute up to $8.9 mullion in sales tax funding toward the construction of the facility pursuant to the provisions of M1nn. Laws 1999 Chapter Section; and Whereas, the Ame eta• State Colleges and-gxiveni6es MnSCU has been authorized and required to provide design and construction oversight of the project; and Whereas, MnSCU and the State require that the City shave of tNe eatife contrib ition be on deposit prior to award of the construction contract in an escrow satisfactDry_to MnSCLl; and Now, therefore, it is m itually understood that: 1) The City will establish at escrow account acceptable to the State.of Minnesota that will allow the MNSG6 the State periodically to unilaterally draw ki"on transfer funds from the escrow account .o appropriate State accounts for payment of construction, design and construction management fees relating to the Center. The escrow account must be irrevocable by the City and its terms once established, cannot he changed unilaterally by the City for the duration of the design and construction contracts. •0S/LO%00 15:58 FAX 651 297 1235 ATTORNEY GENERAL. OFFICE (� 019 2) The City will deposit into said account, no later than one day prior to the award of the construction contract, an amount equal to: a) the construction contract amount, plus b) the design fees paid to date, plus c) the estimated design and construction management fees to be incurred through the period of construction plus d) a five percent (5%) continency allowance for supplemental agreements to the construction contract, mime e) the $5 0 million share to be funded by the State. 3) The state will disburse monies for approved design, construction, and construction management payments on the project. These monies will drawn ill prepeftion 4- from the State's $5.0 million share and until such time as the State's $5.0 million contribution is fully disbursed. All remaining payments from that point forward will be drawn from the City escrow account. 4) All interest earned on the escrow account will accrue to the City and shall 1 be Raid directly by the escrow agent to the City on a schedule satisfactory to the Cam. The City may yield -restrict these earnings, use the earnings for arbitrage rebate obligations, or return these earnings to the City's general sales tax projects or debt service payments as the City deems to be legally required or most economically feasible. 5) The City agrees to deposit into the anyroved escrow account additional amounts for supplementary contracts such as furniture and equipment, landscaping, etc. as may be required to complete the project up to the Cay's full $8 9 trillion contribution. These additional deposits will also be made no later than one day prior to award of the supplementary contract Understood and Agreed to this City of Rochester: By: Mayor Attest: City Clerk day of 1999.2000. Minnesota Colleges and universities: M 05/10/00 15:58 FAX 651 297 1235 ATTORNEY GENERAL. OFFICE ®0220 ' , 'Annesota Statutes 1999, 16A 72 Page I of 1 Minnesota Statutes 1999 Table of C.'hagteic Tablc.of contcrIn for Chapter 16A 16A.72 Income credited to ga�ral fundp us aptiome. All income, including fees or receipts of ary nature, shall be credited to the genera. fiord, except. (1) federal aid; (2) contributions, or reinbursements received for any account of any division nr depart^.en-. 'or which an appropriation is made by law; (31 income to the University of Hi.n.esota; (4) income to revolving funds now established in institutions under the control o.` t.:-e comm.ssioners of corrections or human serv'r•es, (5) invest-.er.t earn -rigs resu:zing .'rom the master Lease program, except that the amount credited _o another fund or account may not exceed the amount of the addit.ional expense incurred by that fund or acv'itLnt thrn:gh participation in the master lease program; (6) investment earnings-esu:ting `rom any gift, donation, device, endowment, trust, or court ordered or approved escrow account or trust fund, whice should be credited to the fund or account and appropriated for the purpose for which it was received; (7) receipts from the operation of patients' and ir=ates' stores and vending mach_aes. which shall he depns:red in the social we_fare fund in each insritu:ior. for the benefit of the patients and inmates: (8) money received in payment for services of :nme to labor employed in the industries carried on in the state correctional facilities which receipts sha:l be credited to the current expense fund of those facil;r'.es; (9) as provided in sec'tians _6B 57 and 8.5, 22; (10) income to the Micces:tt.d :cistor ird _<ociPty; (11) the percent of income collected by a private collection agency and retained by the co: :ect ion agency as its collection fee; or (12) as otherwise providei by taw FIST: Ex1971 c 3 s 54; 1976 c 163 s 3; 1979 c 102 s 13; 1984 c 544 s 89; 1984 c 628 art 2 s 1; 1984 c 654 art S s 58; 1Spl986 c 3 art 4 s 1; 1993 c 192 s 69: 1993 c 369 s 40; '995 c 254 art 5 s 2; 1998 c 366 s 25 Copyright 1999 by the Office of Revisor of St.at.ut.es, State of Minnesota. . 05-/10/00 15:58 FAX 851 297 1205 A7MRNEY GENERAL OFFICE (ih021 Because of statutory and constitutional praiiitiens, the State and MaSCU cannot grant any indemnities. The statutory reams against indemnities are !maid in Minnesota Statutes 16A.15, sabd. 3, which forbids may iacurrance of an obligation without an encumbrance against an a"ropriatica, and Minnesota Statutes 16A.138 which says that it is unlawful to incur any indebtedness of any tature on behalf of tie state until an appropriation for it has been made by the legislature. The coustitudseal provision is Article Xa, Section 1 which says that no money may be paid out of the state treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation by law. An indemnity by its mature is in violation of these provisions. it is a promise of an indeterminate amount of money for an indeterminate reason at an indeterminate time in the future_ By definition, there would he me apprepriatioe and eneamhranee sitting and waiting for such a contingent), sad anavagable for other uses. Furthermore, the State has tort immnaity above the torts claims limits found in Minn. Stat 3.732 and 3.736. D-Z LI TO: Mayor and City Council From: Gary Neumann Date: May 15, 2000 Re: D-2 Revision — RCTC Sports Complex Agreement An issue raised by Councilmember Senjem has caused the staff to suggest the following revision. 'T RCTC shall have priority use and occupancy of the offices, weight rooms, classrooms and locker facilities. However, the City shall have the free use of facilities when they are not otherwise being used.' We suggest adding the underlined sentence. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE OLMSTED COUNTY PREPARED BY: REVENUE BONDS FOR THE OLMSTED MEDICAL CENTER G. NEUMANN Olmsted County has agreed to provide $1million in revenue bond financing to the Olmsted Medical Center for the purpose of financing the renovation and construction of additions to the medical clinic and primary administrative offices located at 210 Ninth Street SE. Since the improvements to be funded by these bonds are located within the City of Rochester, the approval by the City Council is also required before the bonds may be issued. The repayment of the bonds is the sole obligation of the Borrower from revenues generated by the project. The attached resolution notes that "Me full faith and credit of the City will not be pledged as a source of repayment of the Bonds nor shall the City have any obligation whatsoever with respect to the Bonds or the Project." Approval of the consenting resolution is recommended. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to adopt the resolution consenting to the action of Olmsted County authorizing the sale of the revenue bonds. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobonby: second by: to: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONSENTING TO THE ACTION OF OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF REVENUE BONDS (OLMSTED MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT), SERIES 2000 WHEREAS, Olmsted County, Minnesota (the "County"), has advised the City of Rochester (the "City") that the County proposes to provide financial assistance to Olmsted Medical Center, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower"), by issuing revenue bonds (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing the renovation and construction of additions to the Borrower's medical clinic and primary administrative offices located at 210 Ninth Street SE in the City (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.153 requires that this Common Council must approve the issuance of bonds for a project located in the City before such bonds may be issued; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of this community to approve the County's issuance of the Bonds for the purpose of financing the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.153, subd. 3, the Common Council hereby consents to the issuance of the Bonds by the County to provide financing for the Project on behalf of the Borrower. 2. Repayment of the obligations represented by the Bonds will be made solely from revenues derived from the Project and the payments to be made by the Borrower. 3. The full faith and credit of the City will not be pledged as a source of repayment of the Bonds nor shall the City have any obligation whatsoever with respect to the Bonds or the Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF MAY 2000. (SEAL) Attest: City Clerk Approved the _ day of May, 2000. President of the Common Council Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Consent Agenda City Administrator ITEM DESCRIPTION: Council authorization for City of Rochester to extend its land use controls within Marion Twp. Orderly Annexation Areas MEETING j15- / DATE: 5/15/00 ITEM NO. © 4 PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth Provisions contained in the Joint Resolution executed by Marion Township and the City of Rochester pertaining to the Orderly Annexation Agreement Areas within Marion Township allow the City of Rochester to extend its municipal planning and land use controls to those areas within the Orderly Annexation areas prior to annexation. The reason for these provisions is to ensure that development occurring in those areas prior to annexation is consistent with the policies and ordinances of the City of Rochester, and to not create an increased number of nonconformities within those areas that the City will have to deal with in the future. Typically, when the City of Rochester takes over land use control within a township area, it is zoned to the City zoning classification that most closely resembles the existing zoning district within the township. In this instance, Marion Township has agreed to extraterritorial zoning and subdivision control by the City of Rochester by virtue of the executed joint resolution. The City has requested that the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution agreeing to the City providing for land use controls within the orderly Annexation Agreement Area within Marion Township as provided for under Minnesota Statutes 414.0325, Subd. 5. The Olmsted County Board of Commissioners is scheduled to act upon this matter at their May 23, 2000 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution agreeing to extend land use control by the City of Rochester within the Orderly Annexation Agreement Areas in Marion Township as provided for under Minnesota Statutes 414.0325, Subd. 5 ( c ) subject to adoption of Resolution by Olmsted County agreeing to exclude the Marion Township Orderly Annexation Areas from their zoning and subdivision ordinances. COUNCIL ACTION: Modenby: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 'q DATE: 5115100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D - 5' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Charities of Minnesota Donation to Police Department PREPARED By. T. SPAETH Community Charities of Minnesota recently voted to donate $1364.00 to the City of Rochester Police Department Honor Guard Unit for uniform related items (i.e. leather equipment such as belts , straps and holsters, and hat badges). COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Motion to accept donation of $1364.00 from Community Charities of Minnesota COUNCIL ACTION: Mottonby. Second by: to: `fl Community Charities Toll Free 1-800-286-6079 • Fax 507-386-7134 of Minnesota 115 South Riverfront Drive • P.O. Box 819 • Mankato, MN 56002-0819 05/03/2000 Stevan Kvenvold City of Rochester 201 SE 4" St. Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Stevan, At the April 270' 2000 Community Charities of Minnesota membership meeting it was voted to donate $1,364.00 to the City of Rochester. These funds are to be used to purchase: • Leather equipment (belts, straps, holsters) • Hat badges Check #11355 has been issued to support these requirements. In order for me to release this check, I need the enclosed LG 503 Government Acknowledgment Form (Highlighted areas only) completed and returned to me in the enclosed envelope. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me at 1-800-286-6079. Thank You. Respectfully, Mark E. Healy Jr. Office Administrator for Community Charities of Minnesota. A nonprofit charitable fundraising organization REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q DATE: 5/15/00 CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Rochester International Airport I D - (p to advertise for bids to purchase one new four-wheel drive 1500 gallon fire truck with accessory equipment. The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: PREPARED BY: Steven W. Legve Advertise for bids to purchase one new four-wheel drive 1500 gallon airport fire truck with accessory equipment for the Rochester International Airport. This equipment purchase is in the Airport CIP. (76999) Funding: 90% Federal 10% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. MuimCILACTION: Modonby: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport D ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to advertise for bid proposals for five (5) on -airport rental car PREPARED BY: concessions. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Advertise for bid proposals for five (5) on -airport rental car concessions. The existing agreements will expire on December 31, 2000. Other rental car agencies have expressed an interest in providing on -airport rental car service at the Rochester International Airport. We are proceeding with the bid process at this time because we will need to determine who the on -airport rental car agencies will be to allow final completion of the rental car counter areas under the terminal building remodeling project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. • CO CIL ACTION: Motion by: sewnd by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �3 DATE: 5/15/00 J CONSENT AGENDA to Inc. Rochester International Airport I L)— 8 entrance road improvements, entrance road signage improvements, and parking lot expansion. I Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Award a bid to Road Constructors, Inc. for Terminal Building entrance road improvements, entrance road signage improvements, and parking lot expansion. This project is in the current CIP. (J6967) Engineer's Estimate: $905,165.50 Total Bid: $962,328.25 Funding: Republic Parking Systems, Inc. $415,364.29 Local $218,785.58 State $328,178.38 •Bid tabulations attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract with Road Constructors, Inc. and other documents related to this project. ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SgCT10N: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport t) - ! ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order #1 with Alvin E. Benike Inc. for Terminal Building PREPARED BY: improvements. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Change Order #1, Requested Items (16042) 1. Existing light pole removal $2,503.00 2. Interior signage allowance 3,800.00 3. Replace vestibule columns 5,243.00 4. Re -Circuit canopy lighting 1,577.00 5. Replace canopy speakers 1,211.00 6. Replace louver around openings in new canopy with reveal (1,602.00) 7. Department of Health required special sheeting in the restaurant 2,382.00 Total of six add items and one credit item: $15,114.00 CCVIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Change Order #1 documents. COUNCIL ACTION: Modon by: second by: for REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D -10 ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA IICHOTT 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. CIRCUS Rochester Women of Today Jose Cole Circus 6/4/00 Olmsted County Fairgrounds Rochester, Mn. 55904 FIREWORKS Rochester Youth Baseball 5/20/00 Hudson Field at the Roy Watson Complex 37d' St. NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Rochester Honkers/KTTC/McLeod USA 8/3/00 Mayo Field 403 E Center St. Rochester, Mn. 55904 GAMBLING SE MN Association of Realtors 1111 14" St. NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Raffle 7/17/00 Rochester Art Center 320 East Center St. Rochester, Mn. 55904 Raffle 11/3/00 Radisson Grand Ballroom 150 S. Bdwy. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE PAGE 2 MAY 15, 2000 SIDEWALKS — CEMENT Sean Fogarty DBA Fogarty Concrete Inc. 921 6v' St. NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 SOUND AMPLIFICATION Marcia Marcoux Student 80' end of Year Party 6/7/00 5:30 PM to 10:00 PM 1743 8"' St. SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Jerry Janezich for US Senator Campaign DFL State Convention 6/3/00 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM Mayo Civic Center Rochester, Mn. 55904 MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE Glendale Neighborhood Association Flag Day Kiddie Parade 6/14/00 6:30 PM — 7:30 PM Rocky Creek, Glendale Hills & N Valley Rochester, Mn. 55906 Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity Bike Ride 6/24/00 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM Soldiers Field to McQuillan Field Rochester, Mn. 55904 City of Rochester/MnDot Commuter Choice Bike Ride 5/18/00 12:00 Noon to 1:00 PM Starts at 6' Ave & 2"d St. — (Osman Bldg. Parking Lot ) to 551' St. NW Along Bike Path Rochester, Mn. 55902 MacAttack 5K Run & Walk 8/4/00 Silver Lake Swimming pool Area Proceeds to Ronald McDonald House Rochester, Mn. 55904 Alzheimer's Association Memory Walk 9/9/00 Around Silver Lake Rochester, Mn. 55904 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses and miscellaneous street uses. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. • CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D - 10 ITEM 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. GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT Dover Fire Relief Association PO Box 65 Dover, Mn. 55929 Premise Permit For: Shady Hill Grill 401 6" St. SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 OUTDOOR DINING - RENEWAL Daube's Bakery 14 — 3rd St. SW Rochester, Mo. 55902 MASTER PLUMBER Michael Bell DBA Dimension Plumbing & Heating, Inc. 1985 North Broadway Rochester, Mn. 55906 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION — CEMENT Chad Birch DBA Birch Concrete 902 Scenario Lane SW Rochester, Mo. 55902 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above ADDENDUM licenses. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 DATE: 5115/99 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. _ (' I I tm DESCRIPTION: Approval of Accounts Payable PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $1,051,361.73. Less: Any exceptions ., JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3i DATE: 05/15/00 tGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda/Organizational Business Finance D _ /� ITEM DESCRIPTION: JB. PREPARED BY: Amend the Airport Fund 2000 Budget Atkinson The City is the designated sponsor of the Rochester International Airport, and is required to report all revenues and expenditures related to the operation of the airport on the City's financial statements. As a result of this requirement, the budget prepared by the Rochester Airport Company must be combined with the estimated budget of operating costs funded by the City to arrive at the total operating budget for the airport. The Rochester Airport Company does not adopt its annual airport operating budget until its annual meeting. The meeting took place on April 20, 2000. The following amendments of the 2000 Rochester International Airport operating budget are required to incorporate the final Airport Company budget into the City or Rochester financial system. Revenues Charges for Services $49,035 Investment Income ($1,600) Rental of Real Property $53,649 $101,084 Other Prior -Year Revenues ($26,801) Budget Adjustment (162 254 ($189,055) Total Revenue and Other Sources 87 971 Expenditures Contractual Services ($61,170) Transfer to Reserve -future projects 26 801 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 87 971 The total Airport Fund budget will now be $2,389,337 Council Action Requested: Approve amendment of the 2000 Airport Fund budget as reflected on Attachment A. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: 3�- r, z W Q Q ow 00 {Q O t0 c0 O C. N CO 01 O (t10� N ahO cOO 0 M Cl O rA h O O N ' N 0 0 O c0 O'i O O co M M In O N N 4] O mr m W M O (0 Ol tc] rn O O 0) O co h O< m r- N m O O ^ w lf) m M N fD c0 N N V' M O cr Oi cr M M M h M co O V N M c0 O m M M O h _ tD W LO O c0 h h M N C% O O O CO O O 00 ' c0 O O coao 0 0 O O C N O Do O co� O Cl) M rC] O [D O O M p h rtJ u"i C3 O m O h c0 M O N O M O M e{ Of 'pm S O N ri") N R et r- Lo h to c h O) < N M � t01[i CO VM' C 1 OO ti h h R N N N � C E 0 U � O O O 0 0 O O LO 7 V a0o oho � � m h V O O O O O O O @ � ti C Ol LLO'i UO'J L N N W Ld rf) N v �t a co co w v O m ' ' ' ( 'OV CDO tv N N coo .h0.. N '- �- M O 01 1t7 I,- O N N O O= c0 O mh t() '� e- O O c0 M M O f� rLJ O m m M M C N N lf1 �v oo LR 0) O `mu-i c3 cO m O mm cflm O r N N o' c�i rmv t0 ofm oc M Cl) cc N� M M h 0n N ni W ti M m ` c00 uN'! R N 2 I I- c N r v wl O O O O m O O O 00 O cO O c0 c0 O O OO cO c0 O c0 CD O OI O O c0 O O c0 c m D7 O m fD ^ N cD QI QI N a p� O O C O 1� W W IA O c C T N 01 a lI) tf] 1- ti 'OC 7 M M h N Q7 " m cochO M N Ci] N 10CJ r V c IZ N N' N N Q C N T N y 'CC y t9 x F- F- Q _ �% U p N c E ayi y d c rn a �i N o 0 4l (6 N .0.. > m O `=c a) 9 ct O N EL W G Q c E v F- E o p o LM y O aE i O c l6 E' C c W H Of C V Z U c0 cl N D Ln w A a m N V C .it CCU w 12 C V C U N m N UJ ? U 12 LD N F- O a w a « c o U cm s x uj d 8 a CE2 y E 2 �m x o W U o f Cl. 0 H o H 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 33� MEETING DATE: 05/15/00 ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda/Organizational Business Finance D - l3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Quarterly Investment Report -First Quarter, 2000 B. Atkinson As prescribed by the City's revised investment policy, adopted March 18, 1996, the information below and appendices summarize the City's portfolio. 1. Portfolio Information ° Summary Schedule of Investments -by investment type, and percentage of the total portfolio. See Appendix A. ° Unrealized gains or losses: City of Rochester portfolio contains no securities over one year's duration, that aren't intended to be held until maturity. 2. Marking to Market ° Listing provided by the City's custodial agent showing market value of individual investments as of March 31,2000. See Appendix B. 3. Performance Standards ° City of Rochester's portfolio weighted average yield to maturity as of March 31, 2000-- 5.85%. ° Benchmark standards: Standard and Poors Local Government Investment Pool Index-30 day yield, Week ended March 17, 2000-- 5.60%. 91 day Treasury Bill yield at March 31 — 5.72%. Public Investor 10-bill index for April 1 -- 6.0%. Council Action Requested: Receive and file quarterly investment report. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS MARCH 2O00 l Interest Investments Rate Maturity Book Value Percent Govt Paper. FACO Strip 8.1 varies 1,015,800.00 FFCB 5.8369 varies 2,465,792.25 FHLB 5.9956 varies 24,991,365.00 FHLB Floater 0 varies 0.00 FHLMC 5.8937 varies 11,967,282.50 FICO strip 4.95 varies 934,470.00 FNMA 5.7913 varies 52,649,314.48 FNMA Disc Note 5.427 2000 953,363.89 FNMA strips varies Tennessee Valley Authority 5.625 2000 871,170.00 TVA Zero Coupon 5.5 2000 960,260.00 TOTAL GOUT PAPER 96,808,818.12 88.70^% CP's varies 8,684,779.19 8.00% O/N varies on demand 3,672,611.81 3.30% TOTAL INVESTMENTS 109,166,209.12 RPU 0.00 invest pool 109,166,209.12 109,166,209.12 Ex,V,B,r- ,4 • LL O Vl F W Vl co Qc c LLC O an � 0 7� m< i O a P P 41 H h O O N N 10 f0 r� 1 1 W co c0 d S GEC �Z1 111 Iq d d N 1 M ^I M H i 0 i a i 0 .Ma d 0 0 d M M d N M 4 N N N `~ o ariS d IM9 h o �5�5..1111 ^I ti o 0 o a b t0 .Mi IMq cNi1 W O O N J .Oi 100 M 1� M M 1� C M M d O N N M Q P P O N N coWMN f0 N N pO YW cc M P P O M O •M-1 M M O 10 M W 10 N N M UI d O M T M S S •4 G` r1 p 7 M n d 1` � d N •} d P d d M l0 t0 N N � c M M �a W N N ~r1 r2 pp N y Up• � 2 H ggN o64 {O`. H U pF C U u B CCCu o f d LL 1- 9 s F 3 5�i 3.................................... Treasuries - continued from page 1 To explore potential adjustments in investment strategy, public Investor interviewed three cash managers this past month: Charles Cox; Finance Director, Farmers Branch, Texas; Bill Stafford, Finance Director, City of Evanston, Illinois; and Darren Bond, Finance Director, Oregon State Treasury. They are members of the GFOA Committee on Cash Manage- ment, which is chaired by Cox. Stafford heads the Investment Subcommittee. Public Investor: With the start of a . new year and a new century, now is a good time to review where public investors are investing. Where is your government investing now, and what changes have you made to your short-term portfolio in the past two years, if any? Cox: My government continues to invest in Treasuries, agencies, and repurchase agreements. We have not made changes in our short-term_ portfolio investment strategies over the past,two to three years, though GASB 31 has made us more alert in watching interest rate swings. Stafford: Short-term funds are being moved into more Treasuries due to the interest rate surge. Long-term pension monies are balanced in eqtu- ty sectors to diversify the. portfolios. Ann& Over the past few years we have made a slight shift from Treasuries to agencies. e 615%-Treasuries (10%) and agencies (90%) • 37.7%l- Commercial Paper e 00.8% - Certificates of Deposit Public Investor: If yes to question 1,' what caused the modifications in your portfolio? Forins'tancb, were they changes in response to -the bond market or legislation? Cox: Not applicable (to our jurisdic- tion). Performance Public InvestorPerformance Indexes The Public Investor year -bill index Quarterly/Monthly Annualized Returns Return Since Index Value Annualized Jan. 1, 1999 Jan. 1, 1998 Jan. 1, 1999 244.4460 4.1%( ) 5.9% 6.1% Jan. 1, 2000 254.6174 2.9%(l7) 4.2% 5.0% Mac 1, 2000 255.5077r 6.2%(M)r 4.2%r 5.0%r Apr. 1, 2000 257.6970 5.7%(M) 4.3% 5.0% 4.9% (o) The year -bill Index Is based on hypothetical reinvestment of the proc ads of a 52•week Treasury bill our. chased originally on July 1, 1984. On the Thursday following each auction of the new year -bill, the previ. ous bill is "sold" and the new bill Is 'purchased: The original value of the index was 69.3008. Annualized returns are computed yields based on changes in index values. The Public Investor 10-bill index Quarterly/Monthly Annualized Returns Return I Since Index Value Annualized Jan..1, 1999 Jan. 1,1998 Jan. 1, 1999 232.0175 3.9%(Q) 5.2°h 5.3% Jan. 1, 2000 242.8785 - 4.8%(Q) 4.7% 4.9% Mar. 1, 2000 244.9113r 5.4%(M)r - 4.6%r 4.9%r Apr. 1, 2000 246,4642 7.9%(M) 1 5Z% - .5.1% 6.0%(Q) J The Public Investor 10-bill index consists of 10 hypothetical Treasury bill investments, with an average maturity of approximately 80 days. Every other Thursday, a T-bill matures and proceeds are reinvested - akernately In tllree-month and six-month T-bills. This rolling Index provides a benchmark for evaluating, cash management portfolios with biweekly payment and payroll requiremendiL The od�inai value of the t index was 97.6765 on July , 1984. . The money market fund index Annualized Returns Since Average Return Jan 1., 1999 Jan 1., 1998 Jan. 1, 1999 4.7% 5.04% 5.040/6 Jan.1,2000 5.1%. 4.93% 4.99% Mar. 1, 2000 5.3% 4.95%' 4.99% Apr. 1, 2000 - 5.40/6 4.96% 4.99% The money market fund index is the simple average of lBC1 Money Fund Report AvsmgesnA seven-day money market fund inbexes, as reported for the two weeks closest to the and of each month. The annual- ized return Is calculated using these rates for a four -week period centering on the first of each monthd The reau8s should simulate returns from passive investment In an average money market fund. rr eS&P Rated'L`.GIP Index. Marchl7 2000 s` 7-day yield - 30-day yield - Maturity (Days) 5.63% 5.60% 39 This Index Is comprised of local government Investment pools that are rated AAAm or AAni by Standard & Pooes and represent pools that strive to maintain a stable net asset fund. , Key,ales: Cash Markets *7,.Z Rate' 03MI/oo Year Ago , Fed funds 5.00 5.50 CDs: Three months 5.65 4.73 CDs: Six months 5.92- 4.90 _' BAs: b1e month 6.05 / 1.4.78 I T-bills: 91-day yield 5.72 4.38 T-bill: 52 week yield 5.94 4.50 Sand Buyer20-bond municipal Index - 5.74 5.11 Tax-exempt notes 4.08 3.08 Stafford: (The factors causing the adjustments include), the market for short-term funds and recent Illinois legislation for the pension funds. .Bond: It is probably better attrib- uted to a rydical shift reflecting market opportunity rather than any conscious strategic shift. Public Investor: The Treasury Depart- ment has announced its first 'buy-, continued on page-6 I "d. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5115100 eraFNDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. p— II Lf ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise Bids for 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck PREPARED BY: Jennifer King The Public Works Department requests approval to advertise for one (1) 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck to be furnished to the City as indicated in the specifications provided by the Public Works Department. The funding for this item has been budgeted in the 2000 Equipment Revolving budget at $81,000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids for one (1) 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING P7 DATE: 5/15100 PrFMDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Fire D_ / 5 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution implementing Chapter 356 of Laws of Minnesota 2000, PREPARED BY: Probationary Period of Rochester Firefighters Chief Kapler Under past Fire Civil Service law, the firefighter probationary period was limited to six months from time of employment. In 2000, the City of Rochester and the Rochester Fire Department proposed legislation to extend the firefighter's probationary period to six months after successful completion of the basic fire -training academy and assignment to a fire company. This will allow the Fire Department the opportunity to more thoroughly evaluate a new employee before they become a permanent employee. The Governor signed the special law on April 11, 2000. Senator Kiscaden and Representative Bill Kuisle introduced the respective Senate and House bills that resulted in this special law. The Rochester Fire Department wishes to acknowledge their efforts. For the law to become effective, the City must first adopt a resolution approving this special law. The City Clerk may then file a certificate with the Secretary of State noting the approval of the new special law. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED To adopt the attached resolution as prepared by the City Attorney. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: 0 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the 2000 Session of the Minnesota Legislature enacted Laws 2000, Chapter 356, relating to the City of Rochester; and, WHEREAS, section 2 of Laws 2000, Chapter 356 states that section 1 will not be effective until the City of Rochester gives its assent to the provisions as provided in Minn. Stat. Section 645.021, subd. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the City of Rochester hereby approves of section 1, Laws 2000, Chapter 356. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to file with the Minnesota Secretary of State a certified copy of this resolution along with such other documents as may be required to evidence the approval by the City of Rochester of this special act of the Legislature. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2000. ATTEST: PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF .2000. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) N�521I SYNo. 3478, 1 A Engroasment http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us...dbiH.p1Tbill=S3478.1&sessicn=1s81 M -01 KEY: ttad.aka5 . old language to be removed underscored . new language to be added NOTE: If you cannot see any difference in the key above, you need to change the display of stricken and/or underscored language." Authors and Status ■ List versions S.F No. 3478, 1st Engrossment: 81st Legislative Session (1999-2000) Posted on Mar 13, 2000 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 A bill for as act, relating to the city of Rochester; modifying probationary period rules for city of Rochester firefighters. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: section 1. [CITY OF ROCHEBTER;'"PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR NEW FIREFIGHTERS UNDER CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.] REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING `( p DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Fire D - Ao ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Award of Contract oPurchase a Rescue Truck Assist.Fhief/Stutz Bids were opened on 4/28/00 for the purchase of a rescue truck for the Fire Department. There is $125,000 budgeted for this truck and equipment. Three bids were received: Emergency Vehicles Inc. - $145,858.40 Amtech Emergency Products - $135,533.00 Fire Attacker Inc - $124,388.60 The Fire Department recommends that the City accept the low bid of $124,388.60 by Fire Attacker Inc. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approval to contract with Fire Attacker Inc,. for the purchase of a rescue truck and equipment for the price of $124,388.60. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING V5- e,,- DATE: 5/15100 PrFNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Fire D _/ "7 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Stae of MN Hazardous Materials Team Program Chuck Herman COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A resolution is requested for the City Council to authorize the execution of the new contract between the state of Minnesota and the City of Rochester regarding the Hazardous Materials Regional Response Team Program. This contract will cover a one year period starting July 1, 2000. This contract will again be signed by the City Clerk and Mayor who are authorized to sing on behalf fo the City. /VUTC• Nd StfpST4�i'9�/GG '�4K y{S �IY?v»'� �Or'L�ll/UtIS ��¢�' COUNCIL ACTION: Modon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 51l S/UU --NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational / Consent Human Resources D _ 1 S ITEM DESCRIPTION: Promotional Appointment - Motor Operator - Fire Department PREPARED BY: L Gilsrud The retirement of James Richardt, Motor Operator, effective April 30, 2000 created a vacancy for the position of Motor Operator. The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the top two (2) certified candidates for the position of Motor Operator from the established eligibility roster and recommends the appointment of one of the two to the position of Motor Operator. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Promotional appointment of Firefighter Michael Magruder to the position of Motor Operator effective May 16, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second by: to: V haft ALL-AMERICA CITY May 10, 2000 ROCHESTER A,✓ Ota FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GREG WALTERS NORB RYAN HILLA CLINE Honorable Council Members City Council City Hall Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Council Members: _ .kz A �lL U.,,_ r.l cl••. The retirement of Motor Operator James Richardt effective April 30, 2000 created a vacancy for the position of Motor Operator. We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of Motor Operator from the following list of qualified candidates: 1. James Brumfield 2. Michael Magruder Fire Chief David Kapler desires to have this appointment effective May 16, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, Norb Ryan Secretary Fire Civil Service Commission An EVd C1Fpo4u=1y Enoyer �9 ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2000 TO: Fire Civil Service Commission FROM: David Kapler, Fire Chief b&A�/ SU9IECT: Motor Operator Promotion Motor Operator James Richardt retired on April 28, 2000. This creates an opening for a motor operator. Firefighter James Brumfield is number one on the Motor Operator Eligibility List. However, Firefighter Brumfield has submitted a letter stating that he is not interested in a promotion at this time (attached). Therefore, I am recommending that the number two person on the list, Firefighter Michael Magruder, be promoted to fill this vacancy. Thank you. �iDir'T�o>il: �r �i .U� S �iNI G � �vo vL0 ,G i /cc 7o DcFG'2 i4.vy /��SS/BGC l�'�o�Ic�T>otJ To ec�22C,,UT �QSS /Gir/.�IE.CJT o.+� ��Z AT iNC %� CSC.rJ7" 7i-'I'lC- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 51 --. tk f,.I l5 Ar_eNDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ITEM DESCRIPTION: Rochester Public Library Accessibility Grant ORIGINATING DEPT, Rochester Public Library ITEM NO. a -r g PREPARED BY. - Audrey Betcher Rochester Public Library has been awarded an accessibility grant to add automatic door openers to public and staff restrooms and to add a hearing impaired system to the auditorium's public address system. The Council previously approved an appropriation for the local matching funds of $8,408. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion approving the grant agreement and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerkto sign the Grant Agreement. e 7 c-� Ch i �oli c r=u� li sS gv G 2yr,Q//I �(� 5 ra COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION / MEETING 53 DATE: 5/15/ 00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: :Organizational Business Mayors Office ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointment to RCVB Board ITEM NO. D—;Lo PREPARED BY: Canfield I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Rochester Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors: Michael J. Smith RR 2, Box 93 Plainview, MN 55964 Mr. Smith will replace James Polinsky. The unexpired term runs to January 2001. Mr. Smith as General Manager of the Radisson Plaza represents the Lodging Industry on the RCVB Board. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: 0 1l blow ALIrAMvNiCA CITY ROCHESTER CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION NAME: PHONE: HOME(507 ,';',S4-I'Sla:� BUSINESS-9000 DO YOU RESIDE IN THE ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES NO_%,=n—'- PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON C,C.�J Q,v SVLm.2:.u-C3nn�,k BECAUSE PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF DESIRED. Date Submitted: 5141oG Signed: Return to: Office of the Mayor 201 a Street SE Rochester, Mn 55904-3782 Date of Interview: Other Data: An Egm[Opportunitq Empfager REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 55 DATE: 5-lei-CD AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office Z) - a I M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Reappointments of Joint Airport Zoning Board Mayor Canfiel I hereby submit for your approval the following reappointments to the Joint Airport Zoning Board: Leon Ernster 3207 Fox Hollow Court SW James R. Orke 1330 19th Avenue SW The three year ddbk terms run to January 1, 2003 UNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second W to �1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING' DATE: 0A SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: PARK AND RECREATION ITEM NO.}},� ITEM DESCRIPTION: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF ROCHESTER PREPARED BY: AND UNIVERSITY CENTER ROCHESTER ROY SUTHERLA As part of the Fuad Mansour Sports Complex that was approved in 1998, there was the development of six baseball/softball fields to be build east of 23'd Avenue SE. The estimated cost for these fields was $530,000. These fields were scheduled to begin construction in 2000 and be ready for play in 2002. The football/soccer fields that were built west of 23`° Avenue were started in 1999 and will be used in 2001. Because of the different timelines for the construction projects, a Joint Powers Agreement for the football/soccer fields was developed and approved, but this agreement does not cover the baseball/softball area. Attached for your review and approval is a copy of the Joint Powers Agreement for the baseball/softball area. It is the same as the previous agreement except that the college will pay up to $250,000 for the construction of these fields. The college agreed to help cover the additional costs when the most recent estimate put the actual costs at $730,000. It should be noted that the City's cost for the development of these fields has not changed. In addition to the cash contribution, we have asked the college to guarantee that these fields will not be moved for at least ten years. It is important to remember that their 50 year master plan shows this area as athletic fields. The development of these fields will meet a real need in the community. This is one of those win -win projects with lots of partners making it possible. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL APPROVAL OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE BASEBALLlSOFTBALL AREA AT THE UNIVERSITY CENTER ROCHESTER. JNCIL ACTION: Mourn by :.mod oY in: ..1 j 05/11/00 15:04 FAX 651 297 1255 ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE *Jon;:/U00 J v / JOINT POWCBETER tCO vI NITY AND TECffiVICAL COLLEGE OSE CAMPUS This agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 47159, "Joint Exercise of powers!°, in conjunction with the powers of the City of Rochester under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 471.15 through 471.19. The parties to this Agreement are the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, on behalf of Rochester Community and Technical College (!%nSCU/RCTC"j and the City of Rochester ("City"). I. purpose of the &Vee mrneut The purpose of this Joint powers agreement is to provide for design, construction, maintenance and use of certain athletic fields on the campus of MnSCU1RCTC for use by youth athletes and for MnSCU/RCTC imetmctionai and athletic programs. Under this sgreement, City will level, seed, irrigate and maintain, for the use of MnSCUIRCTC and the City, six (6) baseballfsoftball fields (hereinafter "fieids") in the northeasterly quadrant of the MnSC YRCTC campus immediately east of 23rd Avenue, north of the wetland adjacent to County Road 9 and the north loop of the campus circulator mad, and west of the location for construction of ,MuSCUfRCTC football fields. This location is shown in bold dimes on Attachment A, Which is made a part bereeL I1. Govemina, Body The governing body of this joint rowers A ii reemeat is the President of Rochester Community and Technical College or his/her designee and the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation of the City of Rochester or bis/her designee. All notices shall be sent to these respective offidals at their official addresses. III. Agreer Lents of MnSMIRCi'C and the City of Rochester A. City will provide to MnSCU/RCTC: 1. Site 0 re aratioa. City shad] level, seed, irrigate and maintain the fields and their immediate surrounding area. City shal] ford er install electrii ai power for any scoreboards, ligbting, or public address systems that may be installed. Any elements of construction of the fields, including leveling, planting, striping and installatum of necessary appurtenances shall be in accordance with plans and 4 Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Gary Neumann / J Date: May 15, 2000 / Re: Agenda Item 0-22 Dave Goslee of the City Attorney's office and I would suggest two revisions to the Joint Powers Agreement for the baseball/softball fields. 1. Under Item I. Purposed of the Agreement it references "use by youth athletes". This language should be revised to "youth and adult participants in City programs". 2. Under item III A (2) the last line should be modified to read "...above is more specifically identified as the baseball/softball field area on Attachment K. The new additional language is underlined. We recommend approval of the agreement. 03/11/00 13:04 FAX 651 E97 1?0S5ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE 1¢1005/000 specifrcatdons mutually agreed upon by the City and MnSCURCTC in advance of the commeacetiient of work. The parties shall likewise agree in adlvi mee of the commencement of work to a timetable for the accomplishment and completion of the work. y Site management: City shall operate, manage, control and maintain the fields and their immediate surrounding area in a manner including, but not limited to, ensuing that the baseball/softball fields are playable at all times during the warm season, that the grass and other vegetation is regularly hummed, and the appearance of the entirc area remains attractive and presentable. The area referred to above is more specifically identified. on Attachment A' 3. Use of the site: MnSCUIRCTC shall have priority use of one baseball and two 90WAU fields for its purposes Mondays through Saturdays during its baseball and softball seasons, and on such other days and times that are agreed to by the City. City shall have priority use.of these fields at ail other times, and shall have priority of use of the remaining fields for its use at all times. MnSCUJRCTC and City shall be respons We respectively for adequate supervision of the use of the site for College and non -College activities. 4. SbuctWm: No permanent structures of any kind shall be constructed on the fields and site during the term of this agreement ieithont the written agreement of the parties. City will provide appropriate restrooms for the site. 5. Sharing of Construction Costs,• T*WCUIRCTC and the City shad each pap one-half of the remaiaing cost of construction of the fields after the N ochester Youth Baseball Association's pledge (one -thud of the cost up to a mardnuum of SM,000) has been applied to the cost MaS CU/RCTC wjU not otherwise compensate City in any manner for the construction, management or maintenance of the bnsebalL%PW sHS0TjU66 fields and -their surrounding area, nor for any use that ]VInSCUIRCTC makes of those fields for its purposes. $ MnSCUIRCTC will provide to City use of the fields and site free of charge for the terns of this agreement consistent with all the terms and conditions of this agreeraent, IV. Other Provisions The City shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend MnSCUIRCTC from any and as liability arising from the preparation of the fields and their site. 05/11/00 13:04 FAY 551 297 12 5 ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE I¢J004i000 l As to ongoing use and occupancy of the fields and their site, each party agrees that It will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The liability of MaSCU/RCTC shall be governed by provisions of the Minnesota Torts Claims Act, Y[uwesota Statutes Secdon 3.732 and 3.736, et sea. and other applicable law. The liability of the City shall be governed by the Minnesota Municipal Torts Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 et sea. and other applicable law. Each party shall be responsible for obtaining and/or maintaining liability insurance or self-insurance covering it for claims arising out of its use and occupancy of the fields and their site. City will promptly re!palr any damage to the fields and their site, and will promptly insure any permanent improvements that may be constructed thereon for extended coverage perils, vandalism, malicians mischief and other property losses in at least the full insurable value of those Improvements. None of the work under this joint powers agreement dune by the City for MnSCU/ACTC shall operate in any manner to Pass any title or right to the City in the campus land upon which the athletic Felds are located. The City and its design professional and contractors shall be permitted to enter upon the campus land for the purpose of design and constructions of the athletic fields pursuant to a construction easement, which is Attachment B and is made a part hereot Neither the City nor MuSCU/RCTC shall do any thing or perform any act, the effect of which would be to create a lien or charge against the other tbat is not authorized by the other. The City and MmSCUIR-CTC agree to comply with all applicable federal, state and local regulations pertaining to unlawfal discrimination on account of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability or age_ Neither the City nor MoSCU/RCTC shall assign any interest In this joint powers agreement in any manner without the consent of the other. Any amendment to this joint powers agreement shall be in writing and signed by the authorized representatives of MnSCU/RCTC and the City. This joint powers agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between MnSCU/RCTC on those matters covered therein. 05/11/00 13:05 FAX 651 207 1235 _ A`LTORNEY GENERAL UbM7Gt LWvUa;Uuo V. ) ffective Date and Termination This agreement is effective when signed by the lest of the parties necessary for its execution. It sball continue indefinitely until tcrntinated by mutual written consent of MnSCUIRCTC and the City of l3ochester or as follows: . A. AfteT the fWA ten years of this Agreement, Wn 365 days writteM notice by either party to the other. B. For breach of any condition of this Agreement, upon 60 days written notice by either party to the other, except that the running of the notice period is abrogated by good -faith cure of the specified breach. Upon the effective date of termination of this Agreement by consent of the parties or by notice as above, MnSCU/RCTC shall assume, M control of and responsibility for the fields and their site and all rights of the Oty in the Agreement shall be extinguished• rrnn 05/11/00 13:05 FAX 651 297 1235 ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE C IN WITNESS WBER.EOFe the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities/ Rochester Community and Technical College, by its President, and the City of Rochester, by Its City Administrator, pursuant to resolution of the City Council, have caused this agreement to be signed, intending to be bound thereby. Approved as to form and execution David M. Goslee Deputy City Attorney Date: Approved as to form and execution (Authorized RCTC Signature) Title: Date: Dm(md br ACz W921,v.01 CITY OF ROCBMER By; Charles J. Canfield, Mayor Date: Attest: Judy K. Seberr, City Clerk MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSTT'YES ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY CENTER ROCHESTER By: Donald SupaDa, President Rochester Community and Technical College Date: C bcn S. A-Mn mo, AnUu MAKMcy Gmerel Suke 2W, 525 Pais 3V�, iL Peu1 Afu - 55103 (6n) 297-1139, hex (651)'197.1235 �b000/005 l 63 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: VDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: PARK & RECREATION ITEM NO. a -a ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED AD AMEND EXISTING PARK ORDINANCES ROY SUTHE One of the goals for the Park and Recreation Department in 2000 was to review the existing park ordinances and make recommendation for changes and deletions. For a number of months the staff and Park Board, with the help of Dave Goslee, have spent a great deal of time on this project. Chapter 45 - Use of Parks and Parkways - is a chapter on ordinances that are related to activities which occur in the park system. For the most part, these ordinances were written a number of years ago and reflect a different time and different activities that took place in the park system. Our goal was to bring the existing ordinances into the 21st century. Attached for your review is a copy of the existing Chapter 45 with the proposed changes and deletions. The most notable changes include: > Change in 45.02 allows hot air balloons to be launched from a park. > Eliminate sections 45.05 and 45.06 because there are city ordinances that deal with these issues. > 45.07 allows the Park Board to issue permits for the sale of goods in the park system. Eliminate 45.09 and 45.10 - these already happen. 45.18 allows the Park Board to control where golf can be played in the park system. It is the recommendation of the Park Board that the proposed changes in Chapter 45 are approved and that Chapter 45 is amended to reflect this new language. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: AMEND THE EXISTING PARK ORDINANCES TO REFLECT THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND DELETIONS. COUNCIL ACTION: M&Wn er sb,. 09 f CHAPTER 45. USE OF PARKS AND PARKWAYS I have marked up the existing ordinance in response to comments received at the park board retreat. I have used strike -through to identify text for deletion and bold -face to identify new text. 45. USE OF PARKS AND PARKWAYS 45.01. Definitions. The term "park" used in this chapter shall be construed to include all public ground and squares maintained as pleasafe leisure grounds in the city. The term "parkway" used herein shall be construed to include all the thoroughfares, and park approaches, and trails subject to the jurisdiction and control of the board of park commissioners. 45.02. Firearms and Fireworks Subdivision 1. No person shall do any of the following within a park or upon the parkways or trails: a. carry, fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm;, b. possess or shoot off er-any rocket-tsriaede or other fireworks of any description, except as is hereinafter provided ;-0r, C. GF 6eRd Lip aRy balIGGR G throw any stones or missile.,. lthiR the several parks =r Subd. 2. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the board of park commissioners may issue a permit allowing fireworks to be discharged within any park or parkway subject to the conditions imposed by the board. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, state certification under Minn. Stat. Section 624, obtaining certificates of insurance, and executing indemnification agreements in favor of the city. 45.03. Protection of Trees Plants and Structures. No person shall climb any trees, or pluck any flowers or fruit, whether wild or cultivated, or break, cut down or trample upon or remove, or in any manner injure or deface any statue, ornament, tree, plant, shrub, flower bed, curb, or any of the buildings, fences, bridges or other construction, within the several parks and parkways; nor shall any person write on any building, structure, statue, fence, bench, rock or stone within such parks or parkways. 45.04. Regulation Of Traffic. Subdivision 1. No person shall drive, ride, or operate any bicycles, motorcycles, horses or other animal used for riding or pulling a vehicle, or any other vehicles, FR@y be dFiVeR eF Fidden upon any part of the park or trail, except upon the streets or drives therein within a park, and or upon such other trails, foctwalks, paths or other places specifically designated for such purpose. We vehirdp Al: animal pwlllpg-a-we� December 31, 1999 - Update 237 6�� ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES Subd. 2. No person shall park or leave a vehicle or animal pulling a vehicle at any location other than at such places as the board of park commissioners shall designate for such purpose. Subd. 3. No person shall ride or drive a bicycle, automobile or other vehicle within the parks or upon the parkways or park trails at a speed faster than a posted speed limit or faster than is reasonable under the circumstances. Subd. 4. The board of park commissioners, in its discretion, may forbid any automobile, motorcycle, bicycle or other vehicle from entering upon or traveling over any of the parks, parkways or trails, or upon or over any portion of the same, whenever the board deems the restriction necessary for the safety of the public or preservation of public property. The park board may call for the erection or use of signs, barricades or other devices to prevent such entry or travel. No person shall enter upon or travel over such designated areas. Commercial45.07. •ns No person shall engage in the •. • •• RIM therein, witho• first obtained commercial sale and display shall be issued by the park department under the direction of guidelines and criteria established by the park board. Thk segtiaR. dpe-6416,t MM CHAPTER 45. USE OF PARKS AND PARKWAYS 45.071. Carriage Rides. No person shall offer or provide for -hire horse carriage rides for passengers within or upon any park or parkway without first obtaining a permit from the Rochester Park Board. The Park Board may charge a reasonable application fee for such permit and may adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the permitted activity. 45.08. Signs Restricted. No person shall post or affix any printed or written bill, sign, of placard, notice or other paper, 9F any sigR� upon any tree, structure or thing within the parks or parkways, or upon any gate, fence, or enclosure within the limits thereof, except that park notices and other authorized bulletins or signs may be put up at the by direction of the superintendent of parks. HGWeVeF, a th this t shall nt the Pa;RtiRg "` aRy 66IGh 6paGe f9p adveFtisiRg shall -be kept iR a separate fMRd fGF fUtUFe develapmeRt of said MaYG field. 45.11. Restricted Areas. The parks and every part thereof are for the use and enjoyment of the public, subject to such restrictions as may be lawfully made for their orderly government, and therefore all visitors are free to go upon the grass, lawn or turf of any park or parkway except in any space indicated by visible lines of enclosure on which is posted a sign prohibiting such entry. GF plaG2FGl bleaFiRq the wards, 45.12. Miscellaneous Activities. No person shall, within any park or upon any parkway or trail, do any of the following: a. play any music in a manner that violates section 85.10 or chapter 117 of this December 31, 1999 - Update f 239 W07 ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES code;, b. ar keep or offer for sale, or post or display any sign or placard, flag, target, transparency, advertisement or device of business , unless by the permission of such board, and subject to such rules and regulations as the said board shall prescribe; c and Re peF69n shall iR aRy SUGh P@Fk GF parkway, beg, or publicly solicit subscription, —or tell fortunes, d. of utter loud, threatening or abusive or indecent language or any language tending to cause a breach of the peace;,-eF e. engage in be guil# , sf any indecent, obscene or disorderly conduct; or f.. AM nG persen sfiali make any oration or harangue in such park or parkway without the written permission of the said board. 45.13. Animals. No person shall take, ride, drive or conduct into a park or upon any parkway, any quadruped or other animal except the following: (1) dogs that are under control of the person by command, leash, chain, cable or suitable enclosure;- (2) horses that are being used for carriage rides pursuant to a permit issued by the park board under the provisions of this code; -and (3) such other animals as shall be permitted under the direction of the superintendent of parks. Nothing in this section is intended to supercede the provisions of RCO Chapter 106A relating to the regulation of animals. 45.14. Permits for Exclusive Park Use. Athletic games, sports, picnics and other forms of recreation or amusement sanctioned by this board may be held or practiced in such parts of the parks as shall be designated for such use, subject to such regulations as may be made by the board, and subject to the orders of any policeman or other officer connected with the park on duty enforcing the rules of said board. Permits for the exclusive use of any picnic shelter or park area of playgd for any specified date or time, may be granted at the discretion of the board of park commissioners, and no person shall in any manner disturb or interfere with any club or party occupying the ground under such permit without their consent. December 31, 1999 - Update 240 CHAPTER 45. USE CF PARKS AND PARKWAYS 45.15. Rubbish. No person shall throw, deposit, place or dump, or cause to be thrown, deposited, placed or dumped, any dead carcass, filth, dirt, stone, wood, ashes, garbage matter, substance or rubbish of any kind, upon or within shall be pla(38' ^• deposited erg any park, bealevard-ef parkway, or park trail. 45.17. Hours, No person, except police officers and the employees and servants of the Park Board, shall be present aliewed in any park or parkway between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. each day, except that the Park Board may designate different hours for individual parks or parkways as deemed appropriate. Enforcement of park closing hours, when different from the general park closing hours except -as indicated above, shall not be made until such time as signs clearly indicating the closing and opening times are erected at all entrances to the park or parkway. This section is not intended to prohibit pedestrian travel along improved trails within a park unless the signs at the entrances to the park or parkway indicate that such travel is prohibited. 45.18 Golf Prohibited ^,� �� . No person shall play or practice golf, or otherwise hit any golf balls within the limits of any park, except at the city's t municipal golf courses, the Hawthorne Hills Golf Learning Center, and at such other parks or locations within parks where the hitting of golf balls is expressly allowed by the park board. 45.19. Water Activities. No person shall swim, Gr-bathe, fish or float watercraft in the waters of any park or in any other public waters within the limits of the city's park system, except in places designated by the board of park commissioners aad-appreved-by the be-aapd- Af health. No person shall der kill, injure, molest or unnecessarily disturb the fish in said waters, or any water fowl or other birds, or any animal properly within any park; provided however, that fishing may be permitted in park waters at places designated by the board of park commissioners. 45.20. Golf Courses. Subdivision 1. No person shall be or remain within the boundary limits of the a municipal golf course between the official opening and closing dates of each year, except employees of the city, authorized caddies, golfers who have paid their green fees and authorized guests, and spectators during tournament play. December 31, 1999 - Update 241 ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES Subd. 2. No person shall possess or consume any intoxicating liquor or non - intoxicating malt liquor within the boundaries of a municipal golf course at any time, unless the same was purchased from a person licensed to dispense said intoxicating liquor or non - intoxicating malt liquor on the municipal golf course premises. Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit any person from bringing intoxicating liquor to a municipal golf course if the golf course concessionaire has obtained a Bottle Club License for private parties during the off season. The term 'off-season" shall refer to the time period between the official closing and opening dates. . 45.21. 45.22. Alcoholic Beverages in Parks. It is unlawful for any person to bring upon, possess or consume the contents of a container of an alcoholic beverage which contains or has a capacity of two gallons or more in a park. This section shall not apply to a person licensed to sell alcoholic beverages on parkland, to an employee or agent acting on behalf of such licensee, nor to a person delivering an alcoholic beverage to such licensee. (205, 4/2/13; 623, 817/44; 625, 10/2144; 709, 417/49; 905, 8/15/55; 1854, 7/8/76; 2370, 4/17/84; 2509, 5119/86; 2866, 3/1/93; 2892, 9/21/93; 2991, 5/16/95; 3041, 6l4/96; 3119, 9/4197; 3287, 11/16199) December 31, 1999 - Update 242 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I DATE: 5115100 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: Park and Rec ITEM NO. b —'"T ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARE BY: Revised Tall Grass and Weed Ordinance D Stotz 0\�(, The attached May 5 '00 memorandum to Stevan Kvenvold describes several local policy / vegetation issues that the current tall grass / weed ordinance does not adequately address. The Park Department has administered the tall grass / weed regulations for at least 25 years and has initiated the process to revise the ordinance. The proposed revision does not eliminate the current requirement that traditional lawns be maintained to a height of 10" or less, nor does it eliminate the City's ability to mow the yards and bill and assess the unpaid mowing charges. The proposed ordinance does exempt areas where enforcement of the tall grass and weed should not be made. These areas are wetlands, natural undisturbed areas, agricultural land, designated natural preserves, detention ponds, river and creek banks, steep slopes and temporary erosion control grasses. The proposed ordinance also allows for the use of natural landscaping (use of native plants and grasses). This type of landscaping, if located within 200' of a residence or developed property would require a permit. The Park Department would administer the permit system. The Park Board would hear appeals for denial or revocation of natural landscaping permits. Council Action Requested: Repeal Sections 72.07, 72.08 and 72.09 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances and adopt Chapter 48, a copy of which is attached. ,,vJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 5, 2000 TO: Stevan Kvenvold FROM: Denny Stotz Put SUBJECT: City of Rochester Tall Grass / Weed Ordinance During the past several years the Council, Planning Commission and Board of Park Commissioners have taken positions, either mandated by others or done voluntarily, on several issues that placed the position in conflict with the City's current tall grass / weed ordinance. For example, preservation, restoration or replacement of wetlands is often a condition placed on both public and private development projects. The preservation of wetlands and the vegetation associated with these wetlands can create a violation of the current tall grass/weed ordinance specially if the wetlands are located within a residential development. Several of the recently approved GDP's in the NW and SE quadrants of the City have extensive tracts of wetlands within them. The storm water management system, which can include the retention ponds and detention ponds, the greenway conveyance corridors and the riparian buffer strips that abuts these areas are often in violation of the current ordinance. The grass growing in the rip rap channels of the flood control project is often a violation of the ordinance. The preservation of natural prairie remnants such as the Northern Hills Prairie will be in violation of the ordinance once the adjacent land is developed. This is likely to occur in the fall of 2000, Portions of Essex Park, Quarry Hill Park, Smetka Park and Homestead Park remain undeveloped with naturalistic vegetation and yet are bordered by residential areas that technically place the parks in violation of the ordinance. This past fall the Park Department seeded a portion of Homestead Park to prairie grass which will eventually be a violation of the ordinance. The Public Works administered 551h Street NW project completed this past summer included the planting of naturalistic grass / forb mixes that will be a violation of the ordinance. All of the above mentioned vegetation violations could, of course, be dealt with by either mowing and/or herbicide applications. Such action may create compliance with the current ordinance but probably run contrary to the purpose of having the vegetation in the first place. These examples combined with a growing public interest in the use of naturalistic landscapes have prompted me to begin the process of determining whether there is a need or any interest in revising the City's tall grass / weed ordinance. \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTCTZ\PROSSPEC\TALL GRASS MEM.DOC 13 Page 2 The current ordinance, a copy of which is attached, does not permit exemptions for the following types of vegetation unless the area is further than 500' from a residence or covers and area less than 144 square feet. 1. wetland vegetation 2. natural, undisturbed areas 3. stormwater ponds or channels or ditches that convey stormwater 4. river / creek banks (either natural or altered such as flood control project) 5. agricultural land 6. riparian buffer strips along creeks/drainage ways 7. natural preserves... public owned lands designated as park or open space or private property approved by City which is set aside to preserve natural characteristics and quality of the land 8. slopes (natural and man-made) steeper than 2:1 9. pastures 10. temp erosion control grasses 11. ground covers 12. natural and naturalistic landscapes In order to get the process started, I assumed that these may be areas that a revised ordinance should address and have prepared a revision that address the issues. The draft has been reviewed by the Public Works Department staff, the Planning Department staff, the Northern Hills Prairie Advisory Committee, the Fire Department and the Building Safety staff . I've made a presentation to the TFUD / CUE committee and the Park Board on two separate occasions. Most of the comments / concerns that were raised by these agencies are included in the revision. Dave Goslee from the Attorney's office has assisted in drafting the ordinance and has prepared the attached document. \\CITY OF ROCEESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\OSTOTZ\PROJSPEC\TALL GRASS MEM.DOC 1q CITY OF ROCHESTER TALL GRASS I WEED ORDINANCE 48.01 Legislative Intent. It is declared to be the purpose and intent of this chapter to protect and preserve this city's neighborhoods and the public health, safety and welfare of those who live there. The Rochester Common Council determines that keeping the city free of tall grass and noxious weeds improves the quality of life of city residents by improving the aesthetics of the city, by eliminating harbor for rodents and insects, and by eliminating fire hazards. At the same time the Council recognizes that requiring the mowing of grasses and noxious weeds is under certain circumstances impractical and unreasonable. The exemptions contained within this chapter are intended to cover these circumstances. The City Council also determines that a variety of properly maintained landscapes in the City add diversity and a richness to the quality of life, and does not want to discourage the preservation, restoration and maintenance of diverse biologically stable natural plant communities or environmentally sound practices. The City Council finds that the establishment of prairie, naturalistic and meadow plant communities is an acceptable landscape treatment in the City. However, as a protection for the larger community, this change in vegetation must be properly planned, managed and maintained, and the length of transition period must be minimized or the property is likely to create a public nuisance. 48.02 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to words used in this chapter. a) "Boulevard" shall mean the area between the street and sidewalk or, in the absence of a public sidewalk, the area between the street and property line adjacent to all streets within the Rochester City limits. b) "Buffer" or "buffer strip" shall mean a management area used to separate differing landscapes and land uses to minimize the impact from these adjacent land uses. c) "Landscaping" shall mean the active involvement in the encouragement of selected plants to grow on a site. d) "Meadow vegetation" shall mean grasses and flowering broad -leaf plants that are native to, or adapted to, the State of Minnesota, and that are commonly found in meadow and prairie plant communities, except weeds. e) "Native grasses' shall mean grasses (Beach Grass, Wood Chess Grass, Sand Reed Grass, Wheat Grass, Bluestein Grass, Grama Grass, Brome Grass, Buffalo Grass, Switch Grass, Indian Grass, Wild Rye)) that existed in the area prior to European settlement. f) "Native plants" shall mean plants that existed in the area prior to European settlement. 1715 g) "Natural landscaping" shall mean the use of groups of plants native to the area. h) "Naturalistic landscaping" shall mean the use of native and non-native plants. i) "Noxious weeds" shall mean plants so designated by the Commissioner of Agriculture under authority of Minn. Stat. Sec 18.77 subd. 8. j) "Prairie" shall mean a plant community dominated by a diversity of native perennial herbaceous plants and grasses. k) "Regularly cut" shall mean mowing or otherwise cutting vegetation so that it does not exceed 10 inches in height. 1) "Traditional landscaping" shall mean the use of turf grasses and woody plants (shrubbery and trees) with defined areas for cultivation of annual and perennial plants. m) "Transitional period" shall mean the amount of time to change from one type of landscaping to another. The period should not extend beyond three growing seasons for any specific area. n) "Turf grasses" shall mean bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass blends with non - woody vegetation interspersed with them commonly used in regularly cut lawns. o) "Weeds" shall mean all noxious weeds and any undesirable or troublesome plant that is horticulturally out of place, especially one that grows profusely where it is not wanted. For the purposes of this ordinance, Taraxacum spp (Common Dandelion) is not considered a weed. p) "Wetlands" shall mean lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is near the surface. The boundary of wetlands for purposes of this chapter shall be determined according to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987). 48.03 Nuisance Declared. It shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person having control of any property in the City of Rochester to permit or maintain on such property any (1) noxious weeds, or (2) growth of grass and weeds in excess of 10" in height, if the growth of grass and weeds occupies an area of at least 144 square feet and is located within 200' of a residence or developed property. No owner shall permit such weeds and grass to be a public nuisance, but shall abate the nuisance by cutting the weeds and grass and removing the clippings. 48.04 Exemption and Conditions for Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following: a. non -noxious weeds and grass vegetation in wetland areas; b. non -noxious weeds, grasses and herbaceous vegetation within 50' of designated stormwater ponds or within 50' of natural or altered creeks, rivers q(O and stream corridors, including riparian buffer strips, that convey water, provided they are cut to less than 10 inches at least once per year if located within 200' of an occupied residence or developed property; C. non -noxious weed and grass vegetation growing on agriculturally zoned land, including pastures, that are fenced and contain animals; d. temporary erosion control grasses; e. maintained and weeded prairie, meadow or natural landscape vegetation that does not contain noxious weed growth and that includes the cultivation of native grasses indigenous to Minnesota provided that the property owner applies for and is issued a natural landscape permit, and maintains the property in a condition sufficient to maintain the permit, f. grass and non -noxious weed vegetation in publicly owned parks designated as natural preserves or private property so designated by the City Council or natural undisturbed areas where the land and vegetation appears not to have been graded, landscaped or otherwise disturbed by human or mechanical means in recent time; g. grass and non -noxious weed vegetation on natural or altered slopes steeper than 2:1; and h. ornamental grasses. 48.05 Natural Landscape Permits. Natural landscape permits are required if a proposed landscape includes native grasses that exceed or are expected to exceed 10 inches in overall height. Natural landscape permit applications shall be submitted to the Park Department. 48.06 Contents of Natural Landscape Permit Application. The applications shall contain: a. the name and address of the applicant and the legal description of the property being permitted; b. a site plan for the area sought to be permitted. The scale of plan should be 1 "=30' and include all adjacent properties and public streets and alleys; C. a general description of the vegetational types, plants and plant succession to be used; d. a specific management and maintenance plan which shall include: 1. the estimated transition period; 2. the elimination of non-native vegetation; 3. the replanting of the area by transplant or seeded by human or mechanical means; 4. the maintenance of the area to a height of 10 inches or less if weeds cover more than 25% of the landscaped area; 5, the maintenance of all grasses located in a buffer strip a minimum of four feet from side and rear lot lines is to a height of 10 inches or less unless the adjacent property owner has consented in writing that the buffer strip is not required, a copy of which is filed with the permit application; and 6. maintenance of all vegetation within 18 inches of any public street, walk, bikeway or alley to a height of 10 inches or less. /77 48.07 Issuance of Natural Landscape Permit. The Park Department shall determine the completeness of the application and shall issue the natural landscape permit unless: a. the management and maintenance plan is incomplete or inconsistent with the application requirements; b. the plan proposes use of non-native grasses, or C. the transition period for the area is longer than three (3) growing seasons. 48.08 Denial of Natural Landscape Permit; Appeal. Any person whose application for a natural landscape permit is denied shall receive written notice of such denial and may appeal that determination to the Park Board by filing notice of such appeal within 10 days of the date on the notice of denial. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the Park Board shall set a public hearing at which the applicant and any other party wishing to be heard shall have an opportunity to present evidence as to the applicant's compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and the application procedure. if the Park Board determines that the applicant has complied with the application provisions of this chapter, including the management and maintenance plan requirements, it shall direct the park department to issue the natural landscape permit. The Park Board shall affirm the denial if it determines that the applicant has not complied with the provisions of this chapter. 48.09 Revocation of Natural Landscape Permit. A natural landscape permit may be revoked by the park department for any of the following reasons: a. weeds are not maintained; b. buffer strips are not maintained; C. vegetation within 18" of public walks, streets, alleys and paths is not maintained to a height of 10" or less; or d. permittee fails to maintain the natural landscape area in a manner consistent with the management and maintenance plan included in the application. The notice of revocation shall indicate that the revocation shall be effective on the date identified therein, which date shall be not less that 14 days later than the date of the notice, unless the permittee files a written appeal with the Park Board. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal the Park Board shall set a public hearing at which the permittee and any other party wishing to be heard shall have an opportunity to present evidence as to the permittee's compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and the approved natural landscape permit. If the Park Board determines that the permittee has failed to abide by the provisions of this ordinance and the approved natural landscape permit, it shall direct the park department to issue a tall grass and weed violation notice pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. 48.10 Inspections by City Weed Inspector. The weed inspector shall make such inspections as are necessary to determine whether weeds and grass constitute a public nuisance as defined in this chapter and is hereby authorized to enter onto private property for the purpose of conducting such inspection. Upon finding such public nuisance, the weed inspector shall cause a notice to be served by certified mail, regular mail, or by personal service upon the record owner of the property ordering such owner to abate the nuisance by cutting the weeds and grass and removing the clippings within 5 days of receipt of the notice. The notice shall also state that if the owner fails to do so, the city will cause the weeds and grass to be cut and the clippings removed and the expense thereof, if unpaid by the owner, to be levied against the benefited property as a special assessment. Refusal to accept such notice by the owner of the property shall not constitute a defense that the notice was not received. 48.11 Abatement by City. If such nuisance is not abated within the time permitted in the notice, the City may cut and remove the weeds and grass or order the work done by contract in accordance with the law. The weed inspector shall keep a record of the total cost of the abatement attributable to each parcel of property and report such information to the City Clerk and other appropriate staff. 48.12 Owner Liability for Cost. The owner of property on which the mowing of grass and weeds has been performed shall be liable for the actual cost of cutting and removal of the tall grass and weeds, plus such sums as determined by the City Council to reimburse the City for its costs of inspection. As soon as the service has been completed and the cost determined, the City shall prepare a bill and mail it to the owner and thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and payable. If the owner fails to pay the bill, the total charges may be levied as an assessment against the benefited property under the procedure found in section 72.11 of this code. CURRENT TALL GRASS / WEED ORDINANCE 99 72.07. Public Nuisance. All weeds and grass greater than ten inches in overall height extending over an area of not less than 144 contiguous square feet and located within 500 feet of any residence, constitute a fire hazard and potential harborage for rats and are declared to be a public nuisance. - No owner shall permit weeds and grass to be a public nuisance, but shall abate the nuisance by cutting the weeds and grass and removing the clippings. 72.08. Inspections W Weed Inspector, The weed inspector shall make such inspections as are necessary to determine whether weeds and grass constitute a public nuisance. Upon finding such public nuisance, the weed inspector shall cause a notice to be served by certified mail or by personal service upon the record owner of the property ordering such owner to abate the nuisance by cutting the weeds and grass and removing the clippings within 5 days of receipt of the notice and stating that if the owner fails to do so, the city will cause the weeds and grass to be cut and the clippings removed and the expense thereof, if unpaid by the owner, assessed against the property concerned as a special assessment. 72.09. Abatement by City. If such nuisance is not abated within 5 days after the owner receives the notice, the weed inspector shall cut and remove the weeds and grass, or order the work done by contract in accordance with the law. The total cost of the abatement attributable to each parcel of property shall be reported to the city clerk. 72.10. Owner Liability for Cost. The owner of property on which or adjacent to which a current service has been performed shall be personally liable for the cost of such service. As soon as the service has been completed and the cost determined, the city clerk shall prepare a bill and mail it to the owner and thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the city clerk. 72.11. Assessment of Cost. On or before October 15 of each year, the city clerk shall list the total unpaid charges for each type of current service against each separate lot or parcel to which they are attributable under this chapter. The council may then spread the charges against property benefited as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes, section 429.101 and other pertinent statutes for certification to the county auditor and collection the following year along with current taxes. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 91 DATE: 5-15-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT PLANiA UNG n "� ��� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the PREPARED BY: Hidden Oaks ValleylBandel Hills development. Mitzi A. Baker, May 10, 2000 An EAW was prepared for the Hidden Oaks ValleylBandel Hills development in March, 2000 to determine the potential environmental effects of a development that includes 157.5 acres to be developed residentially, with a potential commercial component. The property is located east of Bendel Road within Section 4 and 9, Cascade Township. The 30 day comment period on the EAW expired on May 3, 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 May 3, 000 (end of comment period). Council Action Needed: loption of a resolution setting forth the City's declaration on the EAW adequacy. The resolution should include specific findings. This resolution will be transmitted by the Planning Department to the Environmental Quality Board. Attachments: 1. Copy of March 30, 2000 report from Planning Staff which includes a copy of the Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North 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 May 15, 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Rochester -Olmsted Government Center Building 6. McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc. 0� ,r TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: May 11, 2000 i�iaA►tnii�� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GI&ADORESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287.2275 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel Hills 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 Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel Hills 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 Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel Hills was transmitted to the Environmental Quality Board on March 30, 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 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSNIENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000` Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to preparers: This form is available at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. EAW Guidelines will be available in Spring 1999 at the web site. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for — but should not complete — the final Worksheet. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project title Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North 2. Proposer Big DE Development Company 3. RGU :City of Rochester Contact person: Ioel Bigelow Contact person: Mitzi A. Baker Title Development Coordinator Title Senior Planner Address P.O Box 247 Address: Consolidated Planning City, state, ZIP Byron, MN 55920 City, state, ZIP: 2122 Campus Drive, Rochester, MN 55904 Phone (507)775-2280 Phone (507)285-8232 Fax Fax (507)287-2275 E-mail E-mail 4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one) EIS scoping X Mandatory EAW Citizen petition RGU discretion Proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number: Land Use Conservation 4410.4300 Subpart 36 5. Project location County Olmsted , City of Rochester in Cascade Township: 156.85 Acres including 76.83 Acres N 1/2 NE I/4 Section 9 Township 107 Range 14 AND 80 Acres E 1/2 SE 1/4 Section 4 Township 107 Range 14 all in County City/Twp Rochester/ Cascade Attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project; • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); • Site plan showing all significant project and natural features. 6. Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North Development will convert 157.5 croplandlwooded acres to a phased residential and commercial development with up to 135lots using city sewer and water or individual sewage treatment systems and wells, and 7.54 acres commercial development, open space, walkways, stormwaterfacilities, and public roads. Page 1 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the_ environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The 157.5 acre General Development Plan for Hidden Oaks Valley Subdivision of Cascade Township, and Bandel North Addition to the City of Rochester (to be known as the SITE) is a four phased residential development with a future commercial component. The 51.8 acre Phase I includes 15 new rural/suburban development homes in Hidden Oaks Valley that will be served by individual wells and individual septic systems. New urban homes will be served by city water and sanitary sewage. Please I of Hidden Oaks Valley is currently platted and recorded averaging one residential unit to 3.5 acres, plus a 6.5 acre open space outlot, public streets, walkway, and a storin water drainage detention poled. Road service to the area will be provided by extensions of currently existing township roadways that will end as cul-de-sacs on the property. Construction in Phase I will begin in the spring of 2000 and is estimated to continue for three to five years. Phase If is a 40 acre parcel named Bandel North Addition which is proposed for 66 urban single family residential lots on 28.66 acres, future commercial development on 7.5 acres as area on 4.5 acres, public streets, walkway, and a storm water detention area. The starting date for construction is scheduled far Spring of 2000. The project proposer will treed to install a potable water booster station to supply adequate water pressure until the City completes the high level water improvements needed for northwest Rochester. Phases III and IV contain 65 acres be the central part of the property, which it is proposed to develop either as an urban or rural residential development depending our the availability of municipal services and the time of development. This area was recently added to the 25 year Urban Service Area jar the City of Rochester on the Olmsted County Land Use Platt. If municipal services will not be available to this portion of the site for 10 years or more, the property could develop as an interim development. An interim development would mandate that provisions be made for future connection to municipal services when they are available and also would mandate eventual annexation into the City of Rochester. The proposed combined total number of single family units he Phases III and IV ranges tip to 54 urban lots and includes open space, public streets, walkway, and a storm water sedimentation pond. The timing of construction activities for Pleases III and IVcannot be projected until Here is a determination on the availability and timing of municipal services. With respect to all phases of development, the grading will be minimized by maintaining existing landscape features and will require a Grading Permit from Olmsted County. Furthermore, the construction will temporarily disturb the site and generate noise and dust from construction facilities. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a govemmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of this development is jar private residential and commercial development in a former agricultural area. Residential development provides housing jar a growing community. Potential commercial uses may provide fitture residents convenient access to products or services. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? _Yes _X No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _Yes _x No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. Page 2 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks Valley/Sande! North Project magnitude data Total Project Area (acres) 157.5 or Length (miles) N/A Number of Residential Units Unattached 135 Alaximmin Attached 0 Commercial / Industrial / Institutional Building Area (gross floor space)Total 29,000 square feet; Indicate area of specific uses: Office none Manufacturing none Retail According to the applicant, the potential uses may include: fast food restaurant (-3000sn, sit down restaurant (-3000st), gas station/convenience store (-3000st) Other Industrial none Warehouse none Institutional none Light Industrial none Agricultural none Other Commercial (specify) According to the applicant, potential rise may include a Motel (-20,000) Building Height(s) Two story residential. one story commercial. 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES for construction Site Water well permits for Hidden Oaks Valley Activity City of Rochester General Development Plan Preliminary Plat Final Plat Grading and InfrastructuralConstruction Plaits City owner contracts Site Development Plat (SDP) Building Permits Zoning Certificates Ohnsted County General Development Plat (HOV) Septic Preliminary and Final Plat Zaire Change Erosion Control Plan Approved In process To be applied for To be applied for To be applied far To be applied for To be applied jar To be applied for To be applied for Approved Approved Approved for existing Plat in County Approved for existing Plat in County Approved for existing Plat in County 9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Currently the SITE consists of intensive row cropfarming and forested land. WEST. The Graham Properties Limited Partners property, adjacent to Phases I, II and IV on the west side of the SITE, is currently agricultural land and wooded land. The proposed development adjacent to the Graham property may include open space outlots that would provide a buffer Zone between different land uses. Phase I was platted with road and utility easements extending to the Graham property to accommodate potential future development. Page 3 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: INIARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks ValleylBandel North :NORTH: :North of the site are the Victor Scott and Fitzgerald properties that are currently used for agrictdtural practices, but recently designated to be in the 25 year Urban Service Limits for the City of Rochester on the Olmsted CountyLand Use Plan. The agricultural practices will not conflict with the currently proposed development. Store: rvater drainage to the north will first pass through a storm water treatment pond on the SITE to provide sediment treatment and detention of flows leaving the SITE. A roadway and utility easement will be platted to the north property line of the SiTE to accommodate potential fitture development needs. EAST. Lard lying to the east of the property consists of both agricultural land and rural residential development. Tire rural residential development in Phase I rvill be folly compatible with the two adjoining rural developments, Bandel's Woodland Estates and hidden Oaks Subdivisions, located to the east of the SITE. This rural development provides a buffer for these properties from a potential urban development in Phases III and IV. Furthermore, the street and utilities needed to service the development in Phase I requires only extensions of the currently existing road and atilities that end near the SITE. There should not conflicts with the Goodman agricultural land located on tire east side of the property as it is also designated for future urban development. SOUTH: South of the site is the Goodman property which is currently used for agricultural practices. The proposed development will not conflict with the current agricultural practices. Proposed development plats for the SITE includes platting for nvo street connections to the Goodman property to aceornnodate potential fttuve development of the property. SOUTHEAST: Adjacent to the southeast corner of the SITE is a 40 acre parcel that is owned by the City of Rochester, which is planned for a park and school site. Currently, the storm water discharges from the southeast portion of the SITEflov into drainages that pass through the parkland Post -construction storm water discharges will first pass through a sedimentation and detention pond located on the SITE before being discharged to a drainage that passes through the parkland. There is no planted on -site detention for tine area of the site that drains to the southeast and soatlnvest. 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Before After Before After Types 2 to S Wetlands 0 0 Urban %Suburban Lawn 0 12,'.9 Wooded Forest 32.7 10.4 Landscaping Brush / Grassland 0 0 Impervious Surface 0 11.7 Cropland 124.8 0 Other (describe) 0 1.5 stornnvater detention/sedinteuuatio❑ ponds TOTAL= 157.85 ac If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: Essentially all land tracts on the SITE consist of undeveloped cropland and small forested tracts. The proposed development would utilize the cropland for building structures creating impervious surfaces and lawn areas with mininnal disturbance to woodlands. 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Prior to phased development the Site was approximately 125 acres of agricultural cropland and a 33 acre fragmented woods. The woodlands are productive habitat for deer, turkey, and are nesting areas for neo- tropical birds. The Open Space Plan will preserve 16.4 acres of woodlands and the surrounding land will be developed as residential subdivisions. Page 4 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North .d review of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources County Biological Survey shows no record of endangered or threatened species or species or special concern air the SITE or of the land adjoining the SITE. Wildlife management conflicts with residential development should be expected to occur with deer, raccoon, skunks and opossums. Expected conflicts include depredation of landscaping and garden plants by deer, turkey, Canada Geese, raccoon, opossum and skunks. Conflicts with domestic pets and control of wildlife borne disease such as distemper and rabies. It has been the experience of other communities in Minnesota, and tire Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MVDNR) lVildlife Managers in rural residential areas, which are attractive to deer must either accept the conflicts, provide for population control. At the current time the authority for population control of deer and othergame animals lies with the AINMR and neither the City, Township, nor County Government have any authority or control over game management. b. Are any state -listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? _Yes _X tab If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Based air the intense agricultural rise of the property no significant animal populations or natural communities are known or suspected to exist on the SITE. A review of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources County Biological Survey (1997) show no record of any state listed endangered, threatened, or special -concern species; rare plant communities; colonial water bird nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources or or near the SITE. The .National lVetlands Inventory (NEVI) mapping for the STIE does not indicate the existence of any listed wetlands cover types 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? _Yes x :fib If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Im entory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWC Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. The entire proposed project is far removed from any surface water or potable water and will have no physical or hydrologic impact an nearby waters. The plan includesprovisionsfor one tnalti-celled stony water detention✓sedimentation basins in Bandle North Addition and a storanwater retention basin in Hidden Oaks Valley. Stornnvater detention and sediment control have not yet been discussed for Phase III and IV 13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)'? x Yes _ No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation pemut numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. No known wells exist on the SITE and no wells have been abandoned. The snmller city lots are proposed to be served by city water. Installation of private wells is proposed for Hidden Valley Oaks located of the northern end of the SITE. Well locations have trot been determined for the wells and permit applications have not been made therefore, no unique numbers are available. 14. Water -related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use Page 5 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North district? _Yes _x_No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. 15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? _Yes _x_No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. The small intermittent tributary that is mapped on the Site in the Olmsted County Soil Survey does not have a permanent base flow but drains storm water flows to the South Fork of the Zumbro River. This drainageway is not navigable or subject to the use of watercraft. 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 128 ; cubic yards 100,000 Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Highly erodible soils are present throughout the SITE (Figures 4 & 5). Temporary erosion control measures, including silt fences, bale checks and temporary seeding will be part of the grading plan. Permanent measures include designating drainage ways, open spaces, and storm water detention and sedimentation areas. All site grading and construction will be subject to City and County Ordinances and an approved Grading Plan and must comply with provisions of the Stormwater Permits for Construction Site Activities administered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits. These plans and permits will be subject to review and approval before construction begins and will include both temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control measures and best management practices. Sedimentation ponds, silt fences, bale checks and temporary seeding will be required during construction. The ponds will serve as bate water quality ponds and stormwater detention after the project is completed. Permanent drainage and sedimentation ponds will be included as part of the development. The developer will be responsible for the construction of approximately 7800 linearfeet of roadway, disturbing approximately 12 acres of land or more. The excavation and construction of home sites. Septic drainfeelds will be established in Hidden Oaks Valley. Some grading will occur after the lots are sold and will be the responsibility ofindividual lot owners and builders/lnstallers. 17. Water quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. It is anticipated that the quantity and quality of site runoff will not substantially change in the rural Hidden Oaks Valley because of the small area of impervious surfaces resulting from roads and buildings compared to the large area of landscaped yard and preserved open space underlain by moderate to rapid permeable soils. Permanent drainage and sedimentation ponds will protect stormwater runoff quality as well as provide detention. Runofffrom urban areas is not anticipated to change substantially. Runoffgenerated before development currently comes from intensive row crop agricultural and is associated with eroded soil, sediment deposition and the use of agricultural fertilizers and chemicals. Post development waters will be those typical of residential developments with contaminants coming from road runoff and lawn chemicals. The post construction waters will be diverted to a multi -cell storm water detention or sedimentation basin before being discharged from the property. With proper turf management and road maintenance the water quality could improve through grassy way overland flow and infiltration, as well as through sediment treatment in the storm water detention areas. Page 6 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks V"alleyBandel North b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Shallow bedrock and the South Fork Zumbro River will ultimately receive all of the runoffgenerated froth the SITE. Ru noff fran the property will exit the property by means of one of the two intermittent tributaries flowing from the SITE. The tributaryflowing to the northeast corner of the SITE will drain all tire site area except for the a small portion of the southeast and southwest corner of the SITE. All the storm water from the northeast corner must flow through the stornr water detention ponds before discharging from the SITE to an overland flow (agricultural and wooded) for more than 13,000 feet before entering the South Fork Zumbro River. Drainage to the southeast will pass through a sedimentation pond before discharging off site to an overland flow for 1400' as a surface flow and ten 14,000' as tributaryflow through agricultural lands before entering the South Fork of the Zumbro River. Storm water runwfffrom this development is not expected to have any impact on the quality. of water in the receiving water. 18. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. No industrial wastewaters will begenerated at the SITE. Domestic wastewaters generated will be trormal donestic sewage typical of rrtral and urban residential developments The contuaercial land in the nordnvest quarter is anticipated to be a ndxture of retail and service industries that do not generate industrial waste, but will discharge airy water to a municipal waste water treatment plant. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on -site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. All wastewaters from urban areas will be treated by the Rochester Wastewater Treatment Plant. Those wastewaters generated in rural areas will be treated by individual septic systems. Individual septic systems will be designed to meet the Olmsted County Public Health Regulation 41, which consists of AIPCA 7080 as adopted and amended by Olmsted County. c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. The 1995 Ohnsted County Land Use Plan projects that the sanitat sewer service area is near the edge of the phase II area. However, considering the land topography and the fact that a sanitary server line currently extends to the area of the water tower located on the west side of thephase 11 area, it appears feasible to service all of the proposed residential units in phase 11, Bandel Hills North and Phase III. The anticipated volume of sewage fron Phase H turban hones is estimated to be: Single Family 66 x 75 gpd x 3.5 persons = 17,325gpd Phase III Single Family 54 x 75 gpd x 3.5 persons 14,175 god Phase IV Commercial Hotel, Restaurant, Gas Station = 12,000 gpd based or 12 acre development d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. MA 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 3 minimum >6 average Page 7 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North depth to bedrock: -0- minimum >6' average Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. There are no known or suspected sinkholes in the vicinity of the SITE and the Olmsted Geologic Atlas Sinkhole Probability Plate shows the SITE to consist of either Low Probability or Low to Moderate Probability areas. The Olmsted County Geological Atlas Plate titled "Sensitivity of the Groundwater System to Pollution" shows the SITE to contain areas ranging from High to Low -moderate Sensitivity categories. The High Sensitivity area is located in the northern portion of the SITE, indicating that "Contaminants will probably reach the water table lot weeks to years'. A majority of this land will be occupied by low density horsing (average of3.5 acres land/unit) and open space. The central portion of the SITE is designated as a High - Moderate Sensitivhy area indicating that "Contaminants will reach the water table in several years to about a decade". This area will consist of some open space, stormwater detention area, and residential development. To date, the sewering of these residential units has not been determined and an agreement between the City of Rochester and Cascade Township is pending. The southern third of rite SITE is considered to be a Low -Moderate Sensitivity category indicating that "Contaminants will probably not reach the water table for more than a decade". This area is proposed for 68 single family residences with city sewer, future commercial development, and open space. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving MRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. The soils on the SITE are characterized as a Timula-Port Byron Association of nearly level to very steep, well drained soils formed in the uplands and derived from loess. The landscape of the proposed development is the summit and shoulder of the uplands that drain to the Zumbro River. The following table lists the soil types identified on the SITE from the Olmsted County Soil Survey. Soils that are highly erodable (HEL), hydric or floodplain are indicated. Crop Equivalency Ratings (CER) are also fisted for each soil. As indicated most of the soil types are designated as Highly Erodable Soils. No soils on the SITE are considered hydric soils and only the Chaseburg soils located near the southeast corner of the SITE is considered Jloodplain soil. Soil #/Name HEL Hydric Floodplain CER 19; Chaseburg silt loam X 45 27C; Dickinson sandy loam, (6-12% slope) X 55 73F; Bellechester loamy sand (25-45% slope) X 30 9913; Racine silt loam (1-6% slope) 85 143B; Eleva sandy loam (2-6% slope) 50 143C; Eleva sandy loam (6-12% slope) X 45 173F; Frontenac loam (15-35% slope) X 20 Page 8 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North 251 F; Marlean silty clay loam (25-40% slope) I X I 15 28513; Port Byron silt loam (1-5% slope) 95 301B; Lindstrom silt loam (2-6% slope) 95 322C; Timula silt loam, (6-12% slope) X 70 322D; Timula silt loam (12-18% slope) X 55 472C; Channohon loam ( 6-12% slope) X 30 483A; Waukee loam (0-2% slope) i 30 484C; Eyota sandy loam (6-12% slope) X 65 484E; Eyota loamy sand (12-25% slope) X 50 491B; Waucoma loam (2-6% slope) 85 898F; Brodale-Bellechester complex (25-60% slope) X 10 973D; Brodale-Sogn complex (12-25% slope) X 20 181213; Terril loam, sandy substratum (1-6% slope) 80 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash.. produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. The proposed residential development will generate nnLved household and municipal solid waste. Based upon 3.1 persons per household and 2.7 pounds of solid waste generated per person per day a total of 135 residential units would generate a macimum of 1130 pounds of household wasteper day, 208 tons/year or approximately 416 (4 tons week) Assuming the additional development would include two restaurants, a gasoline service station and hotel, with an assumed average of 70 employees would generate an additional 70 tons (1400 cy) of solid waste per year. The Olmsted County Solid Waste Ordinance requires collection, source separation and proper disposal at approved County facilities and applies to all waste generated at the SITE. Commercial waste haulers licensed to operate in Olmsted County offer source separation and recycling services to residential customers. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. Potentially, underground storage tanks for petroleum at a service station site would be the only hazardous materials other than normal residential products. Page 9 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. Household energy will be supplied by a combination of electric and liquefied petroleum gas for rural Hidden Valley Oaks subdivision, and a combination of natural gas and electric for Bandel North. The commercial center is a likely location jar a service station that would dispense gasoline and diesel fitel from underground storage tanks. A typical service station installs three tanks that hold between 10-15,000gallonts ofpetroleum underground that are subject to AIPCA and USEPA Rules for installation and emergency response. 21. Traffic. Parking spaces added will be 2 spaces per household which will be accommodated on each lot. Commercial parking added can not be determined with tine information currently available. Currently, there are limited commercial uses which could be established out the SITE. If the developer is successful in rezoning the property in the future, parking stalls for a restaurant would be based on the number ofseats in the business. The convenience retail would require approximately 30 stalls, a hotel requires one space per sleeping room. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion 0) . Estimated total average traffic (ADT) generated 1313 to 1781 daily traffic generated. Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence 876 to 11881 7 AAI to 6 AVI. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Estimates of the ADT and peak hour traffic are based on the Rochester/Olmsted Consolidated Planting Department estimate that each residential household generates 13 trips per day, and peak hours for traffic are expected to be 7:00 A,1I to 6:00 PM when two thirds of all trips are expected. For the ll.5 acre commercial area we have estimated the traffic value based on use and building size with a 3,000 square foot service station generating 845 trips /1000 square feet. A 3,000 square foot restaurant generating 750 tripsll00 square feet, and a 20,000 square foot hotel generating 40 trips11000 square feet The table outlines the traffic generation estimates and the affected roads. Average Daily Peak Hour Traffic Affected Road(s) Traffic ADT ( tl of Trips) Phase I M 130 67th & 68" Streets NW — connecting Hidden Oaks Valley 15 to: 18"i Avenue NW Lots Phase II 850 575 Bandel Road NW - connecting to: Bandel North 66 lots North: Hivjhway 52 South: 55 Street NW Phases III 754 505 Proposed Phase II road connecting to Restaurant IV 5585 3741 Bandel Road NW Phase I of the Hidden Oaks development has platted 15 sinfle family residential homes where traffic Will pass through the residential areas located along 67" and 68' Streets NW extending to le Avenue Nil'until further street connections are made to adjoining properties to the north and west.. Phases H, III & IV are currently proposed to connect to Bandel Road NW and a new alignment for 65" Street is being proposed by the Rochester Public Works Department. The new 0' Street will provide direct access to Highway 51 North and to 55" Street NfV, a major collector street. It is anticipated that file estimated number of daily trips will not require improvements to the existing roadways, and it is anticipated that the proposed improvements to 65`" Street will provide enough traffic to support development prepared by others on the north end of the project. 22. Vehicle -related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including Page 10 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EA IV Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. Tire traffic generated by the residential development, and the commercial restauran✓service station✓motel complex does not trigger the need to conduct air quality modeling and is not erpected to cause any decrease in air quality from vehicle emissions. The development is within S miles of major job centers, commercial centers and schools and being part of tire Rochester Urban Service area is consistent with the Olmsted County Land Use Plan for vehicle energy conservation. 23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone -depleting chemicals (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydro fluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. The rural residential units in the proposed project would utilize Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) and natural gas to fuel forced air furnaces with 60,000 BTU input rated at 80% efficiency. Air emissions from the residential heating units will generate low levels of carbon dioxide, carbon mono -ride and nitrogen oxides that are trot erpected to noticeably impact air quality. 24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? Yes _No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) The phased construction will start with grading, road building and infrastructure installation followed by home building. Temporary seasonal noise is erpected from earth moving equipment during daylight hours. Construction noise from carpentry tools (saws & haunnrers) and construction equipment (backhoes, trucks, etc.) can be expected during Lome construction. Dust will be generated during road grading. Dust control is a requirement of the Stornwater Permit for Construction Site Activities and will include water, chloride application and the establishment of temporary vegetative cover on disturbed ground. 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site'? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _Yes _x_No Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _x Yes _No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _Yes _x No Scenic views and vistas? Yes x No Other unique resources? _Yes _x No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project -related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Approximately 3Z25 acres of "prime" soils are currently being farmed and are proposed to be converted to residential development. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, in general, "calls for concentrating development, extending public services to areas surrounding the current service area, and thereby helping to protect prime agricultural land and reduce public services costs". Tire proposed project will not impact any evis'ting parks, recreational areas or trails but is planned to include private open space that can be enjoyed and utilized by the residents of the subdivision. Private recreational Page 1 I of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North open space will provide outdoor recreational opportunity and will alleviate some pressure on existing public facilities. 26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? _Yes .e No If yes, explain. There are no designated scenic views or vistas in the vicinity of tine SITE. Some of the homes proposed to be developed on the SITE will be visible from the summits of the surrounding landscape. Residential yard lights will be visible in the immediate vicinity. No exhaust plumes will be generated at the SITE. 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? _x_Yes No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. The Olmsted County General Land Use Plan Alap indicates that the Phase I area is designated for "Suburban Development", while the remainder of the property is now included in the Rochester Urban Service Area". The current SITE plan does not designate urban or rural development pending all agreement between the city and township concerning annexation and development plans for the land.. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan indicates that the portion of the SITE falling in Section 9 is designated for urban -style law density residential uses, while that in Section 4 is shown for not -urban development. Thus far, the current SITE development platys follows the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan except far a small portion of two rural lots, in Phase I, extending into Section 9. 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? x Yes _No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that_is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) The urban area world be served with City services. The developers are working with Rochester Public Utilities to get higher water pressure to this site than that which is currently available. Currently, the Rochester Public Works Department is studying the feasibility of extending City services to this area. For this reason, the SITE General Development Plan indicates threefuture utility easements to extend those services to the suburban area. 29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). Cumulative impacts of turban development may include loss of wildlife habitat, loss of prime crop land and pervious surface. The Rochester Urban Service Area Laud Use Plan and Olmsted County Land Use Plan acknowledge potential impacts from urban development but also recognize that concentrating development and extending public services far development can aid in protecting prime agricultural land and open space. The City of Rochester has developed a regional stormwater management plan that addresses increases in impervious surface and requires management of increased drainage. (see answer to #31) 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items I to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. Page 12 of 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: MARCH 24, 2000 Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North There are no other known or suspected environmental impacts front the proposed project. 31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being donefor EiS scoping, instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EA IV. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. The principal impacts of the proposed development are related to the conversion of the existing farm and wooded land to a combined rural and urban single family residential development. The site grading, erosion control, construction disturbance and more intensive use of the property associated with increase in traffic and storm water management are the major environmental issues for the proposed development. The following environmental impacts are anticipated. - Permanent Conversion of Agricultural Land/Open Space • Impervious surface will increase from Crone to approximately 15 to 23% for the entire site. • Wildlife conflicts can be expected to occur with deer, coons, skunks, etc. • Wildlife population control through hunting with firearms will be impractical • Temporary Construction site erosion and sedimentation control • Private water wells will serve from 15 to 33 rural homes. These wells do not require DNR water appropriations permits • Individual sewage treatment systems will be installed for each rural lot in accordance with Olmsted County Public Health Regulation #41 which is more restrictive than State ofNlinnesota Rules Chapter 7080. • Construction noise and dust will occur until construction is complete. • Traffic increases will occur on the following roadways: 67" Street NW, 68" Street NFV, Bandel Road, 5P St. and 18`" Ave. NIV. There is no proposed mitigation for the anticipated impacts beyond the customary engineering design and construction for traffic, erosion control, extension ofpublic services, water well construction, individual sewage treatment system installation and operation and surface water management. RGU CERTIFICATION, The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature �'jd ,t �k1�—� Date 3';-4.00 Title l.16iMU01L (PA.A.► ov Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or www.mnplan.state.mn.us Page 13 of 13 Rochester Vicinity Map Zumbro Falls M ze Millville WABASHA GCCCHUE. Hammond --pi—nel-sTa - ------ -------- Cronoco Plainview SITE Elgin it Carley State Douglas 0 Park whi IL 0 Mantorville i ty zetailed vre, State -ark I 0 Kasson a�b MM, -ages :5-:3. I 3vron Rochester Chester C Cq Dover iEyota St. Cnarles p'• Acchevlorl z" Rock Dell Ai 'r"' High Forest Chatfield Stewa 7 0 Racine FILLPAORE 1 Fountain Spring Valley yJ Freston 0 I, I C '�Jrvl Z.Izz Forestvilwfoystery cave state Park Ostrander 0: Mystery Cave q Gr"nleatton Lake Louise State Park kit FIGURE 1. MIN N E SOT A ROCHESTER VICINITY MAP MCGHIE & BETTS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.z CASCADE T 107N - R 14W '�• • O-OMOCO a0. '1 _ I•":Jw Jn _ %.-.u, J :I ..:_:'.'��; .le:ul'�� -i I :I rtL ./:a ,"a_w. � �M, All�.'.::r I- I �r x.^ �I ly �._re .-^ w.u^.wl• .Yer a .'��.. I _`•.� I ^l.a I � t � Z.: `�I .. " A•/� � I tr _ .dc �a.:.. f r_G �r . f 1 ` �� 1 ,:. r•..^,.c �/ n ,� (ut.:nc �• ILN. 1 1 I :.is:r -r<eI Cuw -n Igel� r.., Jasr 7 •a�i;w....:_ • r I p }•�.• . 1i l: •• • It it I. ! ..:'crraia :. _I I 1 '• �-+,•I�si it i � > I � a �. • _J. rJ l.wru pn if, r�� f r 3 { .ergo I Cruua,_ ' y �;1 n l�.("`/ � I[•sr-'t :r �: ,� �.:r t... 1 r=::rr� .�,_rv�_: II . 'v , f l: "'• _ .n'ir. . �'r• �� �w 'fix .� _ 1 . -•C +J.n I _ .CrC .. ,1tt II r ir� • -.6. �s - ' �_ _ �Vy i t•.I I .-~�\ is..7 `_. `I .,^r1 c 77 It f.. 1 /'�(� __/__ 1l �cec � ��l..er� 1•' 1 = �'\ � • a• ,11.'lJl :�.71 C� 'L:Y �{•„j Fyn ' 6-11 F i ... _s - l i•pt'c ai i!`�Ip''crnl t� 'f � �:1 I � �J• I\ :rn TI � iI:: L' i �y •� l+ �� I 1 1 1, ./ l .• -�<_�•� • '•Y' I '•l,•• �y�3i ` u.t.i �w•nr..1�I `< I � I .r,1I III_.. isf' i .�:i ... :�:• ', 1.....w� .-�. FIGURE 2. TOWNSHIP PLAT MAP MCGHIE & BETTS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.: AN FIGURE 3 ILI USGS 7.5 MINUTE MAP v OF PROJECT AREA T MCGHIE & BETTS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. INC.c 27C 47zG 993 �.� Highly Erodible Soils t • Figure 5. Highly Erodible Soils Map 83 , Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel Hills EAW was made to the Rochester Post Bulletin which explained the procedures for submitting comments. On April 3, 2000, the notice of availability was published in the EQB Monitor. The 30 day comment period expired on May 3, 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. Cumulative Impacts 3. Erosion Control/Water Quality Please see the attached letters from McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc., dated March May 9, 2000 and May 10, 2000 for responses to the concerns and issues raised by these agencies. Criteria for Determining Significant 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: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. 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 3 /11 Hidden Oaks ValleylBandel Hills EAW D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result 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 Hidden Oaks Valley/Bendel Hills 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. 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 the majority of 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. A small portion of this property lies outside of the 25 year Urban Service Area and is being developed on individual sewage treatment systems, consistent with Olmsted County regulations. 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. A majority of this property is within the City of Rochester 25 year Urban Service Area according to the Olmsted County Land Use Plan. A small portion of this property lies outside of the 25 year Urban Service Area and is being developed on individual sewage treatment systems, consistent with Olmsted County regulations. 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 County by removing residential pressures and concentrating them in planned areas where the density of development creates a more efficient use of land. 4 Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel Hills EAW W, ATTACHMENTS: 1. Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel Hills EAW 2. Letter from the MN Pollution Control Agency 3. Letter from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 4. Letter from Minnesota Historical Society 5. Letters from McGhie & Betts, Inc. — responses to agency comments and concerns :. . , i . ; . . -, -' . - " vto 5-10-200 9:15AM FROM P 2 McGhie -, . Betts Environmental I Services, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55204 507-289.3919 Fax 507-2B9.7333 May 10, 2000 Ms. Mitzi Baker Senior Planner City of Rochester 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comments from applicant to MPCA for the Proposed Hidden Oaks Valley/Banda[ North Development Dear Ms. Baker: Thank you for forwarding the comments you received regarding the Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North Development EAW. Our response to these comments follows. Response to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments: We disagree with the MPCA recommendation for Environmental Impact Statement and do not believe an EIS will add any pertinent information for the proposed Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North or any other future developments that are already addressed in the City and county Comprehensive Land Use Plans: We believe that the MPCA commented that the cumulative effects of the proposed development could create significant environmental effects results for the Agency's lack of familiarity with City of Rochester and Olmsted County land use and public works planning. The proposed Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North Development is not a phased or connected activity and Is independent of any other potential development projects within this rapidly growing area of Rochester. The City of Rochester Comprehensive Land Use Plan Identifies Bandel North Development within the 25-year urban service area where the growth has been planned and infrastructure and facilities are scheduled to accommodate community growth. These plans have anticipated and have accounted for the growth and associated impacts that are now occurring and are projected for this area of Rochester. Item #10: Most of the development will occur in agricultural cropland. It is the applicants opinion that the best way to preserve the character of the wooded/forest land is with large lot rural suburban style development. With urban style small lot development the disturbance to existing forested areas will be greater, however, development on the site will Include landscaping including sodded lawns, tree plantings, and gardening which will in time regenerate plant life. Woodlands located in open space areas were included in the development area, and are only subject to selective cutting and removal. Item #16: The EAW specifies the use of temporary and permanent erosion controls that are reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Departmetn and are subject to regulation by the MPCA. The existing ordinances and permits require erosion and sediment control to be used during grading and construction and post construction. All roadways and lot developments constructed and bought by individual owners will be subject to erosion control measures as mandated by the NPDES permit, The short descriptions in the EAW are not compiled with the details that are required for the Grading Plan or the Storm Water discharge permits and the entire necessary William E. Tointon, C.E.T. President ,tomes V. Swonoon, R.L.S. SCrraWq Duvld L. Morrill. P.E., 7maauror Jollity S. Broberg, CAA, Vice President eroce Campbell Ragisfered enYennnnni tal Manager Certified Enviranmenial Auddor George Poch An Equal Opportunity Employer Certihed Soil Scientist 5-10-200 9:15AM FROM P. 3 l temporary and permanent erosion and sedimentation control will be implemented as part of the development. Item #20c: Because of the variability in depth to bedrock which ranges from 0.13 feet in Section 4, and from 20 to 70 feet below the land surface in Section 9, the location of any proposed underground storage tanks would be engineered to protect the bedrock and any proposed gasoline service station would be in those areas where the depth to bedrock exceeds greater than 12 feet below ground surface either from natural soils or from fill. Item #21: While the statement about re -zoning appears to be open ended the EAW does disclose the maximum disturbance with the maximum development. The alternative approach to development would be to divide the project into parcels that were smaller than the minimum threshold for environmental review and proceed with the development without an EAW. The decision was made to disclose and discuss all of the associated development by the applicant so that the City and other permitting agencies would have a clear view of the maximum, Future rezoning of this area for residential purposes will provide more roadway developments for nearby residential developments and to accommodate proximal highway and commercial development. The net increase of impervious roadway area would not cause environmental degradation for surface water bodies because compliance with City of Rochester Stormwater Management Policies will require the control of stormwater volume and stormwater quality management. Item #29: Development of the township portions requires a density of one lot per 3.5 acres with a two acre minimum lot size to comply with the County Land Use Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. If you have any questions, please call me at (5071 289-3919. Sincerely, McGHIE & BETTS ENVIR M NTAL SERVICES, INC. Jeffrey $j Nroberg) CPG, REM Vice Preitid nt Certified Professional Geologist #8184 Registered Environmental Manager #3009 JSBr1b Enclosures 5-10-200 9:17AM FROM P. 7 MCGhie Betts Environmental ) I Services, inc, 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 Fax 507-289-7333 May 9, 2000 Ms. Mitzi Baker Senior Planner City of Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Comments from applicant to DNR for Proposed Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North Development Dear Ms, Baker: Thank you for forwarding the May 3, 2000 comments from the Minnesota Departmetn of Natural Resources (DNR) you received regarding the Hidden Oaks Valley/Banda[ North Development EAW. Our response to these comments follows. Response to Min a ota De artmant of NIstural Resources comments: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources indicates that an Alternative Urban Area wide Review (AUAR) be conducted as follow up to the EAW to address issues concerning the impact of residential growth on ground water sensitivity, septic installations, and Item #11, Fish, Wildlife, and ecologically sensitive issues. It is our opinion that because both the urban and rural areas have been previously addressed and approved in City and County Comprehensive Land Use Plans the issues have been adequately addressed by the City and the County. The proposed Banda[ North development is within the pre-existing Urban Service Area for the City of Rochester. All of the issues suggested by DNR for analysis In the AUAR have been addressed in the EAW, have been addressed in earlier Planning documents or are subject to review and approval by the City or County under existing Ordinances. Earlier planning documents prepared by the City of Rochester with pertinent information include (a) City of Rochester Land Use Plan within the Urban Service Area. (b) The City Public Works Facility Plans for water supply, sewage treatment, transportation and stormwater management; (c) Facility and growth plans by Rochester Public Utilities for electric and natural gas service, (d) Documents required to be produced by the developer for the City Planning and Public Works Department approval Including a General Development Plan, William E. Tainion, C.E.T. President Jamee E. swanadn, A.I .a. aowulury David L. Morrill, P.E., Treasurer Jeltrey a. erngdro, C.P.Q. Vicu Preaidenl Bruce Campbell Crrlillnd Gnvionmuutul Auditor Rupiatcrcd Environmental r George Poch Catdricd Soil 6aienti3t An Equal Opportunity Employer 5-10-200 9:17AM FROM P g go ' Preliminary and Final Plat, Grading Plan and Storm Water Management Plan that detail land uses, density, traffic circulation, and infrastructure requirements. The rural subdivision portions of the site described as Hidden Oaks Valley is a similar situation because it is within the area defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Rural Residential and approval requires similar analysis, submittal of documents and approval by Olmsted County. The applicant must submit a General Development Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat and Grading Plan in addition to seeking approvals for private water wells and Individual Septic Treatment Systems. The AUAR process would not be effective because the proposed development areas are already within areas previous planned for development. Item 11 Fish Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources: As stated by the DNR the city has neither current authority nor capacity to manage wildlife, these responsibilities lies with the DNR and private landowners. We recommend that the City of Rochester through their Public Works, Animal Control and Consolidated Planning Departments work with the DNR and the developers and landowners to develop a wildlife management plan for the proposed open space in the urban and rural developments. In our opinion the management plan should include population control measures through the archery harvest of deer and trapping and destruction of nuisance raccoons, The need for wildlife management would not require a lengthy analysis such as an AUAR but could rather be formulated and implemented by City Department policy, ordinances and covenants on the open space planned for the development. AUAR Reouest: The Olmsted County Board while recently approving the amendment of the County Land Use Plan exempted the Hidden Oaks Valley from the proposed Urban Service Area because the development had been proposed before the City made any application to extend the Urban Service Area and because the proposed rural subdivision development was planned in a manner to not impair City growth. At the same The Bendel North area Is already within the Urban Service Area. The applicant does not believe that the burden for developing an AUAR on the 5,200 acres to the north and west that is being added to the Rochester Urban Service Area should be borne by an individual applicant who has complied with the pre-existing Comprehensive Land Use Plans for both the City and County, While we have no objection to the City preparing an AUAR on the 5,200 acre addition we believe that the cost and time delays required 5-10-200 9:18AM FROM p 9 for the analysis should be the responsibility of the City and the landowners who are included within the expanded USA. If you have any questions, please call me at (507) 289-3919, Sincerely, McGHIE & BETTS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Jeffrjy.jr7obe�r, CPG, REM Certified Professional Geologist #8184 Registered Environmental Manager #3009 JSB/jb Enclosures i Minnesota Pollution Control Agency April 25, 2000 Ms. Mitzi Baker Senior Planner City of Rochester 2122 Campus Drive Southeast Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Ms. Baker: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), in the city of Rochester, Olmsted County. Based on the information contained in the EAW, the Environmental Review staff believe that significant effects related to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be warranted to address the cumulative environmental effects that result from this project and any impacts that may result due to the proximity of this project to the Badger Ridge Development, the Weatherstone Development and the Summit Point Development. According to Minn. R. 4410.1700 DECISION ON NEED FOR EIS Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects mm According to Minn. R 4410.0200 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS Subp. 11. Cumulative impact. "Cumulative impact" means the impact on the., . environment that results from incremental effects of the project in addition to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects regardless of what person undertakes the other projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY) Ct Paid • Rrainerd • tlatrnit I akes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar. www.oca.state.mn.us q3111 Ms. Mitzi Baker Page 2 April 25, 2000 Also to be considered are the comments listed below: Item 10. Cover types: It is not clear what these numbers represent as the final development since the EAW is vague on the actual development of phases III and IV. Losing half of the wooded/forest areas should not be considered as "minimal disturbance to woodlands." Item 16. Erosion and sedimentation: The EAW mentions the use of silt fencing and the like during construction but fails to mention the use of TEMPORARY sedimentation basins during construction. On areas with a lot of topography and slope, it is often the case that Best Management Practices, such as silt fencing and straw bails, are inadequate and temporary ponds need to be constructed and functioning prior to grading. In addition, the EAW notes that the developer will be developing the roadway and that some lots will be graded after they are sold and then suggests that it will be the responsibility of the individual lot owners to address to sedimentation and erosion controls. Please note that the responsibility for all sedimentation and erosion controls at this site will be the responsibility of the owner/developer as set forth in the NPDES permit and that erosion control is not the individual lot owners responsibility (although third -party agreements with the lot by the developer could also be put into place to aid in sharing responsibility). Item 20c. Storage Tanks: The EAW does not mention the proximity of the proposed service station(s) to areas of shallow bedrock. Item 21. Traffic: "If the developer is successful in rezoning the property in the future, .... " This is an open- ended question. What exactly does this mean in terms of potential changes to land use and the potential of more impervious surfaces? The EAW does not explain the environmental consequences of this statement. Item 29. Cumulative impacts: If part of the proposed development is next to the 25-year urban service area and with the known benefits of compact development, it would be beneficial for the township portions of this site to have smaller lots (not the 3.5 acre lots as proposed) and a cluster -type septic system. This would promote more dense development and cheaper infrastructure costs when the sewer and water is extended into this area after the 25-year service area is expanded. 2 Ms. Mitzi Baker Page 3 April 25, 20000 Please note that, as the responsible governmental unit for the EAW, you are required to provide specific responses to these comments pursuant to Minn. R. pt. 4410.1700, subp. 4. These responses must be received prior to issuance of necessary MPCA permits or approvals for the project. 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 (651)297-8236. Sincerely, �u� a�Ur Denise Leezer Project Manager Operations & Planning Unit South District DL:lk cc: Dave Morrison, Rochester Subdistrict Office Tom Balcom, Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul Jon Larsen, Minnesota Planning St. Paul 67 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road Sr..Pai 1. Minnesola 55155-40_ May 3, 2000 Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Re: EAW for Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North 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. Rochester has experienced extremely heavy residential growth over the past year, and has recently expanded its urban service area by several thousand acres to the northwest of the city. It appears that residential growth is occurring faster than city services can keep up; this is a key issue with the Hidden Oaks development. Fifteen homes are proposed for large lots that will be served by individual septic systems and wells in an area of high groundwater sensitivity. It is likely that these homes will need to connect to city sewer and water in the future when those services are available, at substantial cost to the homeowners. Given the rate of residential growth in Rochester, it is appropriate that the City take a more comprehensive look at the impacts associated with new development. We believe that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) is an appropriate means for assessing the impacts of development on the area that was recently added to the urban service district. The AUAR is a good tool for review of cumulative impacts of multiple projects in a given area. It provides a single review process for addressing both public infrastructure development and the subsequent residential and commercial development. (See the EQB Rules MR 4410.3610 for details on the AUAR process). The following comments refer to specific items in the EAW: Item 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources The statement that local units of government do not have the authority to manage wildlife is basically correct. However, urbanization of these wildlife habitats increases the likelihood of wildlife conflicts, and limits the ability of the Department of Natural Resources to manage wildlife populations through sport hunting. The large lot sizes typical of rural residential developments often provide small refuges for DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1.888-646-6367 • TI'Y: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 An Equal opportunity Employer �sPrinted on Recycled Paper Contalning a Who Values Diversity 0 Minimum of 10% Post -Consumer Waste IS wildlife. These developments restrict or eliminate access for hunting, the preferred method of wildlife population control. This results in an increase in the populations of these species, and greater urban wildlife conflict with human activity. In Olmsted County, urban fringe developments cause problems for adjacent agricultural landowners, who experience an increase in wildlife crop damage from urban wildlife. Deer and raccoon are mobile animals that will travel from the urban areas to feed on commercial crops, which results in significant agricultural depredation. The successful implementation of state wildlife population control efforts in urbanizing areas is directly related to local ordinances regulating development, as well as hunting and trapping. Archery hunting of deer can be an effective control method that should be encouraged to keep deer numbers in check in urbanized situations. Trapping of unwanted furbearers by the use of live traps is an effective method and should be encouraged by addressing their use in local ordinances and land covenants. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. As stated above, we believe that it would be of benefit to conduct an Alternative Urban Areawide Review of the area recently added to the urban service district, including the Hidden Oaks Valley area. Such a review would be valuable for guiding future development as well as managing and protecting natural resources in the area. The MDNR can provide some assistance as to the resources in area; please contact MDNR Regional Ecologist Don Nelson in Rochester (507-281-7779) in this regard. 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, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Environmental Planning and Review Section Office of Management and Budget Services c: Joe Oschwald Don Nelson Con Christianson Jon Larsen, EQB Larry Nelson Russ Peterson, US F&WS Hidden Oaks EAW let.wpd 20000833-0001 Joel Bigelow, Big DE Devel. Co. qq i MINNESOTa HISTORICAL SOCIETY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE May 5, 2000 Ms. Mitzi Baker City of Rochester 2122 Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 RE: EAW — Hidden Oaks Valley/Bandel North T107 R14 S4 & S9, Olmsted County SHPO Number: 2000-2084 Dear Ms. Baker. Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the EAW 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. There are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Therefore, in our opinion, the "no" response to question 25a is appropriate. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at (651)296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, �+ ` Britta L. Bloomberg Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer n tTCr, irr Uni 11 r.,r,n n\Y/CCT/CAINT PS XhvvrQm,A can. umi, TCI CO, VIYF. l.Cl mk ra.4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q 1 DATE: 5115/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b-;4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement with Hartman Farms, Inc. PREPARED BY: R. Freese The Public Works staff has prepared a Development Agreement for the property proposed to be developed as Circle 19 by David Hartman, President of Hartman Farms, Inc. The property is located west of West Circle Drive and north of 19th Street NW. The development will include a mix of industrial, commercial and residential uses. The Development Agreement addresses the following items: • right-of-way dedication for 19th Street NW • construction and maintenance of private stormwater facilities on the property • use of the private stormwater facilities by the City for regional stormwater • construction of pedestrian facilities along Circle Drive and 19th Street • controlled access along 19th Street and interior streets • parkland dedication • payment of substandard street reconstruction and capacity charges • payment of SAC and WAC charges • extension of utilities to adjoining property • construction of turn lanes on West Circle Drive at 22nd and 26th Streets • closure of median crossover at 22nd Street and West Circle Drive • platting of the property within 5 years The developer has signed the Development Agreement. Public Works staff would recommend the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Hartman Farms, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Hartman Farms, Inc. • COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 101 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Public Works D —al ITEM DESCRIPTION: Joint Powers Agreement Admendment #1 for TH 63 South PREPARED/ BY: R. Freese On March 3, 1998, the City Council authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Joint Powers Agreement #76998 with the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Olmsted County for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan for TH 63 South between TH 52 and 48b' Street SW. The consultant performing the work is Yaggy Colby Associates. They have requested Amendment #1 to the Engineering Services Agreement for a one-(1) year extension of contract time to complete the Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan. The consultant is not requesting additional compensation associated with the time extension. The Amendment has been requested to provide additional time necessary to complete the Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan. The time will be used to complete the work tasks delayed due to extensive public coordination, unexpected complications in the review of environmental issues, and increases in the project study area requested by Olmsted County. Public Works staff recommends approval of the requested Amendment #1 to the Joint Powers Agreement 398. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTE� Prepare a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment #1 to the Joint Powers Agreement #76998. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works p D-ate ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — South Pointe 5`h Development PREPARED M. Nigbur;P" The Developers of the South Pointe 51h Property and City Staff have had discussions relating to construction of the subdivision and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Construction of pedestrian facilities. • Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Substandard Roadway Reconstruction and Capacity Charges, Parkland Dedication, and participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed the agreement. can strew sro m nae V==11 lards b bad ewlopad In So uVr Polr•a South Point 5'" Sad+Point• G�rierel oadapred Bandary :J H•Aew AY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with All Pointe Development for the South Pointe 5'h Property. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 105 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works D 49-9 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement —George Townehome Development PREPARED BY: M. NigburJi/ The Developers of the George Townhome Development Property and City Staff have had discussions relating to construction of the subdivision and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Construction of pedestrian facilities. • Dedication of land area for future storm water facilities • Dedication and Construction of a portion of a recreational trail • Dedication of an access easement or roadway to serve the abutting property. • Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Substandard Roadway Reconstruction and Capacity Charges, Parkland Dedication, and participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan. rw� tom. w '41LI1111 fill rp 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 Georgetowne Limited Partnership for the George Townhome Development. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:. second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 10 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works b-30 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Storm Water Management Agreement for a portion of Olmsted Medical Center. PREPARED BY: n,� / M. Nigbur I°— The City and Olmsted Medical Center have discussed and agreed to language to be included in a Storm Water Management Agreement. This agreement outlines OMC's voluntary participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan and the construction of a storm sewer system to provide drainage to serve a parking lot on a portion of the OMC Campus Staff recommends the Council approve the Storm Water Management Agreement with Olmsted Medical Center. The agreement has been executed by OMC. �L 3rd Avenue SE dmy I MT Parking Lotj COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Storm Water Management Agreement with Olmsted Medical Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 109 ' 5/15100 er_cNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 6- 31 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Emerald Hills Second Subdivision (J9674) PREPARED BY: E! M. Bakerk Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Emerald Hills Second Subdivision — Fred Schmidt (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9674 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Emerald Hills Second Subdivision". Q COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9674 "Basic Construction to Serve Emerald Hills Second Subdivision" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 111 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works - AB ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision (J9653) PREPARED M. Bak Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision — North American Realty (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9653 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision". F� ;t M ON COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9653 "Basic Construction to Serve Essex Estates Fifth Subdivision" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (t3 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D' 33 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Rochester Marketplace (J9688) PREPARED BY:I.,1 M. Baker r Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Rochester Marketplace — Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Owner & Contractor) is requesting a City / Owner Contract J9688 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Rochester Marketplace'. —.�.._ .�__ r Fhffi.j.v'Y txf .1 +aa.��r �^.sa• a n.r r a ax F Sew,. x Fps #r ii Pr pi"' d k'�' COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9688 "Basic Construction to Serve Rochester Marketplace" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING %%7 `' DATE: 5115/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works b 130 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract —Orchard Hills South First Subdivision Phase II PREPARED BY:'.JF (J9682) M. Baker � Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Orchard Hills South First Subdivision — Phase II — Michael Younge (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9682 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills South First Subdivision — Phase II". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9682 "Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills South First Subdivision — Phase II" COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: /I'? / 5/15100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works �?js ITEM DESCRIPTION: Petition Requesting Sanitary Sewer and Watermain in the Crocus PREPARED BY - Hills Area .N-/ J. Loehr A petition has been received from owners of property in the Crocus Hills Area requesting that the City of Rochester consider a sanitary sewer and watermain extension project to serve the Area. The petition is signed by 5 of 10 owners of property that contain a single-family residential dwelling and are affected by the project. One lot in the Area is currently connected to the public sewer and watermain systems. The owner of this property (Mr. Magnotto) paid sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges attributable to his property. These charges will be applied to the cost of a project. Therefore, Mr. Magnotto's property is considered as petitioning for the project. At an informational meeting of May 9, 2000 between Department of Public Works staff and owners of property in the Crocus Hills Area, two additional property owners expressed their support for a project. The Crocus Hills Area is eligible to participate in the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998. Preliminary cost analysis conducted by the Department of Public Works indicate that a sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Area is feasible. The properties located within the Crocus Hills Area are currently located in the City. Therefore, an Orderly Annexation Agreement is not required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. A motion referring the petition from the residents in the Crocus Hills Area to the Department of Public Works for preparation of Feasibility Studies. 2. Authorize Staff to develop an Engineering Service Agreement for a sanitary sewer and watermain extension project to serve the Crocus Hills Area. Attachments: Crocus Hills Area Map Crocus Hills Area Petition COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second by: t g w � s WN �a 6 Hagan Stead Crocus Hills Area PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PUBLIC WORKS OEPG P 774T CITY OF ROCHESTER We the undersigned owners of property in Crocus Hills Subdivision in the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota do hereby petition the Rochester City Council to construct the following local improvement project: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve Crocus Hills Subdivision. We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proposed local improvement project, we are subject to sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges, a service connection charge, and sewer and water availability charges pursuant to the City of Rochester's, Alternative Connection Charge Policy. We are also aware that the properties affected by this public improvement project are eligible for certain allowances consistent with the City of Rochester's Water Quality Protection Program. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: Id-' l 5115/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works jt�- 3(0 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FORBIDS: "Foxcroft Storm Water Pond PREPARED BY: Improvements (J-2463) D. Nelson This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received until 11:00 AM at the office of the City Clerk on June 14, 2000 and considered by the Council on June 19, 2000 for the following project: Project No. M003 (J-2463). "Foxcroft Storm Water Pond Improvements" This project is proposed to be funded with Storm Water Management funds. It is not specifically included in the 2000 - 2005 Capital Improvements Program as a separate project, but is included in the general Rehabilitation of existing storm water management facilities, pg. 46 (item 6). This project includes water quality improvements to the existing pond, such as deepening of tfie basins, outlet control structures, minor pond shaping, and some landscape plantings. The project is Phase I of a multi -phase project to improve management of stormwater in Zumbro Watershed Basin, Storm Water Sub -District 1. Engineers Estimate is $75,000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on June 14, 2000 at 11:00 AM for Project No. M003 (J-2463), "Foxcroft Storm Water Pond Improvements". Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning May 19, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: i ►• REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 12-3 DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D - 37 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FORBIDS: PREPARED BY:�F "Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation" (J-2198 / J-2197) R. Kelm This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: City Project 6311-3&4-00 (J2198) SAP 159-113-15 Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project On 11th Ave SW from 2nd St SW to 200 ft north of 3rd St NW & City Project 6204-3-00 (J2197) SAP 159-119-09 Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project On 4th St SW from 6th Ave SW to 2nd Ave SW The Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation project, engineering and construction will be funded with Municipal State Aid funds. The project is included in the 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program budget (item 19, page 30). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on Mj ' " p at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: (g1 SAP 159-113-15 (J2198) Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project On 11th Ave SW from 2nd St SW to 200 ft north of 3rd St NW SAP 159-119-09 (J2197) Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project On 4th St SW from 6th Ave SW to 2nd Ave SW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE : 5/15/2000 ENDA SECTION: YSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: WATER RECLAMATION PLANT ITEM NO: D-38 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids for a Portable Engine Driven Pump PREPARED BY: LYLE I ZIMMERMAN The Water Reclamation Plant's engine driven portable pump is over 22 years old and needs to be replaced. The replacement of this equipment was included in the revolving fund budget for 2000. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED Approval to advertise for bids for the replacement of the WRP's engine driven pump. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/ 15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: IT M NO. it Consent Agenda Police - Sl ITIEM DESCRIPTION: Request for RPD ERU to use Mn DOT Property for Training Purposes PREPARED BY: Steve Johnston The Minnesota Department of Transportation has offered the use of the properties located at 343 SW 17 AVE and 349 SW 17 Ave, Rochester, MN for training purposes for the Rochester Police Department Emergency Response Unit. MnDOT has offered these premises for training purposes providing the City of Rochester hold the State harmless against possible claims arising out of these activities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve resolution authorizing RPD ERU use of MnDOT properties for training and holding the State harmless from possible claims arising from these activities. UNCILACTION: Mcdcn by: Second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I,;�% / DATE: 5-15-00 ArENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NOABY: PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E _ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan #115 All Pointe PREPARDevelopment Mitzi A May 10, 2000 NOTE: After the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant revised this GDP to remove the area proposed for commercial uses and identify that area for R-2 residential uses and to remove an access to 60"h St. SW. Staff recommends modifying the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Recommended modifications are identified with strikethrough text for language to be deleted and underlined text for new language to be added. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on April 26, 2000 and recommended approval subject the seven conditions and modifications listed below. Schultze moved to approve this amendment to GDP #116 with staff suggested findings, Petersson seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. 1. if Land Use Plan Amendment #00-04 is not approved, the area labeled 'Proposed Commercial Land Use, Proposed B-1 Zone" on the GDP will need to be re -labeled. 2. Dedication of 60 feet of Right-of-way is required for this development. 3. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. The townhomelcondo style development has not been reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations (density, setbacks, parking). Private roadways that serve more than four (4) dwelling units must either line up with, or maintain a separation of at least 200 feet from the intersections of any public/private road (LDM64.140, 64.220, 64.240). 5. Prior to recording any final plats for this development, execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required to address the Owner/Developer's responsibility with regard to the required pedestrian facilities along the frontage6 60"" St. SW adjacent to this current GDP request. 6. Controlled access will be required along the entire frontage of T.M. 63 and 60t° St. S W, with the exception of the road accesses err 60'8 St. SW In addition, controlled access will be required along the internal roadways as shown on the GDP. Additional controlled access is required along the west side of the new road access proposed onto 60'" St SW and extending west along the north right-of-way line of the east/westl road across from Lot 7. 7. Turn lanes shall be constructed on 60"h St. SW at the entrance roads, at the OwnerlDevelopers expense, or the Owner/Developer shall make a Substandard Street Capacity Charge Contribution. S. Parkland dedication requirements shall be met %#a either reduction in previously established credits or_ cash in lieu of land. Council Action Needed. if the Council wishes to proceed with the General Development, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: �PPRnUED 9'y'is-9� Vern �- I �-rs-oo A�vcd� AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SOUTH POINTE 6T" IN ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA MARCH 2O00 AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN y FOR SOUTH POINTE 6TH IN ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Prepared for: All Pointe Development Mr. Randy Reynolds 3552 West River Parkway Rochester MN 55901 Prepared by: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester MN 55904 MARCH 2O00 1.0 Introduction ..^.-,.................-`........-....`..........~.....~1 2.0 []2ckgPOUDd ............................... ......................... ......................................................... 1 3.0 Purpose ,....................... ,,~,,,,,'.,,,,,,,_,,,,,^,,_,,,~,~^,,,,,,,,2 4.0 Site Analysis ............,...........,,_,,,,_,,,,~,,,,,_,~_.,,,,,,',. 2 4.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 2 4.2 Site Characteristics ................................................................................................ 3 4.2.1 Size ................................................... ~^^-^^^^^^--^^^~ ..................... 3 4.2.2 [aphY/DrainGge.~.....~^.............................-. 3 4`2.3 Land Use/Zoning .......................................................... ................. ........... 3 4.2.4 Future Land Use ......................................................................................... 3 4.2.5 W8tiaDCKFloudn|akl..................................................................................... 4 4.3 Access ......................... ......................................................................................... 4 4.4 Utilities ................................................................................................... ......-4 4.5 Soils ....~-~...~..................-...``..............~.....4 5.0 Criteria for Approval ofGDP ~~ Section 61.215............................. .................................... 5 6.0 Criteria for Approval of GDP- Land Development Manual - Appendix B Section ....^.--.-...-.--............-..........~.-.........7 EXHIBIT A - Zone Change Exhibit and Legal Descriptions Amended General Develi ent Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B-1, Item E, of the Informational Supplement to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, as adopted by the City of Rochester January 8, 1992, and as amended by Ordinance in May of 1999 and dated December 27, 1999. A General Development Plan (GDP) is required for this site in accordance with Section 61.215 for any site where the eventual platting of the property involves approval of a Type III Land Subdivision permit. This report is intended to provide a descriptive narrative of the attached GDP prepared by McGhie & Betts, Inc., of Rochester, Minnesota. 2.0 BACKGROUND South Pointe General Development Plan was adopted by the City Council on September 8, 1997. Since that time Phase I, II, III, and IV have been completed. Phase V is currently being submitted for final plat. The area remaining in the northeast corner of T.H. 63 and 60th Street SW will be the last two phases of the development. We are submitting the first amendment to the GDP on the remaining 37 acres, a Zone Change and Land Use Amendment for this area. (See Exhibit A) It should be noted that only three (3) lots on the site lie within the Airport zoning district. Amended General Develo, ,ent Report 3.0 PURPOSE There are two factors that have required amending the approved GDP. These factors are: 1. The elimination of an access point to the south of our GDP amendment area directly from T.H. 63. 2. The determined need for an interchange on 60'h Street SW, (refer to the Corridor Study of US 63) along with a new proposed right-of-way configuration at the northeast corner of the property These factors significantly affected the land use pattern and traffic flow along 60th Street. Therefore, the developer has requested that the GDP be amended to better address critical traffic patterns and limited access points to comply with the planned roadway changes along this final phase of South Pointe. 4.0 SITE ANALYSIS 4.1 Location South Pointe is located along the west side of T.H. 63 South, south of 60`h Street S.W. The proposed amendment to the adopted GDP is located in the northeast corner at the intersection of T.H. 63 and 60th Street SW. Amended General Develo, int Report 4.2 Site Characteristics 4.2.1 Size The total land area in the South Pointe plan was approximately 132 acres. The last phase of the subdivision has a total land area of 37.36 acres. 4.2.2. Topography/Drainage The high point of this remaining 37 acres is along a crest located near the center of the property and slopes eastward and westward towards T.H. 63 and Phases V and IV of South Pointe developments. 4.2.3. Land Use/Zoning The first five phases of the South Pointe Subdivision have been developed within the R-1 zoning district with some properties affected by the Airport Zone B & D Limits. The final phase includes several lots within the Airport Zone D Limits, single family lots in the R-1 zone, duplex and four-plex lots in the R-2 zone, town homes in the R-2 Residential Performance Zone, and 1 lot in the B-1 zone. 4.2.4 Future Land Use This amendment is primarily designated for "low density residential", as is shown on the City's Future Land Use Plan. The R-1 and R-2 zoning districts are approximate and the low density land 33 acres. Land Use Plan Amendment for 3.16 Amended General Devek,, .ent Report acres of commercial use along 60th Street S.W. is also being requested due to the change in the character of the area with the upgrading of 601h Street SW to a collector road and the planned interchange at 601h Street SW. 4.2.5 Wetland/Floodplain A Wetland Determination of "No Loss" for the area within the amended General Development Plan boundary has been submitted to the Planning Department. There is no mapped floodplain access on the portion of the site being amended. 4.3 Access The two access streets shown on the Amended GDP have not been altered since the approved GDP. There will be several controlled access points along the interior streets as shown on the plan. The street pattern of the interior streets has only been altered slightly from the approved GDP to accommodate deeper lots along the southwestern boundary of the amendment. 4.4 Utilities Utility accesses can be extended through normal engineering practices to serve this final phase of the development 4.5 Soils Due to steep slopes and shallow depth to bedrock along T.H. 63, townhomes with no basements would reduce engineering and building constraints. Amended General Develop—,ent Report South Pointe 8`h Paoe 5 5.0 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF GDP — SECTION 61.215 In approving a General Development Plan, the Commission and Council will review the plan for compliance with the criteria for approval listed in Section 61.215 which became effective May 15, 1999. The seven (7) criteria are listed below and are followed by our responses as to compliance: Criteria 1: The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. This amendment to the approved General Development Plan is being processed simultaneously with a rezoning request and a Land Use Amendment request. The proposed uses of the property will be consistent with the proposed land use upon approval of the Land Use Amendment and Zone Change. Criteria 2: 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 southwestern portion of the site will remain single family with an R-1 zone. However, the northern and eastern lots show a higher density of residential, mainly duplexes and four—piexes. B-1 is being proposed adjacent to &Y" Street SW. The location of the access streets along 60th Street S.W. has not been altered from the approved GDP. The depth and curve of the internal loop has been altered slightly to allow for deeper lots on the southwestern boundary of the amended GDP. The proposed street pattern will be compatible with adjacent property. Amended General DeveloE. ent Report South Pointe 6'" Pace 6 Criteria 3: The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. This development is proposing a residential density of approximately 2.0 to 8.50 units per acre. The density and style of housing is consistent with the Land Use and Housing Plans, Criteria 4: 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. A future interchange from Highway 63 and 60t" Street S. W. is in the 20-year plan from the combined offices of the State, County, and City. The geometrics of the interchange have not yet determined. However, the plan accommodates adequate right-of-way for the proposed project is shown on the plan and in the development agreement with the City. Richard Freese, from the City Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal GDP Amendment and is of the opinion that the area designated as R.O.W. will be adequate to construct the interchange. Criteria 5: 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. Utilities are now available and can by extended to serve the area. Amended General Develo, :nt Report South Pointe 6'" Pace 7 Criteria 6: 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. Drainage, erosion problems and construction of this property can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices. Prior plans have provided for on -site storm water detention. Criteria 7: The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. This site will be platted and the lot, block and street pattern will be consistent with the subdivision design principles of Article 64.100 of the Code. 6.0 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF GDP — LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL — APPENDIX B SECTION E An application for a General Development Plan shall be accompanied by the following information: A. Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of the applicant, may create potential problems in the street, drainage, public utilities or building design an construction, and how these problems will be investigated further or engineered to overcome the limitations; There are no outstanding topographic or soil issues that could create potential problems for this site. Amended General OeveI6F. snt Report South Pointe 61" Pane 6 B. Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs; There are no excessive costs projected for the completion of the storm drainage construction. C. Identification of potential off -site drainage problems; The on -site grading and construction will accommodate drainage and prevent drainage that crosses the site. A small detention pond will be constructed in the northeast corner of the property; if it's determined that it is needed, to eliminate any off -site drainage problems. D. Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration; Utilities are available to serve the site. E. Identification of possible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of the applicant; Standard erosion control practices will be in place during construction. F. A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. There will be two phases in this amended GDP. Phase I will occur along the eastern border of the property and complete the eastern most access street to 6d" Street. This phase will include the three single-family lots within the Airport Zone D, the townhouses along Highway 63, and 4 duplexes. Phase If will compete the second half of the project including the single family lots, duplexes, the four-plexes on the north-eastern corner, and commercial sites remaining. McGhee Betts, Inc. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors _ TM Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507.289-3919 Fax 507-289-7333 1604 Riverview Lane, Northfield, MN 55057 507-645-0964 Fax 507-645-2842 April 20, 2000 Ms. Mitzi Baker Consolidated Planning & Zoning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: South Pointe Sixth GDP Amendment Dear Ms. Baker: In accordance with Section 60.605 (B) of the amended zoning ordinance, we are submitting, on behalf of the applicant, Randy Renyolds with All Pointe Development, a copy of the minutes of the Neighborhood Informational Meeting which was held on April 13, 2000, 6:30 P.M. at the Country Inn Suites, in Rochester, Minnesota. An attendance list is also enclosed for your reference. If you have any questions, please contact me. McGhie & Betts, Inc / 4 Kristi L. Clarke, Planner KLC/ Attachment pc: Mr. Randy Renyolds K. M, McGhie, PE, LS. 1904-1975 William E. Tointon, CET, President James E. Swanson, LS, Vice President David L, Morrill, PE, Vice President Douglas N. Betts, PE, LS, Vice President Andrew J. Masterpole. ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E, Gown, PE, LS Mark E. Severtson, LS Daniel J. Zemke, PE Gregory R. Bond, PE A- a..—, n,...,.rn �nlni Fmnlrnmr Minutes of the Neighborhood Informational Meeting For South Pointe 6`s GDP Amendment In Rochester, Minnesota On April 13, 2000, 6:30 P.M. at Country Inn Suites In Attendance: See attached attendance list Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the proposed project to the neighborhood and to answer questions and document concerns or issues that may need further investigation or consideration. General Discussion: Ms. Kristi Clarke of McGhie & Betts, Inc. and Randy Renyolds of All Pointe Development, made a brief presentation on the proposed project. The presenters explained the history of the property; the outline of the proposed amendment to the approved GDP; the reasons for intensifying the land uses; short term and long term mitigation for the increasing traffic along 60'h Street; the type of housing; density; and phasing of the project. The development process was also reviewed and it was noted that the developer has made an application to amend the general development plan. Specific plats and plans will be completed on a phase by phase basis and submitted to the City for review and approval. Attendees were informed that public hearings are scheduled at the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 26, 2000, and at the Common Council on May 15, 2000. It was noted that the City Planning and Zoning Staff and City Clerk would be responsible to notify the affected neighbors of these meetings in accordance with the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance. Ouestions/Comments by Attendees: Question 1: Why is the commercial not at the intersection of TH63 and 60"' Street instead of the four-plexes? Answer 1: Due to the City's required controlled accesses directly off of 601h Street and the undetermined Right Of Way in the comer it would be very difficult to site a commercial project in that location. Question 2: Why increase the density of housing and the commercial? Answer 2: As the new interchange of TH63 and 601h Street SW is completed, the current low volume collector will experience much more traffic. The surrounding neighbors along 60th Street have called concerning this project and explained how difficult and sometimes even dangerous it is to go out near the road to get their mail. It does not make sense to develop single family residential along such a busy corridor. Question 3: Will the existing single-family housing experience lower values in their homes due to the close proximity to this development? Answer 3: The developer and builder are expecting to build and sell the twin homes, four-plexes, and town homes for approximately $100,000 to $150,000 for each building. (Examples of completed homes by the builder were shown during the meeting) Landscape plans and buffered setbacks along TH 63 and 60`h Street will give the project a great deal of road side appeal. Owner associations will uniformly maintain the landscaping and buffer areas surrounding the properties. Question 4: Is the noise from the highway really an issue? Answer 4: The issue is a combination of the noise and the visual impact of the highway and the interchange. The town homes and the four-plexes have 35'-45' setbacks to allow for buffering from both the noise and visual impacts. The town homes and four- plexes allow the developer to provide a cohesive landscaping treatment that will enhance the site not just eliminate a potential drawback to the property. Question 5: Why town homes and not single family? Answer 5: The town home layout provides a more condensed building pad and allows more flexibility from the City and developer to provide buffers and other amenities that would not be afforded to single family lots. Town homes are compatible with single family homes in a real estate development. Question 6: When is the TH63/60`h Street interchange going to be constructed? N Answer 6: We have contacted several MnDot and City officials. There is no hard deadline for either the design or the timing for the construction of the interchange. Contact Charlie Reiter for more details in the future. Question 7: What would stop the multi -family housing from converting to rental properties? Answer 7: The developer could place restricted covenants on the property limiting the time a person could rent any given unit in the project. Question 8: What is the estimated selling price for the units proposed? Answer 8: See Answer 3. Question 9: How many buildings were on the approved GDP verses the proposed GDP? Answer 9: 47 buildings plus 3+ acres along the TH63160`h Street interchange that was not laid out on the adopted GDP, 106 total units in the proposed GDP. Question 10: Are you retaining ownership of the commercial property? Answer 10: Randy Renyolds, I don't know yet Question 11: Are the three lots in the Airport Zone D still in the same place as the adopted GDP? Answer 11: Yes. Question 12: Has there been a sound study along TH63? Answer 12: Yes, and some other people attending gave them a copy of the study during the meeting. Question 13: Will there be an association and or restricted covenants to take care of the non -single family units in the project? Answer 13: Yes. Question 14: When is the Common Council Meeting? Answer 14: May 15, 2000 Question 15: Will there be a landscape plan for the buffer areas? Answer 15: Yes, the landscape plan will be provided to the Planning Staff to review during the approval process. Question 16: Can you provide us with property value assessments on similar projects you have completed in the city? Answer 16: Randy Renyolds answered. He gave several addresses of his builders' past projects in the city to drive by and review. He then said that after viewing his other projects if they still had concerns to give him a call. Comments: It seems like you are changing the rules halfway through the game. We bought our house with the intention that the remainder of the property would develop in single-family lots. I would like to see the four-plexes in the corner and the town homes along TH63 changed to twin homes. We want the remainder of South Pointe to develop like the adopted GDP with single- family lots only. Dennis Hansen was in attendance at the meeting and was asked by some of the people attending to give his thoughts on the proposal. In general, he liked the projects goals to provide a buffer of higher residential uses along TH63 and 60w Street and that the property values of the existing single family homes would not suffer losses due to this project. The combination of housing in the project would allow increased landscaping and buffer and would add to the projects road appeal. He did voice some reservation towards the potential of commercial in the site. But said that it needed further review and should not be ruled out. He further speculated that the general concensus of the neighbors in the meeting didn't mind the combination of housing types in the project and that the landscapingfbuffering would add to the site. The only reservations were towards the commercial land use. ATTENDANCE ROLL NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SOUTH POINTE VI PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT APRIL 13, 2000 AT 6:30 P.M. AT COUNTRY INN SUITES ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA NAME ADDRESS PHONE NOJFAX NO. 1. 2 "5goo-Il tH'qmn. cad'--301 5. �/�yeX� �f4wiJ v , T)a 6. D a 7. mPr� LA,R 1-357 c5;'rlhPointe Dz skJ a8a-Z10 a. �30 2 pe&P, CJ 9. At- ; Lil 4dwal 6330 04Ka -,?(F68 10. ,Er%n �end�rso�-, �� �rod,� Gamic 5z9—/o�i.3 G c 19z- `4 1 12. �ifiNis �9,vlou /T oG�f IrEG' � �ov.�ci< 0?9/- ,TDIJ 14 15. 16.T�� �vi{z . iB3i�P �efdh(� aria a5a -ggqto ATTENDANCE ROLL NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SOUTH POINTE VI PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT APRIL 13, 2000 AT 6:30 P.M. AT COUNTRY INN SUITES ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA NAME ADDRESS PHONE NOJFAX NO. 17, 6Q ZE2-33vr 18 ;Lt2-32�� 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26, 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. �jpCNESTER. jjj .....................14FS Ri rFf).A CGL'S9 . ROC HESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION! 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING e m o HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING coDE 5071285-821313 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 To: Rochester City Council From: Mitzi A. Baker Date: 05/15/00 Re: ITEM E-1 Amendment to GDP #115 All Pointe Development Staff recommends changing condition #6 to read as follows: 6) Controlled access will be required along the entire frontage of T.H. 63 and 6d" St SW, with the exception of the road access on 60'h St. SW. In addition, controlled access will be required along the internal roadways as shown on the GDP. Additional controlled access is required along the west side of the new road access proposed onto 60th Street SW, and extending west along the north ROW line of the east/west road a distance of 25 feet from the ROW �� • Page 1 ^M==^ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER SOUTH POINTE P.L..UW w-m. lwo= ,a ty tf Nswrp Airport Zone U I.imii GENERAL DEVELOPMENT McGhie Be11s,, PLAN - AMENDMENT ��oseD J�MCNDM�Nr' i 1�0 SOUTH POINTE Dnio,pi �,v113�}e 1I N,aunq �1"1 ZONE) \� 6 3 PLAN e o & _!'%A AMENDMENT �EV1SE0 MAI 1, Z.000 Airport Zone ➢ Limit FROM: Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division City GDP # 115 (May 1 ` Revision) Revised Southpointe With the proposed change from commercial to performance residential use along the 601" St frontage, projected traffic generation from the area included in the GDP will be reduced from an estimated 1500-1600 ADT to approximately 1150 ADT, a drop of approximately 25%. This volume is consistent in terms of internal traffic with volumes that are considered acceptable on major local streets (1500-2000 ADT) and is not expected to adversely affect the operation the reconstructed 60'h St roadway. 60" St is designated as a collector street on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan and as such can accommodate up to 4000 to 6000 vehicles per day. Current ADT is estimated at 800 vehicles per day. Projected volume on the corridor once lands on the north side of street are developed would be approximately 4400 vehicles per day. The Long Range Thoroughfare Plan designates 601" St as the location of a future interchange on TH 63, We anticipate that this project is 12-15 years in the future. There may be a need for interim improvements at this intersection prior to construction of the interchange to provide for safe operation at the intersection. Similar to other intersections along major interregional corridors that have experienced growth on side street approaches, improvements such as acceleration and deceleration lanes and improved lighting may need to be considered. Typically at the volumes currently found on the mainline ( estimated at 20,000 ADT), problems accessing the highway will begin to become more noticeable, particularly in the peak hours, when side street volumes exceed 2,000 vehicles per day. The proposed development included in the GDP will probably add enough traffic at full buildout to warrant monitoring of the intersection for operating difficulties, and it would be staffs expectation that once development proceeded on the north side of 60"" St that interim improvements would need to be considered. Staff will appraise MNDOT of our future concerns at this intersection at this time. MnDOT normally typically respond to the need for intersection improvements when warrants are met, similar to the approach the city uses when considering the installation of stop signs or traffic signals on major streets. In the absence of actual traffic, MnDOT will likely not consider improvements, but it is important as an aid to future programming of dollars to make them aware of potential concerns as early as possible. City Fin Plat 99-30 No comment South ointe 5 ROCHESTER Minnesota 5110100 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4 h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 REVISED 519100 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the revised application for an Amendment to General Development Plan #115.on the South Pointe (All Pointe Development) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Note: Comments in addition to our prior comments dated 4/14/00, see below, are shown in bold while comments that no longer apply have been shown with strikethFaugh. 1. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. 2. Dedication of 60 feet of ROW for 60th St SW is required for this development, as shown on the revised GDP plan. 3. Private roadways that serve more than four (4) dwelling units must either line up with, or maintain a separation of at least 200 feet from the intersection of any public/private road (LDM Sections 64.140, 64.220, & 64.240). 4. The Owner/Developer shall execute a Development Agreement, prior to Final Plat submittal. Said Agreement will outline the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 5. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed consistent with City Standards, along both sides of all public roadways within the development, including 60th St SW.. 6. Execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required to address the Owner/Developer's responsibility with regard to required pedestrian facilities along the entire frontage of -T-.k1-63 --Rd 60`h St SW, at the time of platting. C:\TEMP\GDP115 Revised 5.3-00.doc r ROCHESTER Minnesota 5110100 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur 133 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 7. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure to serve this development. 8. Controlled access is required along the entire frontage of T.H. 63 and 601h St SW, with the exception of the road access on 601h. In addition, controlled access is required along the internal roadways as shown on the GDP plan. Additional controlled access is required along the west side of the new road access proposed onto 60th St SW, and extending west along the north ROW line of the east/west road across from Lot 7. 9. Left turn lanes are required at the Owner/Developer's expense, on 60`h St SW at the entrance road, or the Owner/Developer shall make a Substandard Street Capacity Charge Contribution, as may be outlined in the Development Agreement. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): Charges & fees for this proposed development include area charges for the availability of Trunk Sanitary Sewer Main & Water Tower Availability, as well as utility connection charges and the required proportional contribution for future reconstruction of substandard roadways. These charges/fees will be addressed in detail in the Development Agreement. 4 Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 6 Street Name Signs 1 Stop Sign 1 Trucks Prohibited Sign C:ITEMMGDP115 Revised 5-3-00.doc ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1.1 park &, recrealfon DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM May 4, 2000 Suzanne LaPalm Planning Denny Stotz Amendment to South Pointe GDP The Park Department has no comments or concerns regarding the amendment. Parkland dedication for the revised area will be met via either reduction in previously established credits (Or cash in lieu of land. No additional parkland is required. N:\PARK\DSTOT2\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2B97\SOUTH POINTS DDP.DOC 1 3s McGhee Betts, inc. Consulting Engineers \ ,,;' T� Land Surveyors Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 Fax 507-289-7333 1604 Riverview Lane, Northfield, MN 55057 507-645-0964 Fax 507-645-2842 May 1, 2000 Ms. Mitzi Baker Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55901 RE: Amended General Development Plan South Pointe Sixth Dear Ms Baker: We are submitting the Amended General Development Plan to comply with the seven staff comments reviewed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting held on April 26, 2000. In addition, we have made a revision in the northeast comer of the project based on eliminating the commercial land use area. We have eliminated the northeastern most public street and combined the two parcels that were divided by this access road. The general layout pattern and number of buildingstunits have remained the same. The initial submitted plan showed a commercial site on approximately 3.30 acres. This proposal along with the mixed family housing had approximately 1,500 to 1,600 trips per day. Therefore, by eliminating this use we are now estimating to have 1060 total trips generated per day on South Pointe Sixth. Combining the two parcels also allows us to provide a more cohesive and continuous landscaping buffer and treatment for the site. This change represents only a minor adjustment for the project's lot and street configuration. If you have any questions, please contact us. Respectfully yours, McGHIE & BETTS, INC. ,4-eo�t- dlv�-ale_ ". Kristi L. Clarke, Planner K. M. McGnie, PE, LS, 1904-1975 William E. Union, GET, President James E. Swanson, LS, Vice President David L Morrill, PE, Vice President Douglas N, Betts, PE, LS, Vice Presidenl Andrew J. Mesterpole, ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E. Gowin, PE, LS Mark E. Severtson, LS Daniel J. Zemke, PE Gregory R. Band, PE An Eouai ODoortunity EnlDlover 4-26-200 10:41AM FROM p 2 April 25, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Rochester c/o Ms. Mitzi Baker Senior Planner Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive S.E. Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Re: Land Use Plan Amendment 00-04 and Zoning District Amendment 00-06 (South Pointe) Dear Planning Commission Members and Ms. Baker: We have been authorized by our client, Mr. Randy Reynolds, who is the applicant and ower of the proposed South Pointe Sixth development to withdraw the request for the land use plan amendment for commercial and zone change to the B-1 district on the 3.3 acre parcel as requested in the above referenced applications. In lieu of the land use plan amendement and zone change for commercial purposes, Mr. Reynolds is requesting that the zoning be changed on this portion of the project to R-2, which is consistent with the zone change request on the 19.84 acres. Mr. Reynolds requests that the Commission consider the R-2 zone change on the 3.3 acre tract at the April 26, 2000, Commission meeting rather then the previous request for the commercial. Mr. Reynolds has carefully considered the action to withdraw the original request and substitute the zone change to R-2 which is classified as a low density land use. Again we respectfully request that the Commission take action on the modified zone change request at the scheduled hearing. The zone change modification would not affect utility extensions, roadway sizes or locations, improvements to 60th Street SW, or the layout of the General Development Plan.. Respectfully yours, McGhie & Betts, Inc. KriAti Clarke, Planner pc: Mr. Randy Reynolds Mr. Dennis Hanson. council member TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: April 21, 2000 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/2B7-2275 RE: Amendment to General Development Plan #115 known as South Pointe Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner; Randy Reynolds 3552 West River Parkway Rochester, MN 55901 Designers: McGhie and Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Size and Location: The property is located along the west side of TH. 63 south of 60th ST. SW . The entire South Pointe GDP property is located on 132 acres. This amendment includes 37 acres in the northeast corner of the property. Zoning All of the undeveloped property in this plan is presently zoned R-1, Mixed Single Family Residential. The southerly one -quarter of a mile of this development (the whole GDP) as well as the entirety of the first subdivision lie within the boundaries of the Rochester Airport Zoning Map. There are three (3) lots within this GDP amendment, at the far southeast corner, that are within the Airport Zoning District "D" which requires a minimum lot size of % acre. Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment requests are being considered concurrent with this GDP amendment. Proposed Use: This amendment proposes to add townhome, duplex and four-plex style housing, where single family lots were previously shown (19.84 acres). The applicant is also proposing to add a commercial component to �� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER J ✓✓ Page 2 r General Development Plan April 21, 2000 the GDP on approximately 3.30 acres just south of 60'" St. SW. The roadways shown on this amendment are very similar to those approved in 1997. Land Use Plan: This property is identified for "Low Density Residential" use on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map, The Plan also indicates the portion of the property within the Airport Protection Boundary (see previous references to Airport Zoning). A petition to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and Zoning Map are being considered concurrent with this GDP amendment. Thoroughfare I The Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan and the Transportation Plan: adopted TH. 63 Corridor Study findings designate the roadways bordering this site as thoroughfares. TH. 63, adjacent on the east, is designated as a "Freeway' with a future interchange shown at the 60th Street (CR. 148) intersection. Presently, TH. 63 functions as an "Expressway' with at -grade intersections. This property has no direct at -grade access to TH. 63. 60th Street SW(CR. 1481to the north is a designated "Collector" street. 11 Ave. SW, to the west, is also designated as a "Collector', however neither 11 th Ave. SW or 60th St. SW are constructed to "Collector" status. 60th St. is in the process of being upgraded, however. Avigational Easements: All Pointe Development and its successors and assigns have granted avigational easements to the City of Rochester over this property which prevents legal actions against the City as a result of aircraft flights, noise vibration,.or interference from the operation of the Rochester Municipal Airport. This easement does not place any other restrictions on the development of the property. This easement was established several years ago at a time when the City was considering rezoning the property in this plan to a non-residential district. Streets: The General Development Plan proposes a number of new streets to serve the property under consideration. The existing public street in place off 11th Ave. SW called "South Pointe Drive SW" will be continued through the property as the "major local" street in the development eventually connecting with 60th St. SW at the high point of the road and at a second location approximately 400 feet easterly. The easterly access to 60" St. SW is labeled as a "Collector" road on the proposed GDP. Pedestrian I Bike In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is Circulation: required along both sides of all of the new streets in Page 3 1 3 / General Development Plan April 21, 2000 the development. A Pedestrian/bicycle trail will also be required along 60 ° St. SW. Drainage: This part of the property has rolling terrain with a hill that crests in the east central part of the site. The hill crests at approximately 1245 then slopes to the east and west. There are no stormwater ponds shown within this portion of the GDP. The narrative for this Amendment states that a "small detention pond will be constructed in the northeast corner of the property; it it's determined that it is needed, to eliminate any off - site drainage problems". Wetlands 1 Floodplain: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. SCS soil maps indicate their are no hydric soil types on this property and the National Wetland Indicator Map were reviewed for this area and no potential wetlands are indicated on this site. Public Utilities: Sewer and water utilities are already in place and available to this GDP as developed previously to serve the developed portions of the South Pointe Second development. Parkland Dedication: Consistent with the approved overall GDP for South Pointe, a neighborhood park of approximately 6 acres has been dedicated and the applicant has graded 3 acres of the parkland for active use. Adjacent drainage facilities, not counted as meeting dedication requirements, will in combination create a tract of 10.64 acres of open space. At the time of platting the property included in this GDP amendment, cash dedication may be required to account for the increased density of development. Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works (see attached) 2. Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division (see attached) 3. RPU Water Division (see attached) Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (6 letters) 2. Location Map 3. Proposed General Development Plan Map 4. 1994 Versions of the South Pointe GDP (3 maps) 5. Future Land Use Map 6. Zoning Map Development Plan History: On May 25, 1994, the Planning Commission considered a General Development Plan for this property as submitted for approval by All Pointe Development. The Commission recommended that the City Council take no action on the plan at the time so they could await the completion of the then pending TH. 63 Corridor Study. Three potential versions of the plan were submitted for 140 Page 4 General Development Plan April 21, 2000 consideration with the applicant's preferred version contemplating taking access directly to TH. 63 at an existing opening controlled by the applicant. The Commission recommended that the Council permit the owner to proceed with the first phase of the development without final approval of the GDP. The Council agreed and the later that year the first phase known as South Pointe Second Subdivision was approved. The T.H. 63 Corridor Study was completed reaffirming that TH. 63 should be a planned "freeway'. The City then completed negotiations with the owner for acquiring access control along TH. 63. In 1997, the GDP for this property was considered and approved (see enclosed Plan approved in 1997). The applicant is now proposing to amend the approved plan to accommodate duplex, four-plex and townhome style development in the northeast corner of the property as well as a small area for "commercial" uses. Criteria & Findings: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. The residential land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the "low density residential' land use designation for the property. A zoning district amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP amendment. A Land Use Plan Amendment is being considered concurrent with the GDP to designate 3.30 acres of land for "commercial" uses and a zone change is being considered to allow for B-1 zoning of this portion of the property. if the Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendments are approved, the land uses within this GDP will be consistent with those documents. 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 lot sizes, density, access and circulation for the residential portion of this development appear compatible with existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. Access control will be required along 60," St. SW. Turn lanes will need to be provided on 6e St. SW. The commercial component of this development could be compatible with existing and/or permissible future use of the property. The applicant is requesting a "commercial" land use designation and B-1 (Restricted Commercial) zoning for 3.30 acres of this property. Within the B-1 district, a wide variety of uses are allowed. With the appropriate site design and buffering, uses in the B-1 district should be compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. Including residential developments in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts will promote a mixture of housing styles consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan and will also be consistent with the Housing Plan standards for the physical and social environments of residential neighborhoods. 11 Page 5 1 General Development Plan April 21, 2000 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 6dh St. SW, which is being upgraded. This GDP also has access to 11'h Ave. SW A minimum of 60' of right-of-way will need to be dedicated for 60lh St. SW. The GDP identifies right-of-way that will be needed to accommodate a future interchange at the intersection of 60'h St. SW and T.N. 63. Planning and Public Works staff have met with the developer to review the traffic implications of the proposed Land Use /Zone Change request and the amendment to the GDP. The proposal does meet the thresholds for when a traffic study should be completed but the joint recommendation of the agencies is to waive the requirement for a study based on the joint analysis of issues that was completed with applicants consultant. Based on these discussions the following improvements are recommended: 1. The cross section of 60th St. should be modified to provide a two- way center left turn lane between the two proposed access points, with turn lanes also provided immediately to the east and west of this section of roadway in the area where the roadway tapers back to its standard cross section. The marking for the bays would be done with striping and not raised medians. 2. Right of way for a future interchange at 60h St. and TH 63 will be reserved. 3. The Long Range Bicycle Plan indicates 6dh St. as the location of a future neighborhood connector trail. Planning for this trail should be coordinated as to location, grades, etc. with the Public Works Department. The purpose of the trail will be to provide local access to the main Willow Creek Trail which is planned to extend from Willow Creek Middle School to the reservoir west of the 11'h Ave. / 6d° St. intersection. Timing for the construction of the trail will need to be coordinated with Public Works. 4. An inquiry will be forwarded to MNDOT regarding the need for an inside acceleration lane on northbound TH 63 for local eastbound traffic on 60h St. that is making a left turn onto northbound TH 63. With the presence of a median refuge area and the relatively low level of traffic this improvement will likely not be warranted at this time, but discussions regarding planning for future installation of this as an interim measure before an interchange is built should occur, since the area along 6dh St. will become more fully developed in the future and more local traffic will be accessing the highway. 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 FVA Page 6 General Development Plan April 21, 2000 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. Please see above response to Criteria "D". Improvements to 6dh St. are included in the CIP. 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. Services are, or will be available to serve this property. 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. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. The applicant will need to enter into a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with regard to required pedestrian facilities along the entire frontages of T.N. 63 and 60`h St. SIN. Stormwater management will need to be reviewed further for this property. There are no on -site detention ponds shown within this portion of the GDP. The narrative report submitted with the GDP states that a "small detention pond will be constructed in the northeast corner of the property; it it's determined that it is needed, to eliminate any off -site drainage problems". This potential location is, however, not identified on the GDP. 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. Stormwater management will need to be reviewed further for this property. There are no on -site detention ponds shown within this portion of the GDP. The narrative report submitted with the GDP states that a "small detention pond will be constructed in the northeast corner of the property; it it's determined that it is needed, to eliminate any off -site drainage problems". Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The lot, block and street layout and density appear to be generally consistent with the land use and zoning classifications for this property. Roadway intersections may need to be modified, however, to be consistent with Sections 64.140, Page 7 General Development Plan April 21, 2000 I�3 64.220, and 64.240 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Access control will be required along 60'h St. SW, T.N. 63 and along a. portion of the roadways which will access 60'h St. SW. Based upon the above mentioned criteria, the staff would recommend the following conditions or modifications to the proposed General Development Plan : 1. If Land Use Plan Amendment #00-04 is not approved, the area labeled "Proposed Commercial Land Use, Proposed B-1 Zone" on the GDP will need to be re -labeled. 2. Dedication of 60 feel of Right-of-way is required for this development. 3. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. 4. The townhome%ondo style development has not been reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations (density, setbacks, parking). Private roadways that serve more than four (4) dwelling units must either line up with, or maintain a separation of at least 200 feet from the intersections of any public/private road (LDM64.140, 64.220, 64.240). 5. Prior to recording any final plats for this development, execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required to address the Owner/Developer's responsibility with regard to the required pedestrian facilities along the entire frontages of T.H. 63, and 60f8 St. SW 6. Controlled access will be required along the entire frontage of T.N. 63 and 60'h St. SW, with the exception of the road accesses on 60'h St. In addition, controlled access will be required along the internal roadways as shown on the GDP. 7. Turn lanes shall be constructed on 60'h St. SW at the entrance roads, at the Owner/Developers expense, or the Owner/Developer shall make a Substandard Street Capacity Charge Contribution. rP-u,.�,_ wt pledge, we dcliver April 13, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Amendment to General Development Plan #115 by All Pointe Development to be known as South Pointe. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. Preliminary water system computer modeling indicates adequate flows for fire protection will be available with the development of this property for the proposed use. 2. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, Qa,4Au � Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention McGhie & Betts, Inca Randy Reynolds Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 City Planning and Zoning Commission 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 City Planning and Zoning Commission: �s a. MAR 2 5 20nn April 20, 2000 It has been brought to our attention that Randy Reynolds has proposed changes for the final phases of the South Pointe Subdivision in southwest Rochester. This proposal converts land designated for single-family dwellings to commercial and low -density residential. We oppose allowing Mr. Reynolds to build anything but single-family homes on the remaining South Pointe property. Unfortunately, many of our neighbors either own businesses related to or are employed by companies within the building industry and are unable to speak up in opposition of the aforementioned proposal for obvious reasons. Our family moved into our new home during the fall of 1999. Two of the primary reasons we chose the South Pointe area was the market value of the existing homes and the fact that the entire subdivision was to remain single-family homes. We assume that Mr. Reynolds and his associates had not begun the process of "reworking" the plans for the remaining land last summer. During the informal neighborhood meeting that was held earlier this month, Mr. Reynolds mentioned that Rochester was in dire need of housing ranging in price from $120,000 to $150,000. Therefore, he would like to address this need by building condos and 4-plexes where single-family dwellings are currently approved. According to a McGhie and Betts representative, the change would mean an additional 51 units for this property. Naturally, both Mr. Reynolds and the city would benefit from additional profits and tax monies. Concerns for future Rochester residents are being addressed, however, someone needs to protect those of us whom own homes in this area and do not wish to see our property values decrease. This past week, a friend of ours contacted Elcor Realty and spoke with Bob Ashton about the lots available for purchase during the next phase of the South Pointe development. She was informed of the lot prices, ranging from the mid-30s to mid-40s. Mr. Ashton continued to explain their assumption that these homes would most likely be in the ballpark of $250,000. They also discussed the additional access points off of 60th Street. However, no mention was made of the proposed commercial site and/or low - density housing. Therefore, we fear that our friend, like other potential residents, could build their $250,000 dream -home and never have been told about the possibility of a gas station or multi -family dwellings (both of which decrease property value) being constructed in their backyards. We feel that the updated final -phase proposal presented by Randy Reynolds should be denied and the property should remain zoned for single-family dwellings. It seems insufficient, however, to oppose an idea without offering an alternative should the city give Mr. Reynolds the opportunity to rezone a portion of the remaining property. We believe the proposed plan could be altered to an acceptable level by eliminating the commercial area and in its place construct dual -family housing. Also, the lots assigned to 4-plexes should contain only duplexes. We appreciate Mr. Reynolds' concerns and his attempt to improve the limited -housing situation we are facing with a growing city. We also feel that an additional suggestion would be to calculate the profits Mr. Reynolds would receive by selling the original 31 lots at say $40,000. Then determine what the profits would be from the sale of the proposed 81 units. The difference should be given back to the community in the form of support for youth organizations or constructing a safety barrier around the water retention area that is located within the South Pointe park and Highway 63. We understand that the city has concerns regarding the lack of "gas/convenience store" businesses between Stewartville and Rochester. Why not build this type of business on land that is already zoned for commercial use? For example, Elcor Realty has 21 acres of "prime" commercial real estate (as their sign states) available on the south side of 48th Street SW. In closing, if you have not been in the South Pointe area recently, we invite you to drive out and take a look at the fine neighborhood that has evolved. We take pride in our homes and value the friendships we have established with neighbors. Please understand that we wish not to "make waves," but rather to protect our investments and to live in a community where our children can play safely. Sincerely, John and Tammy Fritz 6316 Pebble Lane SW Rochester, MN 55902 507-252-9990 Members of City and Zoning Commission Government Center 151 4 h Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 Ladies and Gentlemen: April 21, 2000 We would like to go on record as being adamantly opposed to the rezoning of any part of the South Pointe development from R-2 [Low Density Residential] to B-I [Restricted Commercial], as referred to in Land Use Amendment #00-04 and Zoning District Amendment petition #00-06. Not only would it be an enormous detriment to the current residences property values and an eyesore in this rural/suburban neighborhood, but would be far better placed with the current industrial/commercial development along the airport road. The proposed location on 60'h Street SW would be both unwanted and unnecessary. Sincerely, Richard and Dawn Merkley 6010 11'h Ave. SW Rochester, MN 55902 RPR.24.EOOO 12:23PM PHI1tNi RCCT SVCS IMIHYu M0.249 P.eI4 April 16, 2000 TO; City Planning & Zoning Commission RE: Proposal for rezoning South Pointo Development We, the resident$ of South Point@, STRONGLY OPPOSE rezoning action intended for commercial development. We also STRONGLY OPPOSE development of any multi- family dwellings, including townhouses, condos or apartment units. We ask the Commission to honor our request and would be happy to site specific examples of our concerns upon request. Thank You. NAME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 ADDRESS 35L1 5, -R)llI L jar, �5W G�3Sy S, �OinZe 7�r..SC� Q/0 Sclz.rr..t�cZ(,r�,� SC�1 9� 0 Ala 070 / ca / 3qu� 7e(`.390Cy/ 2a(o �8s -'/G q g laic to 5c-Pnoc-10 LA_ SW 6 3 5 7 Ja-t,—tj2 SAJ ria a Avi RPR.24.2000 12:23HM YHI1tNF RCCT SVCS MHYV I NO.249 P.3/4 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 i 23 24 25 26 27 2s 29 30 31 R, 32 33 34 35 S{a 9 -1,2,9 6' .14f7- P'/P/1. (ry0.3 fie.151 �81'37 LKP 2-W-Mk, 4363 7 � v1 SLR �y i _1 7-Gq,4 5t. 5 w„ ads - 64-3 ) �Lgl S, in-kk SIJ Ate -SqM bm` s Vllv�.J U1 `W >$-?-4'.-?, Page 17 City Planning and Zoning Conm fission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 Amendment to General Development Plan (GDP) #115, known as South Pointe. by All Pointe Development. The amendment proposes to modify the type of development townhome style development and R-2 (Low Density Residential) and B-1 (Restricted St. SW, west of T.H. 63. Ms. Baker presented the staff reports, dated April 20, 2000 to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. She explained that the Land Use Plan Amendment request to the Commercial designation has been withdrawn by the applicant and they have withdrawn the request for that same acreage to be rezoned to the B-1 zoning district. They have amended the zone change to request the entire portion originally petitioned for the rezoning to the B-1 district now be considered for rezoning to the R-2 district. Ms. Baker referred to the criteria and noted that the findings relating to the B-1 zoning district can be stricken. She stated that staff recommends approval of the zone change to the R-2 district, on 23.14 acres, subject to suggested findings, and recommends approval of the GDP subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Burke asked how the request for R-2 in this case is different than Mr. Kottschade's application. Ms. Baker pointed out this application is showing townhomes, duplexes, and four-plexes, and explained that the R-1x and R-2 districts are different in the ability to have duplexes and four- plexes. She noted the density would be closer to 9 units per acre, which would more consistent with the R-2 district. Representing the applicant, Kristy Clark, McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. She stated they held a neighborhood meeting on April 13, 2000, and a summary of the meeting is in the packet. She presented a brief summary of history of this project. Ms. Clark displayed a map of this area and stated they meet all the criteria for the zone change. She explained the GDP is showing 26 lots for single family residential development, and an area of duplex and four-plex units, which she pointed out on the map. Ms. Clark noted the densities will range from 3 units per acre up to around 8 units per acre, and she pointed out they are showing 20 units in the area that was originally shown for commercial. She explained that the right-of-way area that will be needed for the future interchange is still being configured. Ms. Clark commented that the properties will be owner -occupied and associations will maintain the property. She explained the detention pond that will handle all the detention issues for the site. She expressed agreement with the conditions, except for condition number 1, which can be deleted because the LUPA was withdrawn, and condition number 5, which they cannot comply entirely with because the pedestrian facility along Hwy. 63 has to be dealt with through the State because it is a State highway, and due to the grade change, it wouldn't be safe to develop. She stated they need to clarify this with Mr. Nigbur. ell — Page 18 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 Mr. Nigbur agreed the grade is restrictive. He stated they proposed the pedestrian facility agreement for the obligation along Hwy. 63. This agreement would acknowledge the developer's obligation for providing that facility, and it allows flexibility on whether it is through payment of a charge, or by actual construction by the developer. Ms. Clark noted that Mr. Tointon is also here and available to answer questions. Mr. Suk asked Ms. Clark if she is agreeable to condition after Mr. Nigbur's explanation. Mr. Tointon addressed the Commission and noted there are several reasons that they are not able to agree with the portion of condition number 5 that relates to the path along the Hwy. 63 right-of-way. He noted this path isn't a part of the adopted ROCOG bicycle plan, and eventually, this bikeway will have to cross State property, with them being asked by the City entity to cross the property, which is an untenable situation. He suggested working this out through the development agreement. Discussion ensued regarding the wording of condition number 5. Mr. Nigbur explained that the City requires pedestrian facilities whether they are shown on the bike path plan or not. The bike path plan is a designated path for bike paths. He noted that in this case they are looking at a 10' path for pedestrian facilities. Mr. Tointon raised a good point with his concern on how State lands would be crossed, so they would prefer to build this in conjunction with a larger facility plan along the entire corridor. That would require a contribution by the developer to the City and it becomes the City's obligation to follow through, which would be outlined in the pedestrian facilities agreement. Mr. Tointon commented that this would be about money to construct a future pedestrian facility with or without some commitment by Mn/DOT- Ms. Petersson asked if it doesn't get built in a certain amount of time, would they get their money back. Mr. Nigbur explained the money would go into a designated pool specifically for this purpose. Mr. Tointon noted it has happened that facilities haven't been built and they are waiting to receive their money back from the City. He asked Mr. Reynolds if he thinks it would be sufficient to discuss the execution of the pedestrian facilities agreement before the final plat. The applicant, Randy Reynolds, addressed the Commission. He stated it sounds awfully open- ended to agree to pay for something in the undetermined future. He pointed out the area on the map, and referred to the problems with the grade. Mr. Nigbur explained the current pedestrian facility charge is $9 per running foot and the cost for putting these facilities in is about $10tfoot from a City standpoint, so by paying this there is a lesser charge than if the developer put this in himself. Public Works feels that it would be foolish to put the facility in at this point in time, but it should be part of a larger project. He specified on the map the area that this condition addresses. Discussion of the area of the path occurred. l Page19 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April26, 2000 Mr. Nigbur stated that currently they are in negotiations for a development agreement which is talking about the interchange ROW area, a portion will be dedicated based on proportionality of the development and a portion will be purchased based on additional needs at that location. The pedestrian facilities agreement says you acknowledge that the facility has to be put there and the current charge is $9ifoot, but whether the final agreement has that figure in it is negotiated. Mr. Tointon noted that condition number 5 says "entire frontages" and the word "entire" could mean the entire development. He thinks this should be part of the development agreement process. Mr. Nigbur stated the developer has the obligation for some frontage along Highway 63 for a pedestrian facility and if that length increases because of acquisitions and angles being turned, then it becomes an obligation for the City or whoever the acquiring authority is in that situation. Possib reword the condition to delete the words "entire frontages," and say, "...along TH 63 and 60 Street SW, abutting the current GDP request." Ms. Baker asked if the wording would be "Require pedestrian facilities along the frontages of TH 63 and 60a' Street SW adjacent to this current GDP request." She suggested that the first portion of condition number 1 be reworded to say, "The area labeled "Proposed Commercial Land Use, Proposed B-1 Zone" on the GDP will need to be relabeled to be consistent with the zoning district amendment." Richard Markley, 6010 11ei Avenue SW, addressed the Commission. He referred to paragraph of Mr. Reiter's letter that addresses the long range bicycle plan along 60"' Street. He went on record that if this bicycle plan goes through, he requests that it be incorporated within the existing 50' right-of-way on the south side of 60s' Street SW, which he feels is more than adequate. Mr. Nigbur stated he is not sure what the status is of the bike plan and the construction of that facility; it is quite a few years off. The right-of-way dedication at the time of development was 50', which was thought to be adequate at that time, but it may or may not be adequate to include the bike path; that won't be for sure until plans are developed. Mr. Markley asked who would be responsible for developing those plans. Mr. Nigbur explained that providing these longer, recreational trails is a joint planning tool of the City and County. In many situations Mr. Reiter, along with Mr. Rossman of Public Works, work together in that plan development. Don Arduser, 6303 Pebble Lane SW, addressed the Commission. He stated he doesn't agree with the multi -family housing proposed. He asked the Commission if they received mail on this issue. Mr. Suk noted that the Commission received a petition and some letters. Mr. Arduser referred to the sound issue and he asked if sound tests have been done for the highway. Page 20 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 Ms. Petersson stated that Mn/DOT would be the ones who have done the highway sound testing. 163 Mr. Arduser feels the housing values would drop because of multi -family housing, pointing out that many people bought their homes in that location because they were told it would be single family housing. He stated they would not have bought their home if they knew it would be developed with multi -family housing. With no others wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze noted that there are some market analyses that study the issue of housing values and mixed densities. She stated the Commission could request some of the data from studies done throughout the County. From the knowledge she has, she feels the property values will not drop. Ms. Petersson stated she lives in an area with townhomes a block away and property values have not gone down. The townhome residents have been very good neighbors and she has seen very good things with that sort of development. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-06, by Randy Reynolds, as modified, and with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Findings: 1. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "low density residential" type of uses. Rezoning 23.14 acres of land to R-2 (Low Density Residential) would be consistent with the "low density residential" land use designation. In addition, it would help further the policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, which encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. including both R-f and R-2 zoning within developments will encourage mixed housing styles and densities. This will also help to further goals and policies found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan. 2. Uses within the R-2 Zoning District would be appropriate on the property and compatible with adjacent properties. 3. Uses within the R-2 district would be appropriate on the subject property and would be compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The amendment to R- 2 would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and would not be considered spot zoning. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Amendment to General Development Plan #115, known as South Pointe, with staff -suggested findings and conditions as modified with condition number 1 ellrninated, and condition number 5 reworded to state, "Require pedestrian facilities along the frontages of TH 63 and 60th Street SW adjacent to this current GDP request." Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. M Page 21 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 C;ondltions: 1. The area labeled "Proposed Commercial Land Use, Proposed B-1 Zone" on the GDP will need to be relabeled to be consistent with the zoning district amendment #00-06. 2. Dedication of 60 feet of right-of-way is required for this development. 3. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. 4. The townhome%ondo style development has not been reviewed for compliance with the applicable regulations (density, setbacks, parking). Private roadways that serve more than four (4) dwelling units must either line up with, or maintain a separation of at least 200 feet from the intersections of any public/private road (LDM 64.140, 64.220, 64.240). 5. Prior to recording any final plats for this development, execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required to address the Owner/Developer's responsibility with regard to the required pedestrian facilities along the entire frontages of T.H. 63, and 60`h St. SW. 6. Require pedestrian facilities along the frontages of TH 63 and 60`h Street SW adjacent to this current GDP request. 7. Turn lanes shall be constructed on 60`h St. SW at the entrance roads, at the Owner/Developers expense, or the Owner/Developer shall make a Substandard Street Capacitv Charge Contribution. OTHER BUSINESS: Initiate Text Amendment: Ms. Baker explained that the COT Design Modifications, amending sec She explained how this relates to the Ms. Schultze moved to initiate a text 61.300 of the Rochester Zoning Ordii for Design Modifications to Chapter General Development Plan Applicatli concurrent with other types of apply"i carried 6-0. ff Staff resignation, Ms. Baker announced that E Administration, and the next is reclifsted to initiate a text amendment to address M . 42ff and 61.300. the Northern Heights Village development. dment to amend Sections 60.420 (9) and nd Land Development Manual (LDM) to allow of t LDM to be considered concurrent with a and t ilow Design Modifications to be reviewed ions. Werven seconded the motion, which LaPalm is resigning�ake a position with County will be her last meeti with the Planning Commission. ADJOURN: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5-15-00 IENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING el —U ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #00-06 by Randy Reynolds to change the PREPARED BY: zoning designation on 23.14 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) Mitzi A. Baker, district to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district and. The property is located Senior Planner south of 60th St. SW, west of T.H. 63. May 10, 2000 NOTE: The applicant originally petitioned to rezone 3.16 acres of the 23.14 acres to the B-1 district and also petitioned to amend the Land Use Plan to designate 3.16 acres for commercial uses. On April 25, 2000 the applicant formally withdrew the petition to amend the Land Use Plan and amended the re -zoning petition to request R-2 (Low Density Residential) for the entire 23.14. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2000 to consider this zone change. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Motion by Schultze, seconded by Burke to recommend approval Zoning District Amendment #00-06, with the finding suggested by Staff. Motion carried 6.0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated April 20, 2000. Council Action Needed: 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 to amend the Zoning Districts. Distribution: �" CpG �t'p y�tnv'c'41� GDn Tr+y1 t�c[vaev.� �,w �`�t•w+'y e 1. City Clerk 0 _! 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 4. Planning Department File 5. McGhie & Betts, Inc. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday May 15, 2000, in the Council/Board cUUNCIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: `jSC/ Zas�,vG� i I R-I mac, 9-1 R_t o r5a na' I L ZONN - - fWANGE EX-uIBI1 l5'� R-1 TO SOUTH POINTE ONE -1 TO R-2 1 1 'SOUTH POINTE �- THREE 'SOUTH POINTE I FOUR ' 1 I - i 1 , SOUTV'i POINTE . , 1 1 1 �f,{7Li Z �---Q McGhie O 110 ,W/f� Betts,ilk. "Rm RANDY REYNOLDS q F;rP W P VFP PA=TWSV ec.a ie,:u AIM rnuM P. 2 tt �, April 25, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Rochester c/o Ms. Mitzi Baker Senior Planner Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive S.E. Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Re: Land Use Plan Amendment 00-04 and Zoning District Amendment 00-06 (South Pointe) Dear Planning Commission Members and Ms. Baker: We have been authorized by our client, Mr. Randy Reynolds, who is the applicant and ower of the proposed South Pointe Sixth development to withdraw the request for the land use plan amendment for commercial and zone change to the B-1 district on the 3.3 acre parcel as requested in the above referenced applications. In lieu of the land use plan amendement and zone change for commercial purposes, Mr. Reynolds is requesting that the zoning be changed on this portion of the project to R-2, which is consistent with the zone change request on the 19.84 acres. Mr. Reynolds requests that the Commission consider the R-2 zone change on the 3.3 acre tract at the Apri126, 2000, Commission meeting rather then the previous request for the commercial. Mr. Reynolds has carefully considered the action to withdraw the original request and substitute the zone change to R-2 which is classified as a low density land use. Again we respectfully request that the Commission take action on the modified zone change request at the scheduled hearing. The zone change modification would not affect utility extensions, roadway sizes or locations, improvements to 60th Street SW, or the layout of the General Development Plan, Respectfully yours, McGhie & Betts, �1191 KriAti Clarke, Planner pc: Mr. Randy Reynolds Mr. Dennis Hanson. council member =: TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission jr.�r . tlri+s� -gash �htouA��nrra�l+f• ME, 'I . 1iooi� P��str,.sut�! ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285.8213 wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: April 20, 2000 FAX 507/287.2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-06 by Randy Reynolds to change the zoning designation on 19.84 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district and to change 3.30 acres of land from the R-1 district to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district. The property is located south of 60`h St. SW, west of T.H. 63. Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Randy Reynolds 3552 West River Parkway Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: McGhie 8 Betts, Inc. 1648 3 0 Ave. SE Rochester. MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 60'h St. SW. west of T.H. 63. Requested Action: The applicant requests 19.84 acres be rezoned from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district and 3.30 acres be rezoned from R-1 to B-1 (Restricted Commercial). Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped. Proposed Land Use: An amendment to the approved GDP for this property is being considered concurrent with this zone change request. Adjacent Land Use and The property is zoned surrounded by property that is Zoning: zoned R-1 and is designated as Low Density Residential on the Land Use Plan. Transportation Access: An amendment to a General Development Plan and �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 April 20, 2000 Zoning District amendment are being considered concurrent with this Land Use Plan Amendment request. The GDP proposes public roadway access to 60" St. SW, on both sides of this parcel. This property would likely have access from the new public roadways proposed on the west, east and south sides of the parcel. Controlled access will be required along 60'h St. SW, when it is platted. Wetlands: There do not appear to be hydric soils on this property. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department —Transportation Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Zoning Map 3. Referral Comments 4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Analysis for Zoning District Amendment: Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 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. Proposed R-2: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "low density residential" types of uses. Rezoning 19.84 acres of land to R-2 (Low Density Residential) would be consistent with the "low density residential" land use designation. In addition, it would help further the policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, which encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. Including both R-f and R-2 zoning within the development will encourage mixed housing styles and densities. This will also help to further goals and policies found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan. Page 3 April 20, 2000 i �O Proposed B-1: Re -zoning 3.30 acres of this property to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district is only consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan if the Commission and Council support a Land Use Amendment (#00-04) request to designate this property as appropriate for "commercial" uses on the Land Use Plan. 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 Proposed R-2. Uses within the R-2 Zoning District would be appropriate on the property and compatible with adjacent properties. Proposed B-1: if the Land Use Plan Amendment for this property is approved, uses within the B-1 district should be considered appropriate on the subject property. Although there may be arguments in support of commercial use of this property, the broad variety of commercial uses allowed within a B-1 district may not be appropriate for this site, based on its location, access and projected area population (see staff report for Land Use Plan Amendment to "commercial' for this property). b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Proposed R-2: Uses within the R-2 district would be appropriate on the subject property and would be compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The amendment to R-2 would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and would not be considered spot zoning. Proposed B-1: Rezoning 3.30 acre to the B-1 zoning district should not be considered spot zoning. The parcel, although smaller than a typical neighborhood shopping center (4-8 acres), should be large enough to accommodate reasonable use of the property. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above -mentioned findings, it would appear that the zoning district amendment to rezone 19.84 acres of land from R-1 to R-2 would meet the above criteria. Action on the request to rezone 3.30 acres from the R-1 district to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district will depend on the decision made on Land Use Plan Amendment request #00-04. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f ` 3 DATE 5-15-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING G - 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-35 to be known as Orchard Hills South First PREPARED BY: Brent Svenby, May 10, 2000 Planning Department Review. See attached Staff Report dated May 10, 2000. Council Action Needed. 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording Statement 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 7. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated May 10, 2000, Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department —GIS 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6. Yaggy Colby Associates 0 er-el COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: TO: FROM DATE: RE: Rochester Common Council Brent Svenby, Planner May 10, 2000 Ihl�lD VA�O ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904.4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287.2275 Final Plat #99-35 to be known as Orchard Hills South First. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Plat Data: Michael Younge Development, Inc. 1765 Greenview Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 1. Park and Recreation Department 2. Planning Department - Wetland LGU 3. RPU Operations Division 4. RPU Water Division 5. Rochester Public works Department 1. Referral Comments (2 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Approved GDP 4. Copy of Final Plat Location of Property: This plat is located in the northwest corner of the Cook/Thompson GDP. It is east of and adjacent to FoxCroft East 2 and FoxCroft North 4th Subdivisions and includes the extension of Clover Place SW. Zoning: This property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City of Rochester. Proposed Development: This development consists of 13.21 acres to be subdivided into 28 lots for single family residential development. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Orchard Hills South First May 10, 2000 Streets: The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right -of- - way for three local, residential streets. The first would be an extension Clover Place SW that eventually changes to Braeburn Lane SW. According to the GDP Braeburn Lane SW will end as a cul-de- sac. The roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way, with a 32' wide roadway surface. The second roadway is labeled "90 Street SW" that will connect to the future extension of 23 0 Avenue SW in future plats. This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way with a 28' wide roadway surface. The third roadway labeled "Whitney Lane SW" intersects with 91h Street SW and extends southerly therefrom. Whitney Lane SW is a cul-de-sac roadway designed with a 56' right-of-way and 32' wide roadway surface. The proposed streets meet the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all roadways. Drainage: The owner agrees to voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. Public Utilities: Public utilities will be extended from Clover Place SW to serve this area. Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this development would be 34 parking spaces. The proposed roadways should be adequate to accommodate the required spillover spaces. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plat. The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirements for this plat be satisfied by cash in lieu of land in the amount of $17,000. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Cook/Thompson General Development Plan, which was most recently amended in 1999. The roadway alignments and lots are generally consistent with the approved GDP. NO Page Orchard Hills South First May 10, 2000 Preliminary Plat. A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on October 4, 1999 with the following condition: 1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. Drainage and erosion control measures must be carefully reviewed to minimize impacts on the downstream areas. A drainage plan, as required by Section 61.551, should be submitted. Street drainage off the end of McIntosh Lane SW down - slope from the proposed storm sewer must be addressed. Preliminary profiles of the storm sewers outside of the street right-of-way should be included. 2. The roadway name "Clover Place SW" should be shown on the plat as continuing in front of Lot 1, Block 1 to the intersection of "Cortland Street SW" where the name can then change to "McIntosh Lane SW." 3. The applicant shall provide a temporary turn -around at the east end of "Cortland Street S W" and easement documents for the turn -around must be executed with the City Public Works Department. 4. Parkland dedication requirements for this plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu of land in the amount of $28,000, as specified in the attached memo from the Rochester Park & Recreation Department, dated August 13, 1999. 5. Fire hydrants in the cul-de-sacs should be located on the necks (beginnings) of the cul-de-sacs as recommended by the Fire Department. One side of the streets in this plat will be restricted in the future with "No Parking" to ensure a 20-foot wide (actually 24 feet) travel lane for fire access. 6. The plat should be revised to include and dedicate the entire right-of-way of 2P Avenue S W as it abuts the plat at this time. The alignment of 23`d Avenue SW should be adjusted to the west to be parallel to the west line of the east 148 feet of Lot 36 of Niilcrest Subdivision. This will ensure that the extension of 23`d Avenue SW northerly of this plat can be made without disrupting the existing home and buildings at 802 23 d Avenue SW. 7. The plat should provide for the construction of the proposed "Cortland Street SW" to the east line of Lot 28, Block 1, to complete the lot's street frontage construction. 8. A development agreement must be executed prior to approval of a final plat of this property that addresses the development of the property, including the construction of 23`d Avenue SW. Page 4 Orchard Hills South First May 10, 2000 9. Final action on this preliminary plat (land subdivision permit) should not be made until the adoption of the revisions to the Cook/Thompson General Development Plan presently under revision. 10. The plat be revised to reflect the layout shown in the GDP. 11. All of the proposed roadway names within the plat must be changed to roadway names not currently used or proposed on final plats. Planning Staff and Recommendation: This final plat only plats a portion of the preliminary plat, so some of the conditions placed on the preliminary plat don't effect this plat but will need to be resolved when the next plat is submitted. The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and finds that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of cash ($17,000) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat Payment of parkland dedication fee is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents. 2. A easement for a temporary turn -around at the eastern end of 9`h Street SW and the northern end ofBraeburn Lane SWmust be executed with the City Public Works Department prior to the recording of the renal plat. 3. The 30' utility easement along lots 10, 11, 17 and 18, Block 2 be labeled as a "30' Drainage and Utility Easement". 5pc!!Fa� c !ae9� NVId 1N3WdOl3A34 lYN3N30 V1O53NNIW'N3153H30Y ,UN3dO2d NOSdWOHIINOOD �, ; kii \ � rLm w � = ,�,] It rig \7 �\§ If / !® ff� ° . 3 • • CA . c ( -- - -- --: » - —\ / 'REET` W. .-�. ©s)\\�^ a m � z »z q �. ���z • \ � � � ^� •� � ` � � � / _LAB mmmmRw; go i ME; U/. ± ass ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Orchard Hills South1't Final Plat # 99-35 Acreage of plat .................. Number of dwelling units..... Dwelling unit density .......................................... Density factor ................................................... Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 13.21 acres 28 units 2.12 units/acre .0244 .68 acres $25,000/acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $17,000 (.68 a X $25,000/a) Payment to be made prior to recording of final plat. Applicant: Michael Younge Development 1765 Greenview Drive SW \\CITY CF ROCRESTER\CITYHALL\PARR\➢STCTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\ORCHARD RILLS 1ST.➢OC I'la-- ROCHESTER Minnesota 5110100 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740 2122 Campus Drive SE 507-287-7800 Rochester, MN 55904 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat 9935 on the Orchard Hills South First Subdivision property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A development Agreement has been executed for this Subdivision. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: Charges & fees attributable to this development has been addressed in the executed Development Agreement, with the exception of: -* Traffic Signs, as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. C:%TEMP\FP9935.doc i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 19S DATE: 05-15-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 'UBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING e - q ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase 1, Final Plat #99-52 to be known as Century Hills PREPARED BY: Fourth Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide 10.85 acres of land into 27 lots for Theresa Fogarty, single family residential development. The plat dedicates the right-of-way for four public Planner. roadways. The property is located east of Century Hills Drive NE, south of Viola Road. May 11, 2000 Planning Department Review. 1. See attached staff report dated May 11, 2000. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording Statement 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 7. 2 Mylar Copies of Plat 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, May 15, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. Yaggy Colby Associates DUNCIL ACTION: Moson by: second by: m: l BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB ON y x UNPUTrM C m j N 2W5a'3l' 330.00 m er I I am 3 __�' a a i 2 .UNawx 4 •roe. 4 NN.Enr �ji i �i �� mS s ,. aa.• I 1 1 11 f• ,a I 5 N t, fit; m p a Y,Y Z j1r iF 2 N i1 g le aamr -0 I� 6 ium I �,• a a a I Ln 1� c� z F ,r71 ILI �1c IT :_� 14 UI aet� C art.•jj___ _ L m R 4I: it 4 y IT W J v �aYL Y, J b O Y Z inY . 4 CDnRY HIU.S _ LANE N.E. � N �.i �i p L J 0734'24' "ZM UNPLATTEO I' f !li • a j i! {i6i lil .. io<00 VOu �U !w COUNTY OF TO: Rochester Common Council Misr■►�►Av■.>il,� :iii 101111 i ��wi��1� F. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: May 11, 2000 FAX 507/287.2275 RE: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #99-52 to be known as Century Hills Fourth Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide 10.85 acres of land into 27 lots for single family residential development. The plat dedicates the right-of-way for four public roadways. The property is located east of Century Hills Drive NE, south of Viola Road. Planning DeAartment Review: Applicants/Owners: Payne Company 1700 Northwood Drive NE Rochester, MN 55906 Surveyors / Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester. MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department, Addressing Staff 2. Rochester Public Works 3. Rochester Park & Recreation Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 ) 2. Copy of Final Plat 3. Copy of Century Hills General Development Plan Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located east of Century Hills Drive NE and south of Viola Road NE. 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 10.87 acres of land to be subdivided into 27 lots for single family dwellings. ,..�.� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 lq Final Plat 99-52 Century Hills 41" Subdivision May 11, 2000 Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for four roadways. The first would be the easterly extension of 20'h Street NE to the eastern border of this development. This roadway is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The roadway east of the intersection has deviated from the configuration of a street. The applicant will need to change the roadway designation east of intersection to Century Valley Road NE. The second is a cul-de-sac, currently named Deer Ridge Lane NE intersecting 20' Street NE to the north. This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way and a 55' cul-de-sac right-cf- way radius. This roadway name is not permitted as there is already a plat in Cascade Township called Deer Ridge Subdivision. The applicant will need to change the roadway designation to Century Valley Lane NE. The third roadway is a northerly extension of Deer Ridge Lane NE. This roadway is designed with a 60' right-of-way. This roadway name is not permitted, it needs a distinct name. The applicant will need to change the roadway designation to Hightop Place NE. Wetlands: The fourth roadway is a cul-de-sac, currently named Century Hills Lane NE, extending easterly from Century Hills Drive NE. This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way and a 55' cul-de-sac right-of-way radius. Public Utilities: A Development Agreement, which includes a secondary Pedestrian Facilities: access to serve the development of Century Hills, has been executed for this development. Drainage: 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. Final utility plans have been approved. A Development Agreement, which includes pedestrian facilities, has been executed for this development. The topography is rolling with 1240' in the NW and SE direction and 1230' in the SW and NE direction. A Storm Water Management Agreement has been executed for this development. 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 32 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. el Page Final Plat 99-52 Century Hills 4'^ Subdivision May 11, 2000 Parkland Dedication: The owner of this proposed plat will be required to dedicate .66 acres of vacant land for dedication of parkland. The City Park & Recreation recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at the future site of the neighborhood park located west of School District 535 elementary school. The location of the future elementary school is shown on the Century Hills General Development Plan. A Development Agreement, which includes the Parkland Dedication, has been executed for this development. General Development Plan: This property is included in the Revised Century Hills General Development Plan (GDP), dated April, 2000. Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat for this area was approved by the Council on February 23, 2000. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to eight conditions, as listed below: 1. The roadway name(s) be identified on the plat, including the extension of Century Hills Drive NE to CR 22. 2. Stormwater management must be approved for this site. Stormwater management will need to address the impacts on the downstream residents. Any new ponds serving less than 50 developable acres are considered private and will need ownership and maintenance agreements. 3. Easements for off -site utilities will be required prior to final plat approval. 4. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, and contributions for public infrastructure. 5. Dedicate parkland, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated January 4, 2000. 6. Because the cul-de-sac radius is insufficient to allow an 8' parking lane, the cul-de-sac will have to be designated and signed, "No Parking Fire Lane". 7. An additional hydrant shall be provided along Deer Ridge Lane near Lot 12 or Lot 2, per the requirements of the Fire Department. 8. The development agreement for this plat shall include requirements and agreements for the developer to construct the secondary access to Circle Drive concurrent with the development of Century Hills Fourth Subdivision. 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, subject to the following condition or modifications: 1. Easements for off -site utilities will be required prior to recording of the final plat. 2. Dedicate parkland shall be met by land dedication, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated May 4, 2000. 3. The plat shall be revised changing the three roadways as recommended by the Planning Department in the attached memo, dated May 11, 2000. Page 4 Final Plat 99-52 Century Hills 4t1 Subdivision May 11, 2000 REMINDER TO APPLICANT. • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the utilities. • This Ptat 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. • Because the cul-de-sac radius is insufficient to allow an X parking lane, the cul-de-sac will have to be signed, "No Parking Fire Lane". l OO Page 5 Final Plat 99-52 Century Hills 4tb Subdivision May 11, 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 6 Final Plat 99-52 Century Hills 4'" Subdivision May 11, 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 r ROCHESTER Minnesota 5110100 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740 2122 Campus Drive SE 507-287-7800 Rochester, MN 55904 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat 9952 on Century Hills Fourth Subdivision (Payne Company) -property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this development. 2. A Stormwater Management Agreement has been executed for this development. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: •:• Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J9218) @ $1403.17 per acre (no interest based on prepaid contribution). ❖ High Level Water Tower in Northern Heights Area (J9288) @ $1021.46 per acre plus interest @ 7.5% from May 4, 1998 •:• Fees for Traffic Signs including (1) Street Name Sign, and (1; Street Ends Sign. C:ITEMMFP9952.doc 193 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT rochester 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Century Hills 4" Final Plat # 99-52 Number of dwelling units ............................................. 27 units Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .66 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. NA The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at future site of neighborhood park located west of School District 535 elementary school site. Applicant: Payne Company 1700 NE Northwood Drive \\CITY_OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\NE 2996\CENTURY HILLS 9TH.DOC PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: 5-11-00 TO: Suzanne LaPalm FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: Mike Wiebusch, Ed Kuisle RE: CENTURY HILLS FOURTH SUBDIVISION A review of the final plat has turned up the following address related issues: 1. Deer Ridge Lane NE running south from 20 Street NE on plat needs different name as there is a plat in Cascade Township called Deer Ridge Subdivision. This could cause confusion tc Emergency Responders and could also cause a delay in response time. RECOMMENDATION: Change roadway designation to CENTURY VALLEY LANE NE. 2. Deer Ridge Lane NE running north from 20 Street NE on plat needs distinct name. Also this roadway has deviated from the configuration of a lane so it needs a different roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change roadway designation to HIGHTOP PLACE NE. 3. 20 Street NE, east of intersection with cul-de-sac has deviated from the configuration of a street so it needs a different roadway designation. RECOMMENDATION: Change roadway designation east of intersection to CENTURY VALLEY ROAD NE. NOTE: The three changes made above have been discussed and agreed to with Doug Rude of Yaggy Colby and Associates who has had ongoing conversations with the developer. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 5tG I IUN: PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-30 to be known as South Pointe Fifth May 10, 2000 Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated May 10, 2000. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. MEETING DATE 5-15_ 00 ITEM NO. F, - 5- tEPARED BY: Brent Svenby, EnC10SUreS: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording Statement 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 7. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated May 10, 2000. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department —GIS 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, a51 4th Street SE. 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: Second by: in 9 ^'Sw Final Plat #99-30 South Pointe 5th 700' Notification Distance Ward 1 (Hanson) 05/02/00 OARVE ST .04 boo�iN s's� h h >' W a Q sG vi f N I I teq MI-MK E tx S,°] !if i r •_`�I;ii�iq; �� z3 �� � � �� TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: May 10, 2000 RE: Final Plat #99-30 to be known as South Pointe Fifth. Planninq Department Review: Applicant/Owner: All Pointe Development 3552 West River Parkway NW Rochester, MN 55901 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIVADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOuswG/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Park and Recreation Department 2. Planning Department - Wetland LGU 3. Planning Department — Transportation 4. Planning Department —Addressing 5. RPU Operations Division 6. RPU Water Division 7. Rochester Public Works Department B. Olmsted County SWCD 9. Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (41-etters) 2. Location Map 3. Approved GDP 4. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: This plat is located, east of 111" Ave. SW, south of 60" St. SW and west of T.H. 63 S. Zoning: This property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City of Rochester. Proposed Development: This development consists of 8.54 acres to be �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER f qD Page 2 1 South Pointe Fifth May 10, 2000 subdivided into 20 lots for single family residential development. Streets: The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right-of- way for two (2) roads. The first would be an extension South Pointe Lane SW and will end as a cul-de-sac. This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way with a 32' wide roadway surface. The second roadway is labeled "Stonebrooke Lane SW" and ends as a cul-de-sac. This roadway is designed with a 50' right-of-way and 28' surface. The proposed streets meet the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all roadways. Drainage: The owner has voluntarily agreed to participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. There is a detention pond to south of this plat, which will be used to provide stormwater management of this subdivision. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. There do not appear to be hydric soils on the property according to the Soils Survey. Public Utilities: Public utilities will be extended from South Pointe Lane SW to serve this area. Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this development would be 24 parking spaces. The proposed roadways should be adequate to accommodate the required spillover spaces. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plat. The dedication of Outlot A, South Pointe 3`d satisfied the parkland dedication requirements of this plat. The applicant has dedication credits of 2.55 acres for future use. General Development Plan: This property is included within the South Pointe General Development Plan, which was most recently amended in 1997. The roadway alignments and lots are generally consistent with the approved GDP. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the GDP to the land west of this plat. i Page 3 South Pointe Fifth May 10, 2000 Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on September 8, 1999 with the following condition: 1. Any new ponds serving less than 50 developable acres are considered private and will need ownership and maintenance agreements. Planning Staff and Recommendation: The applicant has signed a development agreement for this plat and it's scheduled to go before the Council on May 15, 200. The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and finds that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The staff would recommend approval, if the development agreement is executed with the City on May 15, 2000. q1 park & recreation DATE: May 4, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM RE: Preliminary Plat #99-30 "'REVISED" South Pointe 5" Acreage of plat..... ..................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density ................................................... Density factor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 8.54 acres 20 units 2.34 unitstacre .0244 .49 acres The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Dedication for this plat has been met via the previous dedication and grading of Oulot A South Pointe V . No additional dedication is required of this plat. With this dedication the applicant has met parkland dedication requirements for South Pointe 2nd, 3", 4" and 5" and has established dedication credits of 2.55 acres for future use. Applicant: All Pointe Development 3552 West River Parkway NW \\CITY_OF_ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARR\DSTOTZ\2cO0\DEDICATION\SW 2897\SOUTH POINTE 5TH.DOC Iq 3 ROCHESTER Minnesota 5110100 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street BE 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 9930 on the South Pointe 5th property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this subdivision. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): Charges & fees for this proposed development include area charges for the availability of Trunk Sanitary Sewer Main & Water Tower Availability, as well as utility connection charges and the required proportional contribution for future reconstruction of substandard roadways. These charges/fees will be addressed in detail in the Development Agreement. ❖ Stormwater Management Fee @ $1983.50 per acre •:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: C:%TEMP\FP9930.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 5-15-00 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S _(o ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type 111, Phase 11 Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-17 by PREPARED BY: Freedom Development & Consulting LLC'to be known as Valley Side Estates. The Plat Brent Svenby, proposes to subdivide approximately 40.15 acres of land into 73 single family lots, 50 lots Planner for patio homes, and 4 outlots. The plat also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for two existing roadways and 6 new public roadways. The property is located along the eastside of 40th Avenue SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. May 11, 2000 NOTE: The applicant did submit a revised plat addressing some of the issues staff raised but some revisions are still needed. Staff would recommend the additional following conditions: S. A 10' utility easement is needed along both sides of all public and private roadways. Additional 20' utility easement is needed to loop the water main in the northern cul-de-sacs for the required water main looping aind a 20' utility easement is needed to provide connections to the property to the north. 10. The Planning Department — Addressing staff must approve all of the proposed roadway names within the plat and the directionaladded. The roadways not named on the plat also need to be named. City Planninq and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat for the property. The proposed subdivision consists of 40 acres to be subdivided into 73 single family lots, 50 lots for patio homes, and 4 outlots. ave Bell, Freedom Development and Consulting, addressed the Commission. He reviewed the plat and the staff lFecommended conditions. He stated that they are in agreement with the staff recommended conditions. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions: 1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The City has identified a regional pond on this property. The developer should participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan by sizing and constructing the detention pond (Outlet D) to as a regional facility 2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, prior to the submittal of the final plat, that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The development agreement must also outline the developer's responsibility for construction and maintenance of the 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 is available 3. A temporary turnaround and easement must be provided at the east end of roadway on the north side of tot 1, Block 2. Said easement and any easements required for off -site utilities must be executed with the City prior to the recording of final plat documents. 4. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of Outlet C will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. The developer also agrees that no grading or removal of topsoil or trees from the designated park site will occur unless approved by the Park Department. 5. Prior to the development, an access permit must be obtained from the Olmsted County Public Works Department. The sight distance needs to be adequate for operating speeds on 40ei Ave. SE and a right turn Lane installed. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: l Page 2 RCA t(t f �/_ May 11, 2000 6. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 40`8 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. 7. The developer must grade the west side of the property to match the right of way grade prepared by the City for 40`h Avenue SE. 8. Prior to final plat submittal, the developer shall investigate the property for wetlands and obtain any necessary permits related to wetlands from the LGU. Motion by Petersson to approve Preliminary Plat #00-17 to be known as Valley Side Estates, with the staff suggested conditions; seconded by Burke. The motion carried 6-0. 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. 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. Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated April 21, 2000 2. Minutes of the April 26, 2000 CPZC Meeting 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 Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 7. Brown Herkenhcff, Inc. a. 70 p.m. on Monday, May 15, 2000, in the Council/Board A LLI I rl JORSE�TN\ La 0 O U Preliminary Plat #00-17 W N YDALELNSE \ o Valley Side EstatesMyKt I I I I Pfi 900' Notification Distance I m Ward 4 (Stoubaugh) 03/31 /00 CO RD 144 SE T �G� 4i�Ealal �r ciA aEL �\ RUII(R9 KAa M F� CC r� , 1 ]l / F M a � i 9 z � � ( � } � | � ! �-- I�! O _| . �|. ; I m `m ��|�,��,��| b § § , !19 q TO: FROM DATE: RE: Im City Planning and Zoning Commission Brent Svenby, Planner April 21, 2000 �Aea►Ot.�nt�r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 wELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 Type III, Phase Il, Land Subdivision Permit #00-17 (Preliminary Plat) to be known as Valley Side Estates. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Freedom Development & Consulting PO Box 1643 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Surveyors/Engineers: Brown Herkenhoff,Inc. 118 12" Avenue North St. Cloud, MN 56303 Referral Comments: RPU Operations Division RPU Water Division Rochester Park & Recreation Planning Dept. -Transportation Staff Planning Dept. —Wetlands Planning Dept. — Addressing Mn/DOT Olmsted County SWCD US West Rochester Fire Department Rochester Public Works Olmsted County Public Works Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2, Referral Comments (9 letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of GDP 5. Copy of Preliminary Plat Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of 40" Avenue SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Valley Side Estates April 21, 2000 Zoning: Subdivision. The property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 40.15 acres of land into 73 single family lots, 50 lots for patio homes, and 4 outlots. The property is located along the eastside of 401h Avenue SE, east of Eastwood Hills Second Subdivision. Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for two existing roadways and 6 new public roadways. The right-of- way being dedicated for the new public roadways vary in width from 60 feet to 50 feet. All of the roadways are proposed to have a 32 foot roadway surface. The main loop roadway through the property will serve as a major local roadway, this requires that the roadway width be 36 feet instead of 32 feet. The two most northern cul-de-sacs will need to be verified that they meet the City's design and turning radius requirements. This will need to be verified prior to the City Council action on this preliminary plat. The cul- de-sacs are also designed within islands; the ownership and maintenance of these islands will need to be addressed. The plat also proposes to dedicate 60 feet of right-of- way for 401h Avenue SW and 33 feet for the township roadway along the southern property line. The proposed roadway names have the word valley in them. The addressing staff and emergency responders have indicated that there already is an abundance of "valley' roadways within the City of Rochester and Olmsted County. Changes to the roadway names will be necessary as outlined in the referral response from the Planning Department Addressing Staff. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the new streets in the subdivision and a 10 foot bituminous trail is required along the east side of 40'h Avenue SE. Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,114' in the northeast corner of the plat to 1,070' in the southeast corner of the plat. The property drains in a southerly direction. Outlot D is shown as a detention pond and the City has indicated a regional stormwater pond on this property. The owner will need to participate in the City's Regional Management Plan by sizing and constructing the detention pond as a regional facility. A drainage report and grading plan will have to be Page 3 _ Valley Side Estates April 21, 2000 approved prior to final plat approval. The City Public Works Department has indicated that the developer -- will need to grade the west side of the property to match the right of way grade prepared by the City for 40" Avenue SE. 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; however, due the location the property should examine the site for wetlands. Public Utilities: Water and sewer services will need to be extended to serve this development. The private lift station will need to be installed and maintained by the developer to serve the development. The Rochester Public Utilities — Water Division recommends the installation of pressure reducing devices in areas below an approximate finished site elevation of 1080'. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. The spillover parking for the single family lots require 88 spaces. The roadway widths appear adequate to provide spillover parking. Parking requirements for the townhomes and patio homes will be reviewed when a site plan for a Performance Residential Development is submitted for approval. Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via dedication of land. Outlot C will qualify for 4.12 acres of dedication requirements and should be deeded to the City once the site is accessed via street or the Park Department is ready to begin development of the park. General Development Plan: Staff Review: The Council approved a General Development Plan for this property on April 3, 2000. This plat is not totally consistent with the approved GDP. The GDP that was approved had one cul-de-sac and a loop roadway in the northern portion of the property. A condition was placed on the GDP that the intersection of the loop roadway be designed to align with roadway in the southern portion of the property or be moved to meet the spacing requirements. The two cul-de-sacs shown meet the spacing requirements. Prior to the submittal of a final plat on the area shown for patio homes and townhomes, a Performance Residential Development (PRD) plan will need to be approved for the site. Also the common interest community lands (townhome and patio homes lots) final plat can not be included on the same final plat for the conventional lots. Care and maintenance agreements will also need to be recorded for the common areas. Page 4 Valley Side Estates April 21, 2000 The developer will need to install a private lift station to serve this development. The developer - will be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the lift station, as well as, the abandonment and removal of it when connection to a public gravity trunk main sewer is available. The main loop roadway through the property will serve as a "major local" roadway, this requires that the roadway width be 36 feet instead of 32 feet. The two most northern cul-de-sacs will need to be verified that they meet the City's design and turning radius requirements. This should be verified prior to the City Council action on this preliminary plat. Ownership and maintenance of the islands within the cul-de-sacs need to be addressed. Recommendation Staff would recommend that the applicant makes the following revisions and submits a revised plat prior to it being scheduled for a public hearing before the Council. The applicant will need to be in agreement with this. The plat shall be revised to include the following and the following issues addressed: • A 10' utility easement be provided along the east side of the right of way being dedicated for 401h Avenue. There also needs to be at a minimum a 20 feet utility 8 drainage easement over the storm sewer serving the western most cul-de-sac. • The easement between Lots 10 & 11, 14 & 15, 23 & 24, 39 & 40, 42 & 43, 44 & 45, Block 1 needs to be a minimum of 20 feet. • Easements are also needed to loop the watermains in the northern cul-de-sacs and to provide sanitary sewer and water service connections to the adjacent properties. • All of the roadway names be changed to names not having the word "valley" and adding a directional to the name. The roadway names are also needed for those roadways that are not named. The Planning Department Addressing Staff will need to be contacted regarding roadway names. • Controlled access shall be provided along the entire length of 40'h Avenue SE, with the exception of the street access as shown an the plat. Controlled access shall also be provided on "Valley Side Drive" 150 back from the intersection with the right of way of 40'h Avenue SE and along the west lot line of Lot 20, Block 2. • The two most northern cul-de-sacs will need to be verified that they meet the City design and turning radius requirements. • The roadway width on the loop roadway must be designed with a 36 feet wide driving surface. Ownership and maintenance of the islands within the cul-de-sacs be addressed. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61.225 (effective 5115/99). If the applicant agrees to make the revisions and address the issues, as stated above, staff recommends that the following modifications or conditions be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to insure that the above -mentioned criteria are met: 1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The City has identified a regional pony on this property. The developer should participate in the AbqPage 5 Valley Side Estates April 21, 2000 City's Regional Stormwater Management by sizing and constructing the detention pond (Outlot D) to as a regional facility 2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, prior to the submittal of the final plat, that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The development agreement must also outline the developer's responsibility for construction and maintenance of the private lift station, as we// as, the owners financial responsibility for abandonment and removal of the lift station when connection to a public gravity trunk main is available 3. A temporary turnaround and easement must be provided at the east end of roadway on the north side of Lot 1, Block 2. Said easement and any easements required for off -site utilities must be executed with the City prior to the recording of final plat documents. 4. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of Outlot C will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. The developer also agrees that no grading or removal of topsoil or trees from the designated park site will occur unless approved by the Park Department. 5. Prior to the development, an access permit must be obtained from the Olmsted County Public Works Department. The sight distance needs to be adequate for operating speeds on 40'h Ave. SE and a right turn lane installed. b A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 401b 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. 11. The developer must grade the west side of the property to match the right of way grade prepared by the City for 40`' Avenue SE. $ Prior to final plat submittal, the developer shall investigate the property for wetlands and obtain any necessary permits related to wetlands from the LGU. REMINDER TO APPLICANT: • This plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the developer wishes to record the Plat prior to completion of improvements. • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract that requires the developer to construct the public roadways and utilities. 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 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. 61.225 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 ao-9 ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/11/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur *REVISED 5/10/00* 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 revised application for Preliminary Plat #00-1Ton the Valley Side Estates (GDP #150 Propertyl. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: New items that were not included in our comments dated 4/11/00 are shown in bold, while previous comments that are no longer applicable are indicated by siriket 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 40'h Ave SE, with the exception of the street access that is shown on the Preliminary Plat. Additional controlled access for private driveways will be required within 150 feet from the right-of-way intersection of Valley Side Drive and 40'h Ave SE, and along the entire west lot line of Lot 20, Block 2, located east of the detention pond. 3. Dedication of 60 feet of right-of-way for 401h Ave SE, will be required, as shown on the Preliminary Plat. The developer shall be required to grade the west side of the property to match the ROW grade prepared by the City for 40'h Ave SE. 4. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed concurrent with this development, at the owner's expense, will be -required along both sides of all new public roads, including the frontages of Outlot C & Outlot D. In addition, a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path will be required along the entire frontage of 40'h Ave SE. CATEMP\PP#00-17 Revised 5-4-00 .doc �a ROCHESTER Minnesota 5111100 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street BE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 5. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 401" 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. 6. 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. 7. Sanitary sewer & water service lines will be required to be extended to the adjacent property lines. 8. Easements will be required for off -site utilities, if applicable. 9. Specific routing of sanitary sewer lines will be reviewed further during the platting stages. 10. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure to serve this development. 11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, prior to Final Plat submittal, 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. C:VTEMPIPP#00-17 Revised 5-4-00 .doe ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/11/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur Im DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 12. The owner will be required to provide payment, either in the form of an escrow fund, or an up -front cash contribution to the City for the future removal of the private lift station, and costs associated with the physical connection to gravity trunk sewer main. The property may also be responsible for additional contribution for Water Tower and Sewer Trunk Main Sewer projects to serve this property, if the project area charges exceed the current SAC & WAC rates. 13. A temporary turn around will be required at the easterly extent of the street on the north side of Lot 1, Block 2. 15. 16. The loop formed by Eagle Drive and Trumpeter Drive should be constructed as a 36 foot roadway within a 60 foot ROW. 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 40th Ave SE @ $30.00 per foot of frontage, plus a Capacity Component if a TO is approved for this area. 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: 18 Street name Signs 2 Stop Signs 2 Dead End Signs C:ITEMP%PP#00.17 Revised 5.4-00 Add ROCHESTER PARK AND�-REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Valley Side Estates Preliminary Plat # 00-17 Acreageof plat.......................................................... 40.15 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. est 162 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 4.03 units/a Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 3.95 a The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Dedication of land. The park site shown on the approved the GDP will qualify for 4.12 acres of dedication. The t .62 acre detention pond does not qualify as meeting dedication requirements. Once the detention pond is constructed, a final calculation can be made as to the amount of area used for detention purposes. No grading or removal of topsoil or trees from the designated park site should occur. The park site should be deeded to the City once the site is accessed via street or once the Park Department is ready to begin development of the park. Applicant: Freedom Development P 0 Box1643 St Cloud MN 5630E N:\PARK\DSTOT2\2000\DEDICATION\SE 2895\VALLEY SIDE EST 1ST.DOC ( 4T Irpu we pledge, rve deliver 507/280-1579 May 5, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: REVISED: Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00- 17 by Freedom Development & Consulting LLC to be known as Valley Side Estates. The applicant revised this preliminary plat to address comments from staff. The revisions include labeling controlled access along 40`t' Avenue and adding additional easements. RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this revised land subdivision permit and has no objection as it is outside our service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future. Ten foot utility easements will be needed along both sides of all public roads and along the private roads in the patio home and townhome areas. Sincerely, �,aVIU*dc�-- Michael J. Engle ks c: W. Lorber T. Adkins, City Attorney Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 , facsimile 507.280.1542 ; website www.rpu.org � ra April 7, 2000 Suzanne LaPalm Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Suzanne: The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III F (Preliminary Plat) #00-17 by Freedom Development & Valley Side Estates and has the following comments: Sincerely, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTML. 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 as • Access permit will be required from Olmsted County Public Works Department including a right turn lane 300 feet in length with a 180 foot taper. • At the proposed location of Valley Side Drive the sight distance is not adequate. • Co. Rd. 144 (40th Ave. SE) shall be regraded to improve sight distance for safety. • $175 will be required for street sign and $50 per sign at Co. Rd. 144. Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:bw t]engindocVlb zcne.Ma AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 6ea11raaaacv Q,. vPvinn and Manninn Ennineerino Nlahwav Maintenance Parks 6 Agriculture Solid Waste PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: 4-17-00 TO: Suzanne LaPalm FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: RE: VALLEY SIDE ESTATES A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following address related issues: It is the expressed opinion of the Rochester/Olmsted County Planning Department-GIS Addressing staff and Emergency Responders, that no more roadways with the name VALLEY will be permitted within the City of Rochester, or Olmsted County. There is an abundance of "Valley" roadways and any additional roadways carrying this designation would cause confusion with Emergency Responders and could possibly cause a delay in response time. RECOMMENDATION: Rename all roadways in plat where the name VALLEY is being used.. 2. West Valley Lane, is using pre -directional and no directional. RECOMMENDATION: Drop the pre -directional of West, rename roadway, and add the directional of SE . 3. East Valley Lane, is using pre -directional and no directional. RECOMMENDATION: Drop the pre -directional of East, rename roadway, and add the directional of SE . 4. Valley Side Court, is using incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Rename roadway, use roadway type LANE, and add the directional of SE. 5. Three unnamed roadways must have designation. 5a. RECOMMENDATION: Roadway connecting Valley Side Drive with East Valley Lane needs to be designated on plat. 5b. RECOMMENDATION: Roadway connecting Valley Side Drive with roadway on along south property line needs to be designated. 5c. RECOMMENDATION: Unnamed roadway along south property line needs to be designated and illustrated on plat. rpu_ we pledge, we deGwer April 13, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-17 by Freedom Development & Consulting to be known as Valley Side Estates. 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. Preliminary plans and profiles were not included in this submittal, so we are unable to make a complete review at this time. Revisions to the proposed water system layout are required, which includes looping the cul-de-sacs, a connection to the north and an off -site extension needed to connect to the existing water system within Eastwood Hills. We have provided these comments to the applicant. 3. Additional 20' public utility easements are required for the required water main cul-de-sac loops and for the extension to the adjoining property to the north. 4. Pressures in areas below an approximate finished site elevation of 1080 will be too great (El 1080 = approximately 95 PSI) without the installation of pressure reducing devices. We recommend this done by the builder installing pressure -reducing valves in the individual homes near the water meter in these areas. 5. Final construction plans will need to conform to standard City of Rochester Requirements. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly your"4_1 s,"VA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Freedom Development & Consulting LLC Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 r Page 14 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 ➢ The roadway name "Kingston Court NW'shall be changed to a unique name not already proposed or used and the roadway type shall be changed from a "Court" to "Place." ➢ The A NW. Lot 2. Parkland dedh the amount of this Plat. name "Kingsbury Court NW" shall be changed to "Kingsbury Place ss shall be provided along the? Artherly 50 feet of the east line of and the northerly 50 feet of to west line of Lot 1, Block 1. 3. Storm water management 4. The applicant shall j District (T1D), which applicant may consi substandard street 4 5. The applicant: sides of all roa also construct 6. Utilities and will be reoui final rements for thf lat shall be met via cash in lieu of land in which is due for to recording the final plat documents for Klanes ided for this development. y component to the Traffic Improvement bstandard street reconstruction charge or the 55`h Street NW and pay a S30 per front foot Tonstruct pedestrian f fifties within Outiot A (in addition to both s) and shall dedicated AN Outlot to the Cit1y. The applicant shall bituminous path along the outh side of 55" St. NW. ements needed to serve this plat from the Wedgwood development prior to recording the final plat documents. Easements for a 3-round must also be executed with the City prior to recording the Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated April 21, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. He stated that staff discussed the issues with the applicant, who is in agreement with those revisions, and they will provide the revisions prior to the Council meeting. Mr. Svenby noted the revisions will need to be in the office by the afternoon of Monday, May 1, 2000, in order for this to proceed to the May 15 Council meeting. He pointed out a correction to condition number 1: it should say "pond" instead of "pong." Staff recommends approval with the suggested conditions. Dave Bell, Freedom Development and Consulting, St. Cloud, MN, addressed the Commission. He stated they are in agreement with everything staff explained. He asked about the issue of the $30 per foot for substandard roads and wondered if this is the same kind of situation where they will have the acreage charge based on a Transportation Improvement District (TID). ell ppPage 15 ` City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 Mr. Nigbur stated the Council has not established a TO in this area. The southeast portion hasn't gotten to that point and they anticipate it will be likely to happen in the future. - Mr. Bell stated they are in agreement with the understanding that they will bring their roads up to the proposed realignment and they will put that money in escrow. Mr. Bell asked about controlled access along 400 Avenue SE and if the only access that will be permitted will be a City street (Valley Side Drive). Two access points are being proposed, Valley Side Drive and one driveway for some of the townhouses toward Eastwood Road. Mr. Bell questioned the distance for controlled access on Valley Side Drive and wondered if it is the first 150 feet from the connection with 40s' and Valley Side Drive going east. Mr. Nigbur stated he prefers staff review that layout internally and make a final recommendation to the Council There needs to be some distance separation from the driveways to 401' Avenue. Mr. Bell stated that is fine. He is in agreement with all the conditions. Mr. Werven asked about the issue of this development connecting with neighboring developments. Mr. Nigbur noted that the access points do provide connections with the abutting owners and he explained those connections. Brian Smith, 4214 Eastwood Road SE, addressed the Commission. He asked about the gravel extension of Eastwood Road and he recommended a hard surface. Mr. Smith stated he doesn't want people to be turning around in Ganske's driveway. Mr. Nigbur referred to a memo on page 1-12 dated April 11, 2000, which talks about the road being reconstructed concurrent with development. He explained that currently there is one access and they will be required to have two. The threshold that will trigger the requirement of the second access is 1200 trips per day, and at that point, the road will need to be improved. Mr. Nigbur stated that Mr. Bell is looking at the development of the south 40 acres, so that extension may continue south and this leg of gravel road may be eliminated. There are some concept plans for developing the property to the south, and if that occurs, a secondary access will be in another location. Mr. Sulk suggested Mr. Smith contact Mr. Nigbur if he has continuing concerns. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Petersson moved to approve Preliminary Plat #00-17, to be known as Valley Side Estates, with staff -suggested conditions. Mr. Burke seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. Conditions: 1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The City has identified a regional pond on this property. The developer should participate in the Page 16 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 City's Regional Stormwater Management by sizing and constructing the detention pond (Outlot D) to as a regional facility. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, prior to the submittal of the final plat, that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The development agreement must also outline the developer's responsibility for construction and maintenance of the private lift station, as well as the owners ftnanciaPresponsibility for abandonment and removal of the lift station when connection to a public gravity trunk main is available. 3. A temporary turnaround and easement must be provided at the east end of roadway on the north side of Lot 1, Block 2. Said easement and any easements required for off -site utilities must be executed with the City prior to the recording of final plat documents. 4. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of Outlot C will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. The developer also agrees that no grading or removal of topsoil or trees from the designated park site will occur unless approved by the Park Department. 5. Prior to the development, an access permit must be obtained from the Olmsted County Public Works Department. The sight distance needs to be adequate for operating speeds on 40'h Ave. SE and a right turn lane installed. 6. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 40'h 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. 7. The developer must grade the west side of the property to match the right of way grade prepared by the City for 401h Avenue SE. & Prior to final plat submittal, the developer shall investigate the property for wetlands and obtain any necessary permits related to wetlands from the LGU. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING all DATE: 05-15-00 PGENDA UBLIC HE SECTARINGS PLIGIANNNAING DEFT: ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00.15 by Quinstar LLP to be known PREPARED BY: as Pinewood Meadows 2"d Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 20.61 Theresa Fogarty, acres of land into 1 outlot and 22 single family lots and also proposes to dedicate right -of- Planner way for a new public roadway. The property is located east of 23id Avenue SE and Schoenfeider's Subdivision. west of Dornacks Subdivision and south of Pinewood Road. May 10, 2000 NOTE: Staff is recommending adding Condition #7: Dedicate parkland, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department via deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated is the neighborhood park as located on the approved Quinstar GDP. The land should be dedicated at such time as the park is accessed via street or the park department wishes to begin development of the land. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following conditions or modifications: 1. The Development Agreement for this property must be executed with the City prior to the submittal of the final plat 2. The easement between Lots 5 & 6, Block 1 and Lots 6 & 7, Block 1 be labeled utility and drainage easement and be a minimum of 20 feet. 3. The owner shall execute with the City a contribution agreement for 2r Avenue SE prior to the submittal of the final plat. 4. Outiot A shall be dedicated to the City. 5. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of the entire frontage of Valverde Lane SE, including Outlot A, and along the entire easterly right-of-way of 2rAvenue SE. 6. Remove grass walking trail indicated on Outlot A or work with Park & Recreation Department for an appropriate surface for the trail. Mr. Geoff Griffen, GGG Engineering, representing the applicant, stated they concur with all the conditions except Condition #6 and that they would like to work with the Park & Recreation Department as to how they want the path surfaced. Mr. Burke moved to approve Preliminary Plat 00-15, to be known as Pinewood Meadows 2nd Subdivision, with the first five of the staff -suggested conditions, and condition number 6 be eliminated based on the applicant agreeing to work with the Park Department. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion, but requested it be amended to leave condition number 6 and add "or work with Park & Recreation Department for an appropriate surface for the trail". Mr. Burke agreed to amend the motion, and Ms. Petersson seconded. The motion carried 6.0. Planning Department Recommendation:• 1. See attached staff report, dated April 18, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 0i w 41 Pinewood Meadows Second Preliminary Plat =I . . . . . . . . . . IO VIVO D II t op ITS IL . % ji 6 17Z if xwozwit UNPL;Tr 7 4-11 F#�r AM 2 9 2M `'41prA1 ylB►�+ �►� inn. 'Ipnf n! ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/2B5-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADORESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 DATE: April 18, 2000 RE: Type III, Phase ll, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-15 by Quinstar LLP to be known as Pinewood Meadows 2nd Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 20.81 acres of land into 1 outlot and 22 single family lots and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for a new public roadway. The property is located east of 23`d Avenue SE and Schoenfelder's Subdivision, west of Dornacks Subdivision, and south of Pinewood Road SE. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Quinstar LLP Bernadine Stevens, CEO 1652 Greenview Drive SW Rochester. MN 55902 GGG 241 North Winona Street Chatfield, MN 55923 Referral Comments: RPU Water Division Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Rochester Fire Department US West Planning Department - John Hanford, Wetlands Representative Olmsted County Soil & Water Conservation District Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments ( 7 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Quinstar Approved General Development Plan �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Pq Page 2 Preliminary Plat 00-15 Pinewood Meadows Second April 21, 2000 Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located east of 23`tl Avenue Se, west of Dornack's Subdivsion and south of Pinewood Road. Zoning: Approximately 49.91 acres will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map once the annexation is approved by the Minnesota Municipal Board, Proposed Development: This development consists of 20.81 acres of land to be subdivided into 22 lots for single family detached housing and 1 outlot. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for one roadway. This roadway is a cul-de-sac named Valverde Lane SE, and intersects 2V Avenue along the east. This roadway is classified as a "local" street and is designed with a 56' right-of-way and a 50' cul-de-sac radius. The owner shall execute a contribution agreement, with City Public Works for, 23" Avenue SE, prior to the final plat approval. Pedestrian Facilities: In accordance with current City policy, pedestrian facilities shall be constructed along both sides of the entire frontage of Valverde Lane SE (including along Outlot A) and along the entire easterly ROW of 23f1 Avenue SE. Drainage: The topography is slightly rolling with 1050' in the NW direction and 1090' in the SE direction to about the center of proposed Outlot A. From the center of Outlot A in the SE direction, the topography becomes steeper ranging from 1090' to 1120' 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, to prevent sediments from impacting the adjoining subdivisions, during all phases of the development. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. A wetland delineation report is on file with the Planning Department and the applicant received an exemption for the property in 1998. The preliminary plat as designed conforms to the exemption application filed by Page 3 Preliminary Plat DO-15 Pinewood Meadows Second April 21, 2000 Public Utilities: �s the applicant. The grading on site shall avoid wetlands, as proposed in the wetland exemption application. Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. The location of the fire hydrants and services along 23fi Avenue SE, which are soon to be installed by the City do not fit well with the proposed lots. Coordination between the city and the developer should be maintained. This area is within the Main Level Water System Area. The present system indicates adequate flows for fire protection, but pressures will be on the low side. It is recommended that provisions for the increase pressure be made with the service sizing and the plumbing installation in the homes at the higher elevations of this site. 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 27 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. Parkland Dedication: The Park & Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated for parkland shall be the neighborhood park as located on the GDP. The land should be dedicated at such time as the park is accessed via street or the park department wishes to begin development of the land. The grass walking trail labeled on Outlot A should be removed. This outlot will be dedicated to the City and they will decide if a trial is needed. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Quinstar General Development Plan, approved in 1999. The Plat is consistent with the approved GDP. The developer is currently in the process of amending the GDP, to change the use of land located in the southwest corner of the GDP from residential to commercial use. This amendment request does not affect the proposed preliminary plat. a Ile� Page 4 Preliminary Plat 00-15 Pinewood Meadows Second April 21, 2000 Staff Review and Recommendation: Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of Section 61.225 of the LDM, effective May 15, 1999. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions 1 modifications: 1. The Development Agreement for this property must be executed with the City prior to the submittal of the final plat. 2. The easement between Lots 5 & 6, Block 1 and Lots 6 & 7, Block 1 be labeled utility and drainage easement and be a minimum of 20 feet. 3. The owner shall execute with the City a contribution agreement for 23rd Avenue SE, prior to the submittal of the final plat. 4. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 5. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of the entire frontage of Valverde Lane SE, including Outlot A, and along the entire easterly right-of-way of 23rtl Avenue SE. 6. Remove grass walking trail indicated on Outlot A. Reminder to Appficant: Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City / Owner Contract for construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 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 5 Preliminary Plat 00-15 Pinewood Meadows Second April 21, 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 gU < Page 6 Preliminary Plat 00-15 Pinewood Meadows Second April2l, 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 ROCHESTER Minnesota 4/17/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur / i A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4 h 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- 15 on the Pinewood Meadows 2nd Subdivision (P/O Quinstar GDP#136) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Stormwater management has been addressed for this plat. 2. Approval of Grading & Drainage plans are required prior to final plat approval. 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 are required along both side of the entire frontage of Valverde Lane SE (including along Outlot A), and along the entire easterly ROW of 23`d Ave SE. 5. Outlot A should be dedicated to the City. 6. The Owner shall execute a contribution agreement for 23`d Ave SE, prior to Preliminary Plat approval. 7. The proposed grass trail is not ADA compliant, and its surfacing must be addressed with the City Park & Recreation Department. Charges & fees for this proposed development include area charges for Trunk Sanitary Sewer Main & Water Tower Availability, as well as, utility connection charges, pedestrian facilities, and substandard street reconstruction charges. These charges/fees are addressed in detail in the Development Agreement. In addition to fees addressed in the Development Agreement, this development is subject to charges for the following Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 2 Street name Signs 1 Street Ends Sign C:\TEMP\PP#00.15.d0c j r MV Park x r eCrz211an ROCHESTER PARK AND R.-'REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6166 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Pinewood Meadows 2nd Preliminary Plat # 00-15 Acreageof plat.......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density ................................................... Densityfactor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 20.81 a 22 units 1.06 units/a .0244 .54 acres The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated is the neighborhood park as located on the approved GDP. The land should be dedicated at such time as the park is accessed via street or the park department wishes to begin development of the land. Applicant: Qulnstar 1652 Greenvlew Or SW N:\PARK\OSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SE 2B95\PINEWOOD MEADOWS 2ND.DOC I ru. we pledge, ve deliver April 4, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 a31 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-15 by Quinstar LLP to be known as Pinewood Meadows 2id 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 location of the fire hydrants and services along 23 d Ave. SE, which are soon to be installed as a part of a City Water Quality Protection Project, do not fit very well with the proposed lots in this submittal. Coordination between projects should be maintained. 3. This area is within the Main Level Water System Area. Preliminary computer water system modeling indicates adequate flows are available for fire protection, but pressures will be on the low side ranging from the upper 30's to lower 40's PSI. We recommend provisions for this pressure should be made with the service sizing and the plumbing installation in the homes at the higher elevations of this site. 4. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with these comments. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06-JA RLL Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Jim Loehr, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Geoffrey Griffin, GGG Engineering Quinstar Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 a3;. Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes t` Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 Ms, Baker explained the applicantA agreed to have this item continued, and the memo says to the May 10, 2000 meeting, Sjg n d that staff hasn't yet received revised plans and today was the deadline for those pl in or to be on the agenda for the May 10 meeting. She asked the applicant if they submit th lans tomorrow morning. The applicant's repres ative, Geoffrey Grin, stated they would submit the revised plans tomorrow morning Ms. Petersson de a motion to continue Preliminary Plat #00-14, to be known as Pinewood Mea ows 3rd Subdivision, to the May 10, 2000 meeting. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated April 18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby stated that staff recommends approval with six conditions. Geoff Griffin, GGG Engineering, 14070 Hwy. 52 SE, Chatfield, addressed the Commission. He stated they concur with all except with the last condition. He noted they would like that changed to reflect Mike Nigbur's letter of April 17, and they would like to work with the Park & Recreation Department as to how they want the path surfaced. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke moved to approve Preliminary Plat #00-15, to be known as Pinewood Meadows 2"d Subdivision, with the first five of the staff -suggested conditions, and condition number 6 eliminated based on the applicant agreeing to work with the Park Department. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion, but requested it be amended to leave condition number 6 and add "or work with Park & Recreation Department for an appropriate surface for the trail." Mr. Burke agreed to amend the motion, and Ms. Petersson seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 a33 1. The Development Agreement for this property must be executed with the City prior to the submittal of the final plat. 2. The easement between Lots 5 & 6, Block 1 and Lots 6 & 7, Block i be labeled utility and drainage easement and be a minimum of 20 feet. 3. The owner shall execute with the City a contribution agreement for 23`" Avenue SE, prior to the submittal of the dual plat. 4. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 5. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of the entire frontage of Valverde Lane SE, including Outiot A, and along the entire easterly right-of-way of 2P Avenue SE. 6. Remove grass walking trail indicated on Outlot A, or work with the Park & Recreation Department for an appropriate surface for the trail. Ms. Baker presented the staff report, is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted P recommending approval subject to 8 noted she suggests amending coedit provided for this development." She Conditions number 4 and 6 can be cc a capacity component to the Traffic li substandard street reconstruction ch4 Street NW and pay a $30 per front to condition number 8 can be deleted. j Representing the applicant, Bill To stated that the changes Ms. Baker they will work the issues out in the With no others wishing to Ms. Schultze moved to approve Subdivision, with conditions as which carried 6a Conditions: 1. The Plat shall be revised Apol 20, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report Department. She stated that staff is lit[ to which she has some changes. Ms. Baker um 3 to say "Stonnwater management must be ,fined a rest of the condition can be omitted, ied to ad as follows, "The applicant shall contribute vement istrict (TID), which would include a or the ap 'cant may construct turn lanes from 550' bstandar treet charge." Ms, Baker stated that McGhie & Bett roposed to the opment agreen Mr. Suk closed the ry Plat #00-16, by staff. Ms. F addressed the Commission. He ons are satisfactory to them and hearing. known as Kingsbury Hills ;on seconded the motion, a3s REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5-15-00 kGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 8 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-16 to be known as PREPARED BY: Kingsbury Hills Subdivision. Mitzi A. Baker, May 9, 2000 NOTE: McGhie & Betts, Inc., on behalf of the applicant, submitted a formal request to the City for voluntary participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan to provide storm water management for this development. A copy of this request is attached. As a result, condition #3 may be deleted. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 26, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Preliminary Plat #00-16, subject to the following modifications and conditions. Schultze moved, Petersson seconded, the motion carried 6-0. 1. The Plat shall be revised as follows: ➢ The roadway name "Kingston Court NW" shall be changed to a unique name not already proposed or used and the roadway type shall be changed from a "Court" to a "Place". ➢ The roadway name "Kingsbury Court NW" shall be changed to "Kingsbury Place NW". ➢ Controlled access shall be provided along the northerly 50 feet of the east line of Lot 1, Block 6 and the northerly 50 feet of the west line of Lot 1, Block 1. z. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $13,500.00 which is due prior to recording the final plat documents for this Plat. 3. Storm water management must be provided for this development. 4. The applicant shall contribute a capacity component to the Traffic Improvement District (T1D), which would include a substandard street reconstruction charge or the applicant may construct turn lanes from 55`h Street NW and pay a $30 per front foot substandard street charge. 5. The applicant shall construct pedestrian facilities within Outlot A (in addition to both sides of all roadways) and shall dedicated said Outiot to the City. The applicant shall also construct a 1O' bituminous path along the south side of 55`h St. NW. 6. Utilities and easements needed to serve this plat from the Wedgwood development will be required prior to recording the final plat documents. Easements for a temporary turn -a -round must also be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 4 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 15, 2000 TO: Honorable Mayor and Common Council FROM: Michael Nigbur RE: Kingsbury Hills preliminary Plat (E-8) CC: There have been discussions about improvements to 551h Street NW between the developer's consultant, the Public Works Department and the Planning Commission regarding E-8. Based on these discussions and previous correspondence I would like to clarify Condition #4 and Condition #5 Condition # 4 currently states - The applicant shall contribute a capacity component to the Traffic Improvement District (TID), which would include a substandard street reconstruction charge or the applicant may construct turn lanes from 55`h Street NW and pay a $10 per front foot substandard street charge. Condition 44 should be modified to more clearly reflect the intent of the previous discussions: 4. a) The applicant shall contribute to the Traffic Improvement District (TID) at the rate established for the district by the City Council. b) If the TID is not implemented the applicant shall: 1) Construct necessary turn lanes to serve the property, AND 2) Pay the Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge, OR 3) Provide construction work in lieu of a cash payment as outlined in the Policy 5. The applicant shall construct pedestrian facilities within Outlot A (in addition to both sides of all roadways) and shall dedicate said Outlot to the City. The applicant shall also construct a 10' bituminous path along the south side of 55'h Street OR at the City's option, Owner shall execute a pedestrian facility agreement to allow the construction of the facility at a future date. ROCHESTER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION 05/15/00 10:28 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH-OLM PLANNING DEPT. , CITY CLERK Z 002 r '9•hi;'�iiii`;it� - Iiiiii� 1 I ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION! 507/285.8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGrHPA Memo 507/285.8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WEwSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 To: Rochester Common Council From: Mitzi A. Baker, Planning Department Date: 05/15/00 Re: Kingsbury Hills Subdivision, Preliminary Plat ITEM E - 8 Staff requests that this item be tabled to June 5, 2000. At this time, it appears as though the Plat will need to be revised to better match the proposed grades for the reconstruction of 55"' St. NW. This revision will likely change the location of the access from 55'" St, NW into the development. Rochester Public Works staff has met with the consultant to discuss the proposed grades for 55" St. NW and changes that may be necessary to the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision as currently proposed. 'f`��j� • Page 1 ,v„ w0 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ss s � sa .� ePC K 2 f WN 1� y_-__ •-__ r ____ _ __ 3 _ _ `en_ — ---__ m a .. a-\` O♦. 93? - Mc �rhie -, ; Betts, Inc. Consulting Engineers , t- ; _' i Land Surveyors y�rM: Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 Fax 507-289.7333 1604 Riverview Lane, Northfield, MN 55057 507-645-0964 Fax 507-645-2842 April 25, 2000 Mr. Mark Baker Rochester Public Works 201 SE 4tf1 St. Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Kingsbury Hills Development Dear Mr. Baker: This letter is written on behalf of our client/developer, Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc., to formally request voluntary participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan and pay the applicable per -acre fee to participate in this Plan. This will eliminate the need to provide on -site storm water management facilities. Previous correspondence and verbal discussions confirmed this request during the General Development Plan stage. If you refer to Item #2 of the draft of the Development Agreement, you will note that the City has acknowledged the developer's request to pay the contribution fee. If you have any questions, please let me know. Yours very truly, McGHIE & BETTS, INC. William E. Tointon 5<� WET/bd� PC AMs. Mitzi Baker Mr. Harvey Ratzloff Mr. Joel Bigelow i K. M. McGhie, PE. LS, 19G4-1975 William E. Tointon, CET, President James E. Swanson. LS. Vice President David L. Morrill, PE, Vice President Douglas N. Betts, PE, LS, Vice President Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E. Gowin, PE, LS Mark E, Severtscn, LS Daniel J. Zemke, PE Gregory R. Bond, PE d.. Fn.,n/ r-Innnrh inehi Fmnlnvur Interoffice Memorandum Apri 25,2000 To: 'Mitzi Baker, Senior Planner CC: Bill Tointon, McGhie & Betts From: Mark Baker, Land Development Specialist 4 'mil Re: Kingsbury Hills #00-16 Public Works has received a copy of a letter that was addressed to you from Bill Tointon, with regard to the proposed conditions for the Kingsbury Hills Preliminary Plat #00-16. Mike Nigbur has requested that I send this memo to clarify the position of Public Works, as it relates to the concerns raised in Mr. Tointon's letter. Development of this property is subject to a Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge of $30.00 per foot of frontage on 55d' St, and a contribution for a Capacity Component Area Charge for the Northwest Area Traffic Improvement District (TID). Tbe.Developer's contribution toward the Capacity Component of the TID may either be in the form of cash, or work in -lieu of a cash contribution. If by agreement with the City,.the Developer constructs the necessary turn -lanes from 55" St NW, the required Capacity Component of the TID will be met. Regardless of how the Capacity Component is provided, the $30.00 per foot of frontage required for Substandard Street Reconstruction applies to this development, for the entire frontage of 55 ° St NW. If there are additional questions regarding our prior comments please feel free to contact either Mike Nigbur of myself. Land Development Section Rochester Public Works Department 4-25-200 j: WWIM i- ROM P. 2 a0 McGhie Consulting Engineers I Betts, Inc. Land Surveyors _•?Mi Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 Fax 507-289.7333 1604 Riverview Lane, Northfield, MN 55057 507-645-0964 Fax 507-645-2842 April 25, 2000 Ms, Mitzi Baker Senior Planner Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Preliminary plat/plans of Kingsbury Hills #00-16 Dear Ms. Baker: I tried to reach you regarding the hearing for this project which is scheduled for Wednesday evening, April 26, 2000, regarding two staff conditions. Specifically, I want to address conditions 4 & 6, which are related and condition number 8. With respect to conditions 4 & 6, I am concerned that the way they an listed will give one the impression that the developer will have, to pay for constructing right and left turn lanes; provide $30.00 per foot for a substandard street contribution fee and pay for a Traffic Improvement District contribution fee when in fact the developer only pays for one or the other. In other words, the developer will not reconstruct the roadway and provide the turn lanes and pay a TID fee which is designed to include the turn lanes. In the same sense, a developer is not required to pay the $30.00 per foot chatge and a TID. It is one or the other. It is my opinion that because the conditions do not reflect the either or situation, that our client cannot agree to these conditions as staled. He is willing to commit to one or the other approach. I did contact Mike Nigbur to discuss and he agreed that it should be restated to explain this issue. He did acknowledge that because the City has not formally adopted the TID policy, that he has to state it both ways. However, he did agree that his original comments are somewhat confusing and that some members of the Planning Commission or City Council may misinterpret them so he will be e-mailing you a restated condition or conditions. Secondly, I am attaching a copy of a no -loss decision on this site as issued by John Harford on January 25, 2000, This will eliminate condition number 8, We would appreciate your assistance in explaining these issues to the Commission tomorrow night, Yours very truly, McGHIE BETTS, INC-1 1 uj,��slr( � /O William E. Tointon PC; Mr. Harvey Ratzloff Mr. Mika Nigbur K. M. McGhle. PE, LS, 1904-1973 William E. Toinlon. CET, President James E. Swanson, I.S. Vice President David L. Morrill, PE, Ywe President Douglas N. Bests, PE, L$, Vice President Andrew J. Masterpois, ASLA Larry J. Shannon, Ls Michael E. Gewin, PE. LS Mark E. Severtsm, LS Daniel J. zarnka, PE Graguy R, Bond, PE An Equal Opportunity Employer TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: April 20, 2000 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GISlADDR ES SI NG/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING,-NRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 5071287.2275 RE: Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-16 by Bigelow Enterprises to be known as Kingsbury Hills Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 22.37 acres of land into 80 lots for single family residential development, and one outlot, and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for new public roadways. The property is located south of 55th St. NW, west of the Wedgewood Hills Subdivisions and 50`h Ave. NW. Plannino Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Bigelow Enterprises 302 NW First Ave. PO Box 247 Byron, MN 55920 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 559D4 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Department of Public Works 2. Rochester Park & Rec. Dept. 3. RPU Water Division 4. Rochester Fire Dept. 5. Planning Department GIS Division Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (5 Letters) 3. Copy of Kingsbury Hills General Development Plan 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 April 20, 2000 Development Review: Location of Property: This plat is located west of 50th Ave. NW and the Wedgewood Hills development and south of 55'h St. NW. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. Proposed Development: This development consists of 22.37 acres to be subdivided into 80 lots for single family residential development and one Outlot. Streets: The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right-of- way for four new public roadways. Changes to roadway names will be necessary as outlined in the attached memo from the Planning Department GIS Division. Utilities: Utilities will be extended from the Wedgewood Hills development, located to the east. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along the both sides of the roadways within the Plat. A pedestrian walkway will also need to be constructed on Outlot A. Drainage: This property currently drains to the northeast and the south. No on -site detention facilities are proposed with this development. At the GDP stage, the applicant informed staff that it is their intent to voluntarily participate in the City's Storm Water Management Plan and contribute toward a regional storm water facility. Concurrent with GDP approval for this property, the applicant received approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit to alter the grades on this property by 10' or more. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. Hydric soils were identified on the General Development Plan. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant or consultant will need to provide a Wetland Delineation for this property, if Wetlands exist; obtain required permits related to Wetland or obtain a "no loss" certificate. Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this development would be 96 parking spaces. The proposed roadways should be adequate to accommodate the required spillover spaces. Parkland Dedication: The Park & Recreation Department recommends that Page 3 April 20, 2000 General Development Plan: General Development Plan: a�3 - dedication requirements be satisfied via cash in lieu of land. Payment is require prior to recording the final._ plat documents. The GDP for this property was approved on March 6, 2000, The GDP for this property was approved in March 2000, subject to the following modifications or conditions: Storm water management must be provided for this development. On -site detention is not being proposed with the GDP. Based on current policy, the owner may request to participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Plan and pay and applicable stormwater management fee. Allowance of participation is at the City's discretion. Based on the topography of this site, on - site detention may be required for a portion of the northwest corner of the property. 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. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 2. When platted, 60' of right-of-way will be required by dedication for 5e St. NW and controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 55h St. NW, with the exception of the street access approved through the GDP. Additional controlled access for private driveways will be required within 50 feet from the intersections of any new road(s) with the 5e St. NW right-of-way. 3. Right and/or left turn lanes will be required from 55 h St. NW. 4. A contribution will be required for reconstruction of 5e St. NW. Current City policy for substandard streets would require a contribution of $30 per foot of frontage. If a Traffic Improvement District (T1D) is adopted for 55'h St. NW, development of this property may be subject to additional charges. 5. At the time of platting, easements will be required by dedication for off -site utilities. 6. Parkland dedication for this development shall be satisfied by cash in lieu of land. 7. Areas of hydric soils are shown on the GDP which must be reviewed further to determine whether Wetlands exist. Staff will need to conduct an on -site review in the spring to determine boundaries or lack of Wetlands. No grading or (riling of these areas shall occur prior to obtaining "no-loss"or replacement approval from the LGU. 6. Due to the block lengths in this development, mid -block pedestrian connections shall be provided, except where the City Engineer determines topographic conditions make the pedestrian trails unfeasible. Staff Review and Recommendation: NOTE: At this time, Planning staff is waiting for a formal response from the Public Works Department regarding the mid -block pedestrian connections (see GDP condition #8). Depending on the response from Public Works, there may be additional conditions or modifications recommended by staff. aPage 4 April 20, 2000 The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61.225 (effective 5115/199). 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. The Plat shall be revised as follows: ➢ The roadway name "Kingston Court NW" shall be changed to a unique name not already proposed or used and the roadway type shall be changed from a "Court" to a "Place". ➢ The roadway name "Kingsbury Court NW" shall be changed to "Kingsbury Place NW". ➢ Controlled access shall be provided along the northerly 50 feet of the east line of Lot 1, Block 6 and the northerly 50 feet of the west line of Lot 1, Block 1. 2. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $13,500.00 which is due prior to recording the final plat documents for this Plat. 3. Storm water management must be provided for this development. During the GDP review for this property, staff was informed that the applicant intends to voluntarily participate in the City's Storm Water Management Plan and contribute toward a regional storm water facility. If the applicant does not voluntarily participate in the City's Plan, on -site detention may be required and the Plat may need to be revised. 4. The applicant shall provide right and/or left turn lanes on 55't' St. NW. 5. The applicant shall construct pedestrian facilities within Outlot A (in addition to both sides of all roadways) and shall dedicated said Outlot to the Citr. The applicant shall also construct a 10' bituminous path along the south side of 55" St. NW. 6. The applicant shall contribute $30.00 per foot of frontage for future reconstruction of 55'" St. NW, per the Substandard Street Frontage Charge. This property may also be subject to a capacity component area charge for the Northwest Area Traffic Improvement District which also includes 50'" Ave. NW. 7. Utilities and easements needed to serve this plat from the Wedgwood development will be required prior to recording the final plat documents. Easements for a temporary turn -a -round must also be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. 8. Hydric soils were identified on the General Development Plan. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant or consultant shall provide a Wetland Delineation for this property, if Wetlands exist; obtain required permits related to Wetland or obtain a "no loss" certificate. REMINDER TO APPLICANT • 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 execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the public roadways and utilities. aqs ROCHESTEk Minnesota 4/11/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904.3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Preliminary Plat #00-16,on the Kingsbury Hills First Subdivision (P/O GDP#146) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. 2. A Grading & Drainage Plan must be submitted and approved prior to Final Plat approval. 3. Controlled access is required, as shown on the Preliminary Plat, along the entire frontage of 55th St NW, with the exception of the single public street access. In addition to that already shown, controlled access is required along the northerly 50 feet of both the east line of Lot 1, Block 6, and west line of Lot 1, Block 1. 4. Right and/or left turn lanes will be required from 551h St NW. 5. Dedication of 60 feet of right-of-way will be required for 551h St NW. 6. A temporary turn -around is required at the southerly extent of 560 Ave NW. 7. Pedestrian facilities will be required along both sides of all new public streets, and within Outlot A (mid -block walkway), and along all the south side of 55`h St NW. B. This property is subject to a Substandard Street Frontage Charge of $30.00 per foot of frontage for future reconstruction of 55'h St NW. In addition to the footage charge, this property may be subject to a capacity component area charge for the Northwest Area Traffic Improvement District which also includes 501" Ave NW. 9. Outlot A should be dedicated to the City. 10. The extension of sanitary sewer to serve the southeastern portion of this property is subject to the development of the vacant property between the Wedgewood Hills development and this property. Easements will be required for off -site utilities. 11. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure to serve this development. CaTEMMPP#00-16.doc ROCHESTEk Minnesota 4/11/00 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 12. The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement with the City, prior to submittal of the Final Plat. Said Agreement will outline 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 including the capacity component of the Northwest TIC. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): J9173 "Trunk Sanitary Sewer in 55" St NW Area" @ $392.54 per acre plus 7.5% interest from May 16, 1994, for the northeast 12.5 acres of the site (based on current policy). Remainder of the property subject to Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre. Water Availability Charge (WAG) @ $1605.50 per developable acre. Storm Water Management Fee for voluntary participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan @ $1,983.50 per acre (if on -site detention is not provided). Substandard Street Frontage Charge @ $30.00 per foot of frontage on 55t° St NW. A capacity component area charge for the Northwest Area TID. The Developer's proportional share cost will be addressed in the Development Agreement for this development. :• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 12 Street name Signs 2 Stop Signs CITEMMPP#00-16.doc Al 11" WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. Application Number: No hydric soils exist on the si a 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 ps rpu we pledge, we deliver April 6, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat 400-16 by Bigelow Enterprises to be known as Kingsbury Hills 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. Connection to the Northwest High Level Water System is available approximately 650' east of the NE comer of this property at Wedgewood Hills Third Subdivision. This necessary water main extension is not included in this submittal. 3. As previously noted the water system computer modeling indicates, in the upper portions of this property, flows for fire protection temporarily will be below the minimum required by the Fire Prevention Bureau for residential use. This will be remedied with the planned further networking of the water system near the 501h Ave. and 55`h St. NW area. 4. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with these comments. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, �����������%%�� � 0644A P�v'� &' Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau McGhie & Betts, Inc. Bigelow Enterprises Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 a�g , ROCHESTER PARK AND7. _,.;REATION DEPARTrAENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 56904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 13, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Kingsburry Hills 1°` Preliminary Plat #00-16 Acreageof plat.......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density ................................................... Density factor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 22.37 a 80 units 3.58 units /acre .0244 1.95 acres $13,500/acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: cash in lieu of land with payment to be made prior to recording of the final plat. Applicant Bigelow Enterprises P 0 Box 247 Byron, MN 55920 N:\PARK\DSTOT2\2000\DEDICATION\NW 289E\KINGSBURY IST.DOC i Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 1. The Development Agreement for this property must be executed with the City prior to the submittal of the final plat 2. The easement be ern Lots 5 & 6, Block 1 and L & 7, Block 1 be labeled utility and drainage easem t and be a minimum of eet. 3. The owner shall execute rth the City bntribution agreement for 23sd Avenue SE, prior to the submittal of th 'nal plWr 4. Outlot A shall be dedicated t City. 5. Pedestrian facilities are uired alAVboth sides of the entire frontage of Valverde Lane SE, includi7king t A. and alo the entire easterly right-of-way of 23"Avenue SE. 6. Remove grass wail indicated on O of A, or work with the Park &Recreation Denartment for an anvrondate surface for t trail. approximately 22.37 acres of land into 80 lots for single family residential development. Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated April 20, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. She stated that staff is recommending approval subject to 8 conditions, to which she has some changes. Ms. Baker noted she suggests amending condition number 3 to say "Stormwater management must be provided for this development." She explained the rest of the condition can be omitted. Conditions number 4 and 6 can be combined to read as follows, "The applicant shall contribute a capacity component to the Traffic Improvement District (TID), which would include a substandard street reconstruction charge or the applicant may construct turn lanes from 55a' Street NW and pay a $30 per front foot substandard street charge." Ms. Baker stated that condition number 8 can be deleted. Representing the applicant, Bill Tointon, McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. He stated that the changes Ms. Baker has proposed to the conditions are satisfactory to them and they will work the issues out in the development agreement. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Preliminary Plat #00-16, to be known as Kingsbury Hills Subdivision, with conditions as modified by staff. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. Conditions: 1. The Plat shall be revised as follows: asI' Page 14 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 ➢The roadway name "Kingston Court NW" shall be changed to a unique name not already proposed or used and the roadway type shall be changed from a "Court" to a `Place." ➢ The roadway name "Kingsbury Court NW" shalt be changed to "Kingsbury Place NW" ➢Controlled access shall be provided along the northerly 50 feet of the east line of Lot 1, Block 6 and the northerly 50 feet of the west line of Lot 1, Block 1. 2. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $13,500.00 which is due prior to recording the final plat documents for this Plat. 3. Storm water management must be provided for this development. 4. The applicant shall contribute a capacity component to the Traffic Improvement District (TID), which would include a substandard street reconstruction charge or the applicant may construct turn lanes from 55"h Street NW and pay a $30 per front foot substandard street charge. 5. The applicant shall construct pedestrian facilities within Outlot A (in addition to both sides of all roadways) and shall dedicated said Outlot to the Cit�r. The applicant shall also construct a 10' bituminous path along the south side of 55" St. NW, 6. Utilities and easements needed to serve this plat from the Wedgwood development will be required prior to recording the final plat documents. Easements for a temporary turn -a -round must also be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dal report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted the issues with the applicant, who is in agi revisions prior to the Council meeting. Mr office by the afternoon of Monday, May 1 Council meeting. He pointed out a corr instead of "pong." Staff recommends a rpril 21, 2000, to the Commission. The staff lning Department. He stated that staff discussed int with those revisions, and they will provide the 9N noted the revisions will need to be in the 0, i rder for this to proceed to the May 15 to con ' ion number 1: it should say "pond" ,I with th uooested conditions. Dave Bell, Freedom Development an Consulting, St. Clou MN, addressed the Commission. He stated they are in agreement witobverything staff explain . He asked about the issue of the $30 per foot for substandard rots and wondered if this is t same kind of situation where they will have the acreage charge fbsed on a Transportation Imp vement District (TID), REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Meeting a- / Date: 05-15-00 ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. —BLIC HEARINGS I PLANNING 61 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Site Plan Amendment #00-01 for the Arboretum Special District. PREPARED BY: The applicant, Wal-Mart, is proposing to add approximately 103,976 square feet onto the Theresa Fogarty existing store in Northwest Plaza. The application also includes modification to an access Planner and detention pond. The property is located south of 55th Street NW, west of T.H. 52, within retum Soeclal District. May 9, 2000 NOTE., The Applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan on May 5, 2000 addressing the fifth condition added by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. The revised landscaping plan indicates tress to be planted in six of the islands and shrubs to be planted in the remaining six islands located in the front of the building. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission considered this Special District Amendment Final Site Plan at a public hearing on April 26, 2000. Mr. Paul Pearson, McCombs, Frank, Roos Associates, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated they have no problems with any of the conditions and will comply with them. In regards to landscaping, Mr. Pearson noted that it would be Wal-Mart's preference to not put trees in front of the building, they would prefer to plant shrubs or under -story trees. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.146 (Conditional Uses), Paragraph 61.147 (Conditions on Approval) and 62.708 (Criteria for Type III Development)of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The Commission found that this proposal is consistent with these criteria. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide a detailed lighting plan, prior to construction. 2. Any capacity loss in stormwater detention shall be addressed either through additional on -site detention, or participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. 3. A 20 foot utility easement needs to be dedicated, prior to construction, for the fire hydrant that is to be relocated near the front center of the building. 4. Relocation of utilities will be the applicant's expense. 5. The parking lot shall have 12 islands with landscaping that includes canopy trees and the landscaping plans shall be submitted prior to the Council hearing. Ms. Schultz moved to approve Final Site Plan Amendment #00-01, by Wal-Mart, based on staff - suggested findings and with the four staff -recommended conditions and a fifth condition that states 'The parking lot shall have 12 island with landscaping that includes canopy trees and the landscaping plans shall be submitted prior to the Council hearing." Mr. Brace seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay. Planning Staff Recommendation: 1C�JT See attached staff report dated April 21, 2000. VOUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: rn 3; 5 '.. ;t" _ • �...�. Um � 4 1 ' � q� `dZV d J-S3MN.ltlON t, ~ Qa � 1 NH'id a -US TYNId a v] 1 !. OV08 I J HuyMav313 I ij / Enginee Planning • Surveying FFRA McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. April 17, 2000 Ms. Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner Rochester — Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive Southeast Rochester. Minnesota 55904 SUBJECT: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wal-Mart Store Building Expansion MFRA # 12657 Dear Ms. Baker: The attached supplemental, or modified materials are being submitted in response to your report to the City Planning and Zoning Commission dated April 7, 2000. Following is a response to each item as outlined in the "staff recommendations" of the report: 1. Attached for your review is a copy of the building floor plan. The exterior sales area has been identified on the site plan as the "Outside Seasonal Garden Center." Exterior storage is not proposed. The building has been expanded at the most easterly comer to allow for additional space for inside storage. The 12 foot high chain link fence as shown on the right side elevation of the building elevation plan is for vandalism protection for the refrigeration units located in this area. The revised site plan identifies the proposed uses at the most northerly comer of the building. A raised sidewalk is provided along the front of the building. The grading plan identifies the proposed elevations of the top of the concrete (TC) and the top of the pavement (TP). A six- inch separation is provided except in areas where ramps are to be provided as shown on the grading plan. An integral concrete sidewalk and curb is proposed along the front of the building. Bollards will also be placed near the store entrances where the entrances are ramped. 15050 23rd Avenue North • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone 7631476-6010 • fax 763/476-6532 e-mail. mfra@mfra.com Ms. Mitzi A. Baker, Semi... lanner April 17, 2000 Page 2 Raised concrete islands, with a concrete sidewalk have been provided at the south end of each of the drive aisles as shown on the site plan. The entrance at the West Frontage Road has been modified as requested. A raised concrete median has been provided, and the sidewalk along the easterly side of the entrance was shifted away from the curb. A designated pedestrian crosswalk area has been added at the entrance and is shown on the site plan. 4. The wall sign identified as the "Tire and Lube Express" along the southerly side of the building has been removed. The sign area calculations are summarized on a separate attachment. 5. The landscape plan information is provided on the site plan. Six existing trees located in the six existing islands along the front of the store are to be removed as a result of the building expansion. Six new trees are to be fumished and placed in the proposed islands as shown on the site plan. Also, please note the following additional modifications, and supplemental information: A. The building footprint for the expansion as shown on the plans includes some minor modifications. The southerly wall of the building (between Wal-Mart and Sam's Club) has been expanded by five (5) feet. Also, the compactor near the northeasterly truck dock was relocated between the truck dock and the building as shown on the plans. As noted previously, the "inside storage area" was added to the most easterly comer of the building. The revised total area of the building expansion is 103,976 square feet as is noted on the attached preliminary building floor plan. B. The parking area along the northerly side of the building has been modified because of an existing pylon sign as shown on the site plan area. The parking summary as shown on the site plan has been modified. The revised parking ratio for this site is 4.49 stalls per 1,000 square feet of building. C. Attached is a copy of the Traffic Engineer's Addendum #1 report dated April 14, 2000 in response to Mr. David Rossman's report of March 28, 2000, with amended comments of April 10, 2000. Ms. Mitzi A. Baker, Senic__ tanner April 17, 2000 Page 3 Please contact us if you need additional information, or clarification of an item. Thank you for your assistance on this project. We look forward to the opportunity to meet with the City Planning and Zoning Commission on April 26. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul Pearson, P.E. PP:pry Enclosure sAmainAWa112657ACo7cspondence\baker4-17 APR-17-2000 08:34 SENSHOOF & ASSOC. 612 238 1671 P.02iO4 IFBENSNvOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUM: TWO / HOFWN% MN WAV (952) 236-1667 / FAX (962) 236.1671 April 14, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Frank, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. FROM: Edward F. Terhaar CPT` Refer to File: 00-10 APR 18 2000 RE: Addendum #1: Response to City Comments on Traffic Analysis for Proposed WaI-Mart Expansion in Rochester, MN PURPOSE This memorandum is to respond to comments raised by City staff regarding our traffic analysis dated March 7, 2000 for the proposed Wal-Mart expansion. The comments from City staff were presented in a memorandum dated March 28, 2000 and included nine items. The comment memorandum is attached at the end of this report. Both the City comment and our responses are presented next for each item. RESPONSES Comment 1 City Comment: The analysis of the queue lengths at CSAH 22 & west Frontage Road should be ea pcmded to include the east approach. not is the expected queue length for the westbound traffic, and is the left turn lane sufficient? Response: We were originally requested by the City to review the queue lengths on the West Frontage Road, which is what we presented in our March 7, 2000 report. This analysis was based on actual queue length observations recorded during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Unfortunately, since we were not asked to review the westbound left turn queues, we did not collect any field data. We can estimate the needed storage length at an unsignalized intersection based on methods described in the Mn/DOT Road Design Manual. In section 5-2.06.03 of the Design Manual, the storage length needed at an unsignalized intersection can be determined based on the number of vehicles likely to arrive in an average 2 minute period within the peak hour. Using this method, the existing left turn volume of 200 vehicles per hour requires _154 feet of storage space at 22 APR-17-2000 08:34 BENSHOOF & ASSOC. 612 238 1671 P.03/04 Mr, Greg Frank -2- April 14, 2000 feet per vehicle. The forecasted volume of 284 vehicles per hour, which includes the Wal-Mart expansion and background growth, requires 198 feet of storage length. Based on an aerial photo of the area, it appears the westbound left turn lane is approximately 200 feet in length, which is greater than either of the required storage lengths listed above. If the intersection is signalized, the 95's percentile queue lengths are much shorter than the storage lengths listed above. Using the Synchro intersection analysis software, the westbound left turn 95'b percentile queue lengths are 41 and 89 feet for the 2000 existing and 2001 post development scenarios, respectively. Comment 2 City Comment: Review the lane assignments at the east driveway onto the frontage road Verify with photos that 4 lanes exist here. Response. We did not take any photos while at the site. However, the data collection personnel at the site verified the following lane geometrics: one northbound left turn lane, one northbound through lane, one southbound right turn lane, and one southbound through lane. These geometrics are also confirmed by looking at the asbuilt drawing for Northwest Plaza, as shown in Figure 1. Comment 3 CityComment: The City of Rochester is ready and willing to install the signal at 55" Street and the West Frontage Road We need cooperation and approval for the County. The County has been unwilling to sign the SIR and plans without a connection to Villa Road Response. We have nothing to add to this comment. Comment 4 City Comment: The report should describe the effect on the truck loading docks. The loading docks for the Wal-Mart store are currently located on the east side of the building south of the West Frontage Road access drive. The proposed expansion will not change the loading dock location. The relocation of the access drive to the north will increase the space between the loading docks and the access drive, which increases the stacking space for exiting trucks. The proposed expansion will not have any negative impacts on the loading dock operations. AFR-17-2000 08:35 BENSHCCF & ASSOC. 612 238 1671 P.04iO4 Mr. Greg Frank -3- April 14, 2000 Comment 5 City Comment: An overlay of the frontage road may be warranted to accommodate the new stripping and to cover up the existing joints and cracks in the pavement. Response: The existing access is being relocated approximately 50 feet north of its existing position. The small amount of restriping necessary on the frontage road to accommodate this shift can be installed without overlaying the entire frontage road. If an overlay is needed to cover up existing joints and cracks in the pavement, that project is separate form the proposed access relocation. Comment 6 City Comment: The UR should mention the number of parking spaces lost to the expansion and the effect on the center to operate with the reduced number of spaces. Response: The proposed expansion will reduce the number of parking spaces by 241. After the expansion, the parking ratio for the Wal-Mart and Sam's Club will be 4.70 spaces per 1000 square feet of building area. The Planning Department Review dated April 7, 2000 indicates the parking ratio required for this development is 4 spaces per 1000 square feet. Therefore, the parking ratio after the expansion will still be greater than the required parking ratio. Comment 7 City Comment: Pedestrian access form the frontage road trail should be improved with paths to the building and crosswalks. Response: This item has been addressed on the latest site plan revisions. Comment 8 City Comment: The report should describe the existing bus stops and where they will be relocated Response: The changes to the internal roadway system will not have any impacts on existing bus routes or stops. • t ! " 1 J CityComment: There should also be mention of the existing ParkNRide lot at this center, and where it will he relocated Space in the main lot would be acceptable. Response: We are unsure if a Park N Ride lot exists within this site since there is no evident signage identifying a Park N Ride. However, if a Park N Ride does exist, it can be moved into the main lot. TOTAL P.04 46 ~ C >m r a m o co T+ m Z m �O >m o oy co 9zr Z o 00 m a a -iCm C/)z T yco z m a z r>*0 n CO > N� ze-4 c mom m c 0 MaG) CO CO)m� N VT/so'd TL4T 8z-7- ?Tm ')OSSU 'B-OOHSN3H VT:LT OOOZ-bT-ddy IFBENSHVJF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUrrE TWO / HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (612) 238-1667 / FAX (812) 238.1671 March 7, 2000 Refer to File: 00-10 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Frank, McCombs Frank Roos Associates FROM: Edward F. Terhaar t FT - RE: RE: Results of Traffic Study for Proposed Wal-Mart Expansion in Rochester, MN PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND This memorandum is to address the impacts on traffic operations due to the proposed expansion of an existing Wal-Mart store in Rochester, MN. The store is located in the southwest quadrant of the T.H 52/55 h Street interchange in northwest Rochester and is part of a larger retail development known as Northwest Plaza. Based on comments from City and ROCOG staff, our work is focused on the traffic operations at the 551s Street/W. Frontage Road and W. Frontage Road/Plaza access drive intersections. As part of our work, we have also reviewed the trip generation assumptions used in the original Traffic Impact Report (TIR), dated January, 1992, relative to the existing uses and the planned future uses for the entire Northwest Plaza development. Development Characteristics The proposed project involves expansion of the existing 114,518 square foot Wal-Mart store. The expanded building will be 213,507 square feet in size. The expansion will include construction in the space which now exists between the Wal-Mart store and the Sam's club store. The proposed project will also move the access onto the West Frontage Road approximately 50 north of its current position. Existing Conditions In order to understand the existing traffic operations characteristics, turn movement volumes and queue lengths were recorded during the weekday p.m. peak period at the 55a' Street/W. Frontage Road and W. Frontage Road/Plaza access drive intersections. This data was collected on Tuesday, February 8, 2000 from 4 to 6 p.m.. -- .�' 15 2rG0 - =ii !ENT Mr. Greg Frank -2- March 7, 2000 The 55`s Street/W. Frontage Road intersection is currently unsignalized and is controlled with stop signs on the W. Frontage Road approaches. City staff have indicated that a signal will likely be installed in 2001. The intersection consists of two through lanes, one left turn lane, and one right turn lane on both the eastbound and westbound approaches. The northbound approach consists of one left turn lane, one through only lane, and one right turn lane. The southbound approach consists on one left/through/right lane. The W. Frontage Road/Plaza access drive intersection consists of one right turn lane and one through lane on the southbound approach, one left turn lane and one through lane on the northbound approach, and two eastbound exiting lanes from Northwest Plaza. This intersection is controlled with stop signs on the eastbound approach. TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Original TIR The original TIR, completed in January, 1992, assumed the sizes and trip generation characteristics presented in Table 1 for the Northwest Plaza development. Table 1 Trip Generation for Northwest Plaza as Presented in January, 1992 TIR Land Use Size Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Trips in Trips out Shopping Center 1 468,968 s . ft. 1 877 877 Source: Traffic Impact Report for Northwest Plaza, January 1992, Barton-Aschmann Associates, Inc. As shown in the Table, all of the uses were lumped together and the shopping center trip generation rate was used to estimate the number of trips. If the information was available, more detailed calculations could have been made using the individual land uses. Existing Use The existing land uses that were open when the traffic data was collected were surveyed and recorded. The number of trips generated by these uses was estimated using information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The land uses and the estimated number of trips generated during the weekday p.m. peak hour are shown in Table 2. Mr. Greg Frank -3- March 7, 2000 Table 2 Existing Land Uses and Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation for Northwest Plaza Land Use Size Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Trips In Trips Out Grocery Store 59,100 s . ft. 324 309 General Retail 28,625 s . ft. 32 42 Furniture Store 18,200 s . ft. 4 4 Auto Lube 1,500 s . ft. 9 7 Sit Down Restaurant 3,600 s . ft. 23 16 Wal-Mart 114,518 s . ft. 233 242 Sam's Club 134,900 s . ft. 251 262 Totals 876 882 10% reduction for multi- purpose -88 -88 Grand Totals 788 794 The general retail space consists of the following uses: shoe store, home appliances, bakery outlet, used music store, barber/stylist, game store, and discount/bargain store. With Expanded Wal-Mart With the expanded Wal-Mart inplace and no other changes to the center, the trip generation in Table 2 changes to that shown in Table 3. Table 3 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour 16hp Generation with Expanded Wal-Mart Land Use Size Weekdal P.M. Peak Hour Trips In Trips Out Grocery Store 59,100 sq. ft. 324 309 General Retail 28,625 s . ft. 32 42 Furniture Store 18,200 s . ft. 4 4 Auto Lube 1,500 s . ft. 9 7 Sit Down Restaurant 3,600 s . ft. 23 16 Wal-Mart 213,507 s . ft. 400 416 Sam's Club 134,900 s . ft. 251 262 Totals 1043 1056 10% reduction for multi- purpose -104 -106 Grand Totals 939 950 Mr. Greg Frank 4- March 7, 2000 Full Development of Northwest Plaza Some space currently exists for future development in Northwest Plaza. The trip generation with the addition of future uses was also estimated. This calculation assumes the addition of the following uses: General Retail (90,100 sq. ft.), gas station (12 vehicle fueling positions), and three outlots (15,000 sq. ft.). The resultant trip generation estimates are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation with Full Development of Northwest Plaza Land Use Size Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Trips In Trips Out Grocery Store 59,100 sq. ft. 324 309 General Retail 108,725 sq. ft. 121 160 Furniture Store 18,200 sq. ft. 4 4 Auto Lube 1,500 sq. ft. 9 7 Sit Down Restaurant 3,600 sq. ft. 23 16 Wal-Mart 213,507 sq. ft. 400 416 Sam's Club 134,900 sq. ft. 251 262 Gas Station 12 vfp 81 80 3 outlots 15,000 sq. ft. 17 22 Totals 1230 1276 10% reduction for multi- purpose -123 -128 Grand Totals 1107 1148 The total number of weekday p.m. peak hour trips presented in the original T1R was 1,754. The current estimate for the entire site is 2,255, or 29 percent grater than the original estimate. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Turn movement volumes at each of the intersections were estimated for the 2001 condition with the expanded Wal-Mart store. These estimates include the addition of background growth on 55's Street to account for other development in the area. The volumes on the W. Frontage Road were increased proportionally to the expected increase in the number of trips generated by the expanded Wal-Mart. The existing and 2001 traffic volumes with the expanded Wal-Mart inplace are shown in Table 5. Mr. Greg Frank -5- March 7, 2000 Table 5 2001 and 2001 Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Location/ Scenario Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 2000 55 St/W Frontaa 19 0 182 18 2 11 23 772 43 200 783 45 W Frontage Rd 795 61 284 8062001 45 2000 W Frontage Rd/Plaza Access 119 130 n/a n/a 103 143 71 n/a 99 n/a n/a n/a 2001 W Frontage Rd/Plaza Access 205 130 n/a n/a 103 246 122 n/a 170 n/a n/a n/a TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Each of the intersections was analyzed to determine the effects of the additional development on traffic operations. In order to better understand how the intersections operate from an overall traffic capacity standpoint, capacity analyses were performed using the methodology presented in Highway Capacity Manual. A capacity analysis is a way to determine how well or poorly an intersection is operating. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service, which ranges from A to F. Level of service A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level of service F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay. Observed queue lengths were also analyzed to determine if adequate queuing space exists to accommodate future traffic volumes. Existing Levels of Service The 550' Street/W. Frontage Road intersection was analyzed using the existing unsignalized control, geometrics, and traffic volumes. Under these conditions, the northbound and southbound left turn and through movements operate at LOS F, with all other movements at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS D. The W. Frontage Road/Wal-Mart access drive intersection was also analyzed using the existing unsignalized control, geometrics, and traffic volumes. Under these conditions, all movements at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS A. Existing Queue Lengths The observed northbound queues at the 55" Street/W. Frontage Road intersection are presented in Table 6. Mr. Greg Frank -6- March 7, 2000 Table 6 Observed Maximum Queues for the Northbound Approach at the 55ei Street/W. Frontage Road Intersection Movement Queue Length vehicles Northbound left turn 3 Northbound through 1 Northbound right turn 7 As shown in the table, the longest queues occurred in the northbound right turn lane. Measurements indicate the existing northbound left turn lane and northbound through lane are approximately 200 feet in length and the northbound right lane is approximately 270 feet in length. If 25 feet is assumed for each vehicle queued, the maximum observed queue lengths in each lane are as follows: 75 feet in the left turn lane, 25 feet in the through lane, and 175 feet in the right turn lane. At the W. Frontage Road/Plaza Access drive intersection, a maximum queue of three vehicles was observed in the northbound left turn lane, the eastbound left turn lane, and the eastbound right turn lane. Measurements indicate the northbound left turn lane is approximately 150 feet in length. The eastbound exit lanes are approximately 75 feet long, with additional queuing space extending into the main drive aisle. Future Level of Service The 55 s Street/W. Frontage Road intersection was analyzed using the existing unsignalized control, geometrics, and 2001 traffic volumes. Under these conditions, the northbound and southbound left turn and through movements operate at LOS F, with all other movements at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS E. With traffic signal control inplace, all movements are expected to operate at LOS C or better, with the entire intersection at LOS B. The W. Frontage Road/Wal-Mart access drive intersection was also analyzed using the existing unsignalized control, geometrics, and traffic volumes. Under these conditions, all movements at LOS B or better. The overall intersection operates at LOS B. Future Oueue Length The queue lengths for the northbound approach at the 55`s Street/W. Frontage Rd. intersection will continue to increase as the volumes rise in the existing unsignalized condition. As shown earlier, the longest queue observed in the right turn lane was approximately 140 feet in length. The right turn lane is considerably longer than this queue length and therefore can accommodate additional queuing vehicles. The same is true for the northbound left turn and through lanes. Mr. Greg Frank -7- March 7, 2000 When the intersection is signalized, the queue lengths should decrease due to the more efficient operation of the intersection. At the W. Frontage Rd./Plaza access drive intersection, the northbound left turn and eastbound exiting queue lengths will increase as volumes increase. The northbound lefl turn lane should be long enough to accommodate the future queue based on the amount of space available. The exiting queues use most of the lane length today, so any additional queues will wait in the drive aisle. Based on the observed queue lengths and lane lengths, the proposed relocation of the Plaza access drive on the West Frontage Road will not cause any significant negative impacts on traffic operations. Mr. Greg Frank -8- March 7, 2000 CONCLUSIONS Based on the information presented in this report, we have made the following conclusions: • The existing Wal-Mart generates 475 weekday p.m. peak hour trips. The expanded Wal-Mart is expected to generate 816 weekday p.m. peak hour trips. • The original TIR estimated 1,754 weekday p.m. peak trips for the entire development. We estimate the entire development will generate 2,255 weekday p.m. peak hour trips with full build out. • The 55'" Street/W. Frontage Road intersection operates at LOS D today with existing stop sign control The northbound and southbound left turn and through movements operate at LOS F today due to the amount of eastbound and westbound through traffic. • The unsignalized 55t° Street/W. Frontage Road intersection will likely decrease to LOS E in 2001 with the additional through traffic on 55'h Street and the trips generated by the expanded Wal-Mart store. The northbound and southbound left turn and through movements continue to operate at LOS F in 2001. • When a signal is installed, the 550' Street/W. Frontage Road intersection is expected to operate at LOS B with the 2001 volumes. • The W. Frontage Road/Plaza drive intersection operates at LOS A today and is expected to operate at LOS B in 2001 with the expanded Wal-Mart. • Additional queuing s�ace exists on the northbound approach of the W. Frontage Road at 55 Street to accommodate future queues. When the intersection is signalized, the queue lengths are expected to decrease due to the increased efficiency in traffic operations. • The northbound left turn lane at the W. Frontage Road/Plaza drive intersection can accommodate additional vehicles within the existing turn lane length. Any additional queues in the eastbound exiting lanes can be accommodated in the drive aisle east of the building. • The proposed relocation of the Plaza access drive on the West Frontage Road will not cause any significant negative impacts on traffic operations. e 1 !{ i � ,1 t+,µ ;{ i !i! , �I� s1 1 I'' , � r! i'+� )�_! � � il'; � �,� ► �� � (+l ��� f �1 iC,� s' � �'I! � � �+!1 11 ` � !+ '��"� � Ii� i�t {�' � �'i i � jl� ■ S�1 l;pi I { h€► ` ;� €_; )! € f : {j{�+i ii{� 1 li��, �i a► I') s'i ` i # iII 1 I �, € , {{,, + (,! j { { (; 1 1'• I„I { It ' 1� • it 1 _• 1 I{!,, ; li .��i►€s�;f '! �''') ► + 1€;{ .lr! ';{ { ,►'i !6 � 1'�,I �) � � 1+1I f! �;€► � :' li . ,) Ili>���� I�i) i '►`' lilt{}iilll�lIll 11 1{l �►�J�uii�1'€°a� €Ilil : s . >i� ai) {I J€I r{ y1 � - -� \• '!..� mod;;..• j r•:: i ei 3�3 err yr •sr: :r r W W f I As-7 l ��n TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner -�� *.�� 11 � A pii,7ijjw j� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATIOW 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE WELUSEPTIC FAX 5071285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 507/2B5-B345 507/287-2275 DATE: April 21, 2000. REVISED REPORT RE: Amendment to the Final Site Plan #00-01 for the Arboretum Special District. The applicant, Wal-Mart, is proposing to add approximately 103,976 square feet onto the existing store in the Northwest Plaza. The application also includes modification to an access and detention pond. The property is located south of 551h Street NW, west of TH 52, within Northwest Plaza and the Aboretum Special District. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. c/o Greg Frank McCombs, Frank, Ross Associates 15050 23r" Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 Architect/Engineer: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23r° Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 Referral Agency Comments: Public Utilities - Water Division; Rochester Public Works; Planning Department Transportation Division; Rochester Building Safety Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (4 letters) 2. Copy of 1992 Approved Final Site Plan 3. Copy of Site/Development Plan Amendment 4. Copy of Traffic Study 5. Copy of Addendum to Traffic Study 6. Memorandum from McCombs, Frank Ross Associates, dated April 17, 2000. Development Review: Location of Property: The property is in the Arboretum Special District and is AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 4�sj Arboretum Special District/Wal-Mart April 21, 2000 located south of 55'" Street NW, west of the West Frontage Road of Highway 52 within Northwest Plaza, Zoning: The property is currently zoned SD-1 (Aboretum Special District) General Development Plan: The existing Wal-Mart building is designated on the approved site plan for Nonwest Plaza Shopping District. Access: The north access (551" St.) to the site is consistent with the north access shown on the approved project development plan. Access to 55'" Street/Circle Drive will be from the existing in -place access points. Access from the West Frontage Road is proposed to be relocated 50 feet to the north of its existing location. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps do not indicate the presence of any wetlands on this portion of the site. Special District Summary: In 1982, the City adopted a Special Zoning District for the Arboretum (Ordinance #2247). The Special District allows for a mixture of land uses guided by a general development plan for the area. Land uses conforming to the underlying R-1 district (at the time of Special District adoption) only need be approved through conventional zoning and subdivision processes (such as Lincolnshire Subdivisions). Other development projects in accordance with the general development plan for the property, but not conforming to the underlying R-1 zoning must be considered for approval through a two step (project development plan and.final site plan) review process as described below. The City Council has initiated Text Amendment 00.01 to amend Section 60.327 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, relating to amending an approved site/development plan within a SD Special District. This text amendment was considered by the City Planning and Zoning Commission at their April 12, 2000 meeting and will be considered by the City Council at their May 1, 2000 meeting. This amendment request is being reviewed simultaneously with the criteria proposed in the Text Amendment. The proposed amendment request will be reviewed under Section 61.148 (Conditional Use) and Section 62.708, 2 (Final Plans), consistent with the proposed text amendment. �(ooPage 3 Arboretum Special DistrictUWal-Mart April 21, 2000 Shoreland Management: Proposed expansion along the west side is approximately 80 feet from the edge of Kings Run Creek. Expansion along the east side is 175 feet from edge of the Creek and the bituminous along south (rear) is less than 25 feet from top of bank. When this development was originally approved, Shoreland regulations had not yet been adopted by the City of Rochester. Since then, Shoreland regulations have been adopted by the City and incorporated into the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) and can be found.in Section 62.1000 et. seq. of the LDM. This property is partially within the Shoreland District and is subject to the Shoreland regulations. Traffic: Please see the attached traffic report, including Addendum #1 and staff analysis provided by the Planning Department Transportation Division. Analysis: The proposed development is subject to the provisions of Ordinance #2247, which establishes the Arboretum Special District and proposed Text Amendment 00-01, which provides for procedures for approval of amended final plans within the Special District. The final site plan known as "Northwest Plaza Shopping Center" went through the project development plan and final site plan process and was approved in 1992. A copy of the final site plan is attached. The plan shows a shopping center and seven one acre outlots abutting Circle Drive. This application proposes to amend the total size of the existing Wal-Mart by adding 103,976 square feet of retail space. The expanded building will be 220,076 square feet in size and will include the space which now exists between the Wal-Mart store and Sam's Club store. The project also proposes to modify parking, move the existing access onto the West Frontage Road approximately 50 feet to the north and to modify a stormwater detention pond located just north of that access. Review Criteria and Suggested Findings: Amendments to an existing siteldevelopment plan for a Special District 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. Page 4 Arboretum Special DistricvWal-Mart April 21, 2000 The gross leaseable area for the entire Northwest Plaza center is expected to be less than 600,000 square feet. In the 8-4 district, a business center with less than 600,000 s.f. requires 4 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of GLA. Although this expansion will result in a net loss of 230 parking spaces, it appears as though parking for the entire development (Northwest Plaza) will meet the criteria of parking requirements in the 13-4 District. The proposed relocation of the access drive on the West Frontage Road will not cause any significant negative impacts on traffic operations. Design of this access has been modified to provide a raised concrete median and improve the design of pedestrian crossings. 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 expansion is proposed to be the same height as the existing Wal-Mart structure, therefore, the proposed expansion should not be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood. 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 have little impact to neighboring properties since there is an existing retail building on this site with loading along the rear of the building. The amendment should not result in the exposure of detrimental features. The proposal does not appear to include the removal of vegetation along the south side of the building near Kings Run Creek. A residential development is located south of Kings Run Creek. Trees removed from islands, that will be removed to accommodate the expansion, will need to be replaced on -site. The site plans indicate that landscaping will be placed within the new concrete islands. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. This site is within the Shoreland District and is subject to the standards within that district, as included in the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). At the time Northwest Plaza was originally approved, the City had not yet adopted Shoreland Management Standards. Since that time, the City has adopted Shoreland regulations that are now part of the LDM. Shifting the access to the West Frontage Road to the north will require modifications to an existing stormwater pond located north of the existing access opening. Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City prior to proceeding with modifications to the pond. At this time, it appears as though the south 30 feet of the pond will be filled and making the pond deeper will increase the capacity of the pond. Any capacity loss in stormwater detention shall be addressed either through additional on- g6 x Page 5 / Arboretum Special Districu Wal-Mart April 21, 2000 site detention, or participation in the City's Regional Stormwater 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. If this amendment is approved, a detailed exterior lighting plan must be submitted meeting requirements of the B-4 District. 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. Access will be available to all sides of the building and hydrants have been relocated to provide adequate fire protection. Four protective posts will also need to be provided for each of the fire hydrants relocated to within islands, per City standards. 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. This property is within the Arboretum Special District. The standards of the B-4 (General Commercial) district are used as a guide to evaluate development within the Northwest Plaza portion of the Arboretum SD. It appears as though the expansion generally meets the standards that would apply to a business center in the B-4 district. This site is also within the Shoreland (Overlay) District and is subject to the standards within that district, as included in the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). At the time Northwest Plaza was originally approved, the City had not yet adopted Shoreland Management Standards. Since that time, the City has adopted Shoreland regulations that are now partof the LDM. The alterations proposed do not appear to cause additional impacts within the Shoreland District that are inconsistent with the Shoreland regulations. 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. Page 6 Arboretum Special April 21, 2000 Districu Wal-Mart 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Final Development Plan Criteria: a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted. An additional 20' public utility easement will need to be dedicated for the fire hydrant that is to be relocated near the front center of the building, per City Standards. All existing valve boxes and fire hydrants within the construction area need to be adjusted to finished grade and all required permits through the City Public Works Department must be obtained, prior to construction. 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. Not applicable. 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. a&3/1 The location and width of the proposed driveway access to the West Frontage road appears acceptable. A raised concrete island is provided on the plans. The sidewalk on the south/east side of the access is located away from the curb to accommodate a STOP sign location, provide pedestrian safety, and snow storage. Additionally, the plan provides for a safe and designated crossing for pedestrians traveling across the new access opening from north to south or vise versa. Raised concrete islands are indicated at the south end of all of the drive isles. Each of the raised islands should be provided with plantings. The current plan shows landscaping within only 6 of the 12 islands. 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. See above response to "c". &q Page 7 / Arboretum Special District/Wal-Mart April 21, 2000 in addition, the design of the pedestrian walk adjacent to the proposed retail building indicates a raised curb separating the driving lanes from the pedestrian space adjacent to the front of the building. 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. The landscape plan indicates six existing trees located in the six existing islands along the front of the store are to be removed. Six new trees are to be planted in the proposed islands as shown on the site plan. The Commission and the City Council may want to consider requiring landscaping in the other six islands. 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. Not applicable. g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the need identified in Phase I for the project. Not applicable. h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design. The proposed Wal-Mart expansion will be completed at the same height as the existing building. 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. The plans provides for raised concrete islands at the south end of each of the drive isles, and provides raised curb separation from the driving lanes to the pedestrian space adjacent to the building, providing pedestrian circulation and connection with abutting pedestrian facilities. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility and emergency access. The elevations identify proposed signage on the building. The applicant should provided calculations of the proposed sign area and the percent of the fagade that would be occupied by signs to demonstrating that the proposed signs meet the requirements within the B-4 district. Page 8 Arboretum Special District/ Wal-Mart April 21, 2000 Staff Recommendation: This item was previously continued from the April 12, 2000, City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The applicant has revised the plans, addressed most of the concerns and issues suggested by staff. The Planning staff has reviewed this request based on the applicable criteria. The staff finds that this proposal is generally consistent with the above criteria but that modifications to the plans and additional information are necessary before final action can be considered for this application. Staff suggests that the following modifications and additional information need to be accommodated: 1. Provide a detailed lighting plan, prior to construction. 2. Any capacity foss in stormwater detention shall be addressed either through additional on -site detention, or participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. 3. A 20 foot utility easement needs to be dedicated, prior to construction, for the fire hydrant that is to be relocated near the front center of the building. The Planning Commission may want to consider requiring plantings in all of the raised concrete islands. TRANSPORTATION STt DEVELOPMENT APPLICA'NONS REVIEW DATABASE - 1993 Jurisdiction I Aoolication I Comments City Final Site Plan The applicant was asked to prepare a revision to the original Traffic Impact 00-1 Report prepared for the Northwest Plaza Shopping Center in 1992 which would Arboretum assess the impact of the proposed expansion on the operations of the east side Special Dist driveway intersection and the intersection of 55 ° St and the West Frontage Road. xpaMart E Expansion One concern of staff was with the shifting of the east driveway northward and any impact that would have relative to queues for northbound traffic approaching 55°i St, as well as queues for northbound traffic on the Frontage Road desiring to enter the Shopping Center at this location The assessment of the consultant for the project was that adequate stacking distance exists at both intersections to accommodate the expected increase in traffic volumes. Intersection operations at the driveway entrance are at a Level of Service A currently and would degrade only to a Level of Service B. Operations at the intersection of the West Frontage Road and 551' St operate overall at Level of Service D, with selected movements operating at lower levels of service. The City Public Works Department has signal justification and design projects progressing at both this intersection as well as at the intersection of West Circle Drive and 55"' St NW (road to the North Park area). It is anticipated one or both of the signals would be installed yet this year, with the second, if not installed this year, likely to be installed in 2001. ROCOG is conducting a comprehensive traffic management study of the Circle Drive corridor which is expected to be completed this summer. The key goal of this study is to develop a traffic management plan for the corridor that will allow vehicular flow in the corridor to operate at average travel speeds of 40-45 MPH, with a reasonable level of traffic progression through the corridor and reasonable length traffic signal cycles (90 seconds or less). A major factor in achieving these goals is limiting the number of traffic signal installations, and having them spaced at relatively even spacing of about''/1 mile. The reason for undertaking this comprehensive look at the corridor is the fact that most signal installations are evaluated on a case by case, and most installations are in response to concerns at isolated locations. As an example, staff has had requests or inquiries regarding traffic signal installation at every access point between the West Frontage Road and CSAH 4 (Valleyhigh Drive) except for the entrance to the Northern Hills Golf Course; this is a total of eight out of nine possible locations in a stretch of two miles, or a signal at an average spacing of V. mile. At this type of spacing, the best average travel speeds that can be expected are on the order of 25 to 30 MPH. For Circle Drive to serve the function that it was intended to play in our highway system, it will be necessary to make some difficult decisions in the near future regarding where signalized access is going to be provided. CITY Fin Plat 00.10 No comment The Gardens aG M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 28, 2000 TO: Charlie Reiter, Planning Department FROM: David M. Rossman, Transportation Engineer �{t RE: Traffic Analysis for Wal-Mart North expansion Traffic staff has reviewed the TIR report for this expansion dated 3-7-00, and offers the following comments: 1. The City of Rochester is ready & willing to install the signal at 55'" Street & the West frontage Road. We need cooperation & approval from the County. The County has been unwilling to sign the SJR and plans without a connection to Villa Road. 2. The report should describe the effect on the truck loading docks. 3. An overlay of the frontage road may be warranted to accommodate the new stripping and to cover up the existing joints and cracks in the pavement. 4. The TIR should mention the number of parking spaces lost to the expansion and the effect on the center to operate with the reduced number of spaces. 5. Pedestrian access from the frontage road trail should be improved with paths to the building and crosswalks. 6. Th report should describe the existing bus stops and where they will be relocated. 7. There should also be mention of the existing Park N Ride Lot at this center, and where it will be relocated. Space in the main lot would be acceptable. a� rpu. we pled�i•, we delit'er March 23, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Site Plan #00-01 by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to add 97,500 SF onto the existing store in Northwest Plaza. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced application is complete and our comments follow: 1. An additional 20' public utility easement will need to be dedicated for the fire hydrant that is to be relocated near the front center of the building. 2. Four protective posts are required per City standards for each of the fire hydrants relocated to within painted islands. 3. All existing valve boxes and fire hydrants within the construction area need to be adjusted to finished grade. 4. This work can be done as a "permit" project. The permit must be obtained from the City Public Works Department prior to construction. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Greg Frank, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTEIZ Minnesota 3/31/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur 6 w� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4m 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 Final Site Plan #00-01 on the Wal-Mart property, within the Arboretum Special District. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: The location and width of the proposed driveway access to the frontage road is acceptable to Public Works. However, a revised access entrance is needed to provide greater protection for pedestrians in the crossing. Revisions should include a raised concrete island and changes to the striping plan. Also, the sidewalk on the south/east side of the access needs to be moved away from the curb to accommodate a Stop Sign location, provide pedestrian safety, and snow storage. 2. If extension of Public Utilities , and / or additional Hydrants are needed, execution of a City / Owner Contract may be required. 3. Any capacity loss in stormwater detention shall be addressed either through additional on -site detention, or participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. 4. Additional comments have been sent separately from Dave Rossman, Transportation Engineer, with regard Traffic Analysis. C:%TEMP1Final Plan #00-01 Wal Mart 3-OO.doc ago Memo To: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department From: Randy S. Johnson Date: Friday, March 17, 2000 Re: Final Site Plan #00-01 for the Arboretum Special District. Add approximately 97,500 square feet to the Wal-Mart store. The above referenced plan indicates new construction that is regulated under the Building Code and will require building permits. Complete plans and specifications are required to be submitted for a building permit prior to construction. The existing buildings (Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and the Northwest Plaza Shopping Center) were built as an unlimited area building in accordance with UBC section 505.2. The existing building was required to be entirely surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet in width. The proposed building addition will also need to be located to provide the same 60 minimum sideyard. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you • Page 1 i • 1< Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 ig%( *Dedicate the entire right of way for 50t° Av ue NW as shown in GDP #144 via easemen r plat.. . Change th a ne of the plat and road ys to meet the standards of the LDM as stated i he letter dated 3-31-00 fr the Planning Department Addressing Staff 2. Prior to the s mittal of the final p , the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement wi the City that outl" es the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; s rm wafer man ement; park dedication; traffic improvements, pedestrian fac' i , right -of- dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. Ar 3. The development mu a ased so that 50'8 Ave. NW, north of 55"' St. NW, does not exceed approximately average daily trips unless the Council has approved a public improvement pro' t to upgrade 50'4 Ave. NW. A contribution will be required for the reconstruction 5 "Ave. NW, and 65lh St. NW. The City is currently considering a Traffic I pro ent District in this area for improving 50f° Ave. NW, and 65h St. NW, and tab/is g the developers proportional share of the cost. 4. A temporary turnar nd is requt d at the westerly end of "Conrad Place NW," "Middlebrook Driv NW,"and "F! nce Drive NW". Easements for these turnarounds, as 11 as for any util ' es' outside of the plat boundary must be executed with th City prior to be re ing of the Final Plat documents. 5. Since reconstr lion of 50" Ave. NW is roposed In the near future, the developer must execute Pedestrian Facilities is meat with the City prior to the recording of the final plat. aid agreement will addres he developer's responsibility to provide pedestrian f llities along the west side of m Ave. NW. 6. Storm wat management facilities intended t erve this subdivision must be construct concurrent with the initial stages o evelopment. A stormwater declaratf and/or wetland declaration is neede r Outlot A. 7. The app ant agrees that this subdivision will have impact on the need for parklan and that the deferred dedication of land will meet this need. Such dedicat n of land will occur when the park is assessed via road or the Park Depart nt wishes to begin development of the park. 8. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, the applicant must submit a wetland delineation and obtain the necessary permits from the LGU that may be necessary for this plat to proceed. Plaza and the Arboretum Special District. f Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Cotnmission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated April 21, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. She clarified on that on page C-7 in the findings regarding the ordinance requirements, the second sentence can be stricken. She noted that on page C-8, the language about modifications being necessary before action can be taken may be stricken. Ms. Baker stated that staff feels this application is ready to move forward with 4 conditions, 3 listed in packet and a 40' which states, "Relocation of utilities will be at the applicant's expense." She pointed out that the Commission may want to consider requiring plantings in all of the islands in front of the building, noting they are currently showing landscaping in six of the 12 islands. Ms. Schultze asked the basis of that comment.. Ms. Baker explained the comment was included to help improve the aesthetics of the community and commercial developments. She pointed out that this project is within a special district, which can be held to higher standards than other zoning districts in the City. Mr. Werven referred to a memo that mentions a signal at 551h Street. He asked the status. Ms. Baker stated that she believes the City is of the opinion that a signal is warranted at the intersection of Chateau Road and 55 h Street NW, but because that is a County road, there needs to be cooperation on the part of the County, and the County makes the call on whether that intersection is signalized. She noted there are some issues that the County feels needs to be addressed before the signal is installed. Mr. Nigbur explained the City and County look at warrants that determine traffic signs and signals. He noted that if the expansion moves forward, that will increase the need to have that location signalized. He stated that in some situations, this signalization would happen concurrent with the development, sometimes after; it depends on the traffic warrants, Paul Pearson, from McCombs, Frank, Roos Associates, Plymouth, MN, addressed the Commission. He stated they have no problems with any of the conditions and will comply with them. In regards to landscaping, Mr. Pearson noted that it would be Wal-mart's preference to not put trees in front of the building. If it is a requirement, they would prefer to plant shrubs or under -story trees. He noted they are willing to work with the City on this issue. Ms. Petersson asked what the chances are of putting some trees in the parking lot. Mr. Pearson stated there are some islands in the parking lot that currently have trees. Ms. Baker noted there aren't many islands, but there are some trees in the islands that exist. She pointed out that the City ordinance does allow under -story trees. Mr. Burke asked the applicant if they are willing to submit a landscaping plan before the final proposal. Mr. Pearson answered yes. Ms. Schultze asked if there is enough space so that islands could be added in the middle of the lot with trees that would not block the fagade. Page 11 City Planning and Zoning C,,,..0 fission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 a13 Ms. Baker stated the shopping center has more parking spaces than what is required, but she thinks Wal-Mart owns their own parking lot, and they may have company stipulations that would prevent that. Ms. Schultze commented that it is her preference to have canopy trees in the middle of the runs, but not at the fagade of the building. Mr. Pearson stated he thinks Wal-Mart would be willing to consider landscaping within the site. He isn't sure of the extent and would like to work with City staff to determine the landscaping. Mr. Werven asked what data they used to determine the need for expansion. Mr. Pearson stated he couldn't answer that question. Mr. Suk noted for the record that there was a letter of public input submitted via e-mail. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Sulk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Final Site Plan Amendment #00-01, by Wal-Mart, based on staff -suggested findings and with the four staff -recommended conditions and a fifth conditions that states "The parking lot shall have 12 islands with landscaping that includes canopy trees, and the landscaping plans shall be submitted prior to the Council hearing." Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay. Conditions; 1. Provide a detailed fighting plan, prior to construction. 2. Any capacity loss in stormwater detention shall be addressed either through additional on -site detention, or participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. 3. A 20 foot utility easement needs to be dedicated, prior to construction, for the fire hydrant that is to be relocated near the front center of the building. 4. Relocation of utilities wili be at the applicant's expense. 5. The parking lot shall have 12 islands with landscaping that includes canopy trees, and the landscaping plans shall be submitted prior to the Council hearing. Ms. Schultze noted that in the past, when a Commission member has voted nay, they were asked to go on record as to why they voted that way. She stated it would have been helpful to her, having not been at the last meeting, to read in the minutes why members voted against certain applications. PUBLIC HEARINGS: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works e _/0 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING: PREPARED BY: "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway R. Kelm�`,� and 1st Avenue SW" (J9512) This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project Number 6300 1 /2-3-99 J-9512 Proiect Name Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1 at Avenue SW Estimated Project Costs Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $63,500.00 Sidewalk Replacement Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $10,500.00 Watermain Replacement Sanitary Replacement Engineering, Interest, Contingencies $22,200.00 Total $96,200.00 Project Cost Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage $9,908.70 Special Assessments — Sidewalk Special Assessments — Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sewer Utility Funds $10,500.06 City Share $75,791.30 TOTAL $96,200.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made. Attach: Map, Feasibility Report _ XNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: r/ M r RECONSTRUCT NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN 200 BLOCK BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 1ST AVENUE SW Project No. 6300 1/2-3/99 J9512 Report On Feasibility Of 07 71 Ile Proposed Local Improvement Project Project No. 6300 1/2-3199 J-9512 Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW Date: March 20, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing, "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW", was referred to the Public Works Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report. Engineer's Report We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The date the majority of roadway sections were constructed could not be determined, however a portion of the existing Alley was reconstructed with watermain in 1978. We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The Alley will be reconstructed with concrete pavement, which will provide a long lasting, durable well -drained surface. The property owners direct contribution for reconstruction of the Alley is $15.00 per assessable foot There will be no assessments for sewer repairs. The estimated costs for the Ailey, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Grading & Paving; Curb & Gutter $63,500.00 Sidewalk Replacement Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $10,500.00 atermain Replacement Sanitary Replacement Engineering, Interest, Contingencies $22,200.06 otal $96,200.00 Y: t:¢::.ic; .L:w: B Assessment Basis for Alley Reconstruction The cost of reconstruction as established by City Council Policy is: $15.00 per assessable foot (Alley) Estimated assessable Commercial Alley frontage 660.58 x $15.00 per foot $9,908.70 Total Estimated Funding Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage $9,908.70 Special Assessments — Sidewalk Special Assessments — Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sewer Utility Funds $10,500.06 City Share $75,791.30 OTAL $96,200.00 Russell Kelm, PE Design Engineer ..-..,,, J]`.,. _ '. ".r -.' ypt :_,!'4'.+z. Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: a� 5/15/00 AGENDA S PUBLIC: HEARINGS I ORIGINAPublio Works ITEM NO. S_// ITEM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: PREPARED BY: "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway R. Kelm and 1st Avenue SW" (J9512) This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement project: Protect Number 63001/2.3-99 J-9512 Project Name Reconstruct North -South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW Estimated Project Costs Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $63,500.00 Sidewalk Replacement Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $10,506.00 atermain Replacement Sanitary Replacement Engineering, Interest, Contingencies $22,200.00 otal $96.200.00 Project Cost Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage $9,906.70 Special Assessments — Sidewalk Special Assessments — Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sewer Utility Funds $10,500.00 City Share $75,791.30 OTAL $96,200.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. The project is scheduled for construction in 2000. No payments of the assessments are required until the project is substantially completed. Assessment Notices (invoices) will be sent to the owners of the property abutting the project at that time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments. VuUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: IRY! 5/15/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works e./C�_ ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING: PREPARED BY: "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway R. Kelm and 1st Avenue SW" (J9511)� This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project Number 63001/2-3-98 J-9511 Project Name Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW Estimated Project Costs Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $58,367.00 Sidewalk Replacement Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $2,400.00 aterrnain Replacement Sanitary Replacement Engineering, Interest, Contingencies $18,230.00 otal $78,997.00 Project Cost Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage $10,035.00 Special Assessments — Sidewalk Special Assessments — Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sewer Utility Funds $2,400.00 City Share $66,562.00 OTAL $78,997.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made. Attach: Map, Feasibility Report COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second to: on RECONSTRUCT NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN 300 BLOCK BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 1ST AVENUE SW Project No. 6300 1/2-3-98 J9511 F �I f min. NEWMUM C: Ova Report On Feasibility Of OLd „J Proposed Local Improvement Project Project No. 6300 1/2-3-98 J-9511 Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW Date: March 20, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing, "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW", was referred to the Public Works Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report. Engineer's Report We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The date the majority of roadway sections were constructed could not be determined, however a portion of the existing Alley was reconstructed with watermain in 1978. We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The Alley will be reconstructed with concrete pavement, which will provide a long lasting, durable well -drained surface. The property owners direct contribution for reconstruction of the Alley is $15.00 per assessable foot There will be no assessments for sewer repairs. The estimated costs for the Alley, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $58,367.00 Sidewalk Replacement Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $2,400.00 atermain Replacement Sanitary Replacement Engineering, Interest, Contingencies $18,230.00 otal $78,997.00 AAs§essment Basis for Alley Reconstruction The cost of reconstruction as established by City Council Policy is: $15.00 per assessable foot (Alley) Estimated assessable Commercial Alley frontage 669.00 x $15.00 per foot I $10,035.00 Total Estimated Funding Distribution Russell Kelm, PE Design Engineer Special Assessments — Frontage $10,035.00 Special Assessments — Sidewalk Special Assessments — Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sewer Utility Funds $2,400.05 City Share $66,562.00 OTAL $78,997.00 Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/15/00 era°NDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works S.1,3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: PREPARED BY: "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway R. Kelm and 1st Avenue SW" (J9511) This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement project: Proiect Number 6300 1 /2-3-98 J-9511 Protect Name Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW Estimated Project Costs Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $58,367.00 Sidewalk Replacement I Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $2,400,00 atermain Replacement Sanitary Replacement Engineering, Interest, Contingencies $18,230.00 otal $78,997.00' Project Cost Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage $10,035.00 Special Assessments — Sidewalk Special Assessments — Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sewer Utility Funds $2,400.00 City Share $66,562.00 OTAL $78,997.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. The project is scheduled for construction in 2000. No payments of the assessments are required until the project is substantially completed. Assessment Notices (invoices) will be sent to the owners of the property abutting the project at that time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING & DATE: 5/15/00 DA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS F-I PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD The City Council has had numerous discussions concerning the proposed Time Square and Royal Management redevelopment projects. At the current time, an exclusive developer designation has not been granted with both developer groups requesting an exclusive developer designation with the objective of negotiating a redevelopment agreement with the City. Kevin Mullin has indicated that he wishes to update the City Council on their revised project and the Chafoulias representatives may want to briefly address the Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Following are some options which the Council could choose from: 1. Motion designating GAC TS for the Time Square Project and instructing the staff to begin negotiations with GAC TS on the formulation of a redevelopment contract. 2. Motion designating Royal Management for the development of their proposed project and instructing the staff to begin negotiations with Royal Management on the formulation of a redevelopment contract. 3. Take no action at this time to designate either project. Instruct GAC TS to bring a proposal back in 60 days that divides the project site in a manner that allows GAC TS to proceed with a retail, office and hotel project and Royal Management to proceed with their project. 4. Refuse to designate either developer under the assumption that the City will not participate in either redevelopment project. AIX� COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second NOTE TO COUNCIL: On May 11, 2000, the Downtown Development District Advisory Board voted 3 to 2 in favor of recommending to the City Council that Royal Management be designated as the developer for the old Library block. Six Board members, a quorum, were present. Chairman Jack Van Sickle did not vote. It was his understanding that the Chairman only voted to break a tie. In response to an inquiry, staff reviewed the by-laws after the meeting. The Board's by-laws state that all members, except Councilmembers, shall vote. The by-laws further state "that a majority of members in attendance shall be necessary for an official action." The 3 to 2 vote did not constitute a majority. The Board's action therefore was not official. MAY-12-2000 10:44 PREMIER HANK ROCH 5072853722 P.02/02 May 12, 2000 The Honorable Mayor Chuck Canfield And Rochester City Council City Hall Rochester, MN. RE: Downtown Development District AdwWary Board Mooting of May 11, 2000 Honorable Mayor and Cky Council: It has been brought to my ant ration that the vote at Thursday's meeting is in question because of the number of votes cat. As chairman, I did not cast a vote as my vote would not have changed the outcome. I YAw my understanding that W thee had been a tie vote, I would have than been required to vole. Please be advised that my vole would have been with the Yes votes as I support giving Royal Management the opportunity work with and to show the City of Rochester what they would do for our city Witt their project. re y ack n ickla Chairman Downtown Development District Advisory Board TOTAL P.02 ME DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES May 11, 2000 8:00 A.M., ROOM 104, CITY HALL MEMBERSPRESENT Kevin Lund, Wally Arnold, Cynthia Daube, Dennis Hanson, ex-officio, Bill Ryan, Jack Van Sickle, and John Kruesel MEMBERSABSENT Diane McGowan and Mike Podulke CITY/COUNTY STAFF PRESENT Doug Knott, Development Administrator; Gary Lueders, HRA; Jean McConnell, Councilmember, Dale Martinson, Finance Director, Terry Spaeth, Administrative Assistant, and Kim Hanson, Secretary OTHERS PRESENT Kevin Mullin and Amad Baker, Royal Management; Tim Clawsen, Jose Rivas, Jeff Mundt, and Chris Colby, Yaggy/Colby Associates; Andy Chafoulias, Henry Dion and Charlie Birkelbach, GAC TS; Mark Jasmin, Bake Baker, and Hal Henderson of HGA; Craig Wendland, Wendland & Utz ; Jeff Allman, Bob Suk, and Christine Schultze representing CUDE/DDDAB Sub -Committee; Rex Savage, Satisfaction Real Estate; Ginny Smith, Ginny's Fine Fabrics; Dave Blanchard, Local 21; Kevin Molloy, Kahler Corp; Gary Smith, RAEDI; and Jim Hanson PRESS KROC Radio; KTTC-TV; Rochester Post -Bulletin; Fox 47 Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Jack Van Sickle at 8:06 a.m. Moved by Lund, second by Kruese% to recommend approval of the January 27, 2000 and April 13, 2000 minutes as distributed. Motion Unanimously Carried. Doug Knott stated that both developer's will presenting their proposals to the Board and noted that they each have a 20-25-minute time limit for their presentations. Downtown Development District �7 1 Advisory Board Minutes May 11, 2000 Page 2 of 6 TIME SQUARE Mr. Craig Wendland of Wendland & Utz, addressed the Board. He stated that Gus Chafoulias withdrew the Time Square proposal in April mostly due to the fact that the Mayo Clinic would not be using any office space in the project. Mayo had recently purchased the Western Digital building and would be moving approximately 200 employees out to the new location. Mr. Wendland noted that after the withdrawal of the project, Mr. Chafoulias was inundated with support of the project so he decided to have the numbers re -cast and looked at downsizing the proposal to make it a viable project. Mr. Wendland read a letter that was sent to Chuck Canfield and copied to Gus Chafoulias from Mr. Hugh Smith, the Chairperson on the Board of Governors at the Mayo Clinic. The letter stated that the "Mayo Clinic supports further development of downtown Rochester. It stated that additional development would bring new amenities and strengthen the overall experience of patients and visitors during their time at Mayo Clinic. A more robust and vibrant community with even more amenities will increase the likelihood that patients and visitors will return for follow-up care and recommend Mayo Clinic and Rochester as a destination to others." Hal Henderson of HGA addressed the Board. He stated that the new revised Time Square project is a hybrid mall — with strong individual store fronts; a mixed -use center that becomes an experience of its own. A franchise for a Residence Inn by Marriott for a 140-room extended stay hotel has been secured. There will be a 1,500 seat theater, 550,000 sq. ft. of retail, 64,000 sq. ft. of office space, 36 luxury apartments and 150 on -site parking spaces under the tower. The developer is asking the City to construct a 750-800 space parking ramp. with a total in TIF assistance of approximately $40 million. Mark Jasmin did a presentation on what the Time Square project would bring to the City: 1) City Fabric — critical mass — achieve many City development goals/one project. a) Strengthen Retail District b) Connect to the River c) Link to Key Districts d) Extend Skyway Network e) Create a Hub to the City Wheel 2) "Time Square" for Rochester a) Beacon for Commercial District b) Progressive Signature Project for Rochester /n Downtown Development District Advisory Board Minutes May 11, 2000 Page 3of6 c) Urban Design d) Create a Civic Place 3) Street Fabric a) Establish Streetscape Improvements b) Times Square is the Catalyst c) Pedestrian Scale d) Autonomous Retail Identities at Street Front e) Display Graphics and Lighting f) Connection to the Street g) Bridge Design The bridge design for the project will be light and transparent made of mostly glass with skylights to bring light down to the street level. They are also looking into the air quality and the wind velocity for under the skyway bridges. ROYAL MANAGEMENT Kevin Mullin addressed the Board. He stated that the project is not much different than the first time it was submitted. It is a 12 story, $28-$30 million proposal with 45,000 square feet of retail and office space on the first two floors. The top 10 floors would consist of 84 furnished extended -stay apartments and 36 long-term apartments. These apartments will be marketed toward Rochester residents. There will be 90 on -site underground parking spaces. The project will have skyway connections. They are proposing a pay-as-you-go TIF reimbursement in the amount of $3.8 million. This reduces the risk to the City and/or its taxpayers. They are not asking for G.O. Bonds and are waiving all capital interest charges. For comparison purposes, the tower for this project is very similar in size to the Radisson Hotel. Chris Colby noted that the main entrance on the corner of Broadway and 1t takes you into an open court space. Access to the skyway level is available that connects to the Radisson ramp. The skyway runs along the south face of the building. On the east end of the project, a ramp access will be available for the underground parking. Restaurant, retail, and office space occupy the first three levels of the project. Tim Clawsen of Yaggy Colby addressed the Board. He stated that they are looking at a pay-as-you-go TIF reimbursement on the following: On -site parking Acquisition — City Parking Lot Downtown Development District �� Advisory Board Minutes May 11, 2000 Page 4 of 6 Demolition (includes asbestos removal) Site & Utility Improvement Public Improvement (sidewalk, skyway connection) Legal, Design, Engineering and Contingency The old Library, Christmas Shoppe and Open Table buildings are already owned by Royal Management, so there will be no TIF reimbursement for these buildings. Kevin Mullin summarized by saying that this project is a solid project with minimum City assistance. It would add a new spark for downtown living. Royal is willing to increase the size of the project if the City so desires. They are not opposed to Nordstrom or Time Square and believe that both projects can go forth. They would be happy to work with any developer on the block. Kevin Lund questioned how much assistance Nordstorm was receiving to come to Rochester. Henry Dion noted that they offered $150/sq. ft. or $18 million. Cynthia.Daube asked if the theaters would remain in the Galleria once the new ones in Time Square were open. Henry Dion said yes, they would remain. Bill Ryan asked Royal Management if they had any retail tenants yet. Royal Management replied that once they were designated developer, that they would then begin the process of acquiring their tenants. Both Kevin Lund and Wally Arnold noted that they would like to see more street access retail than office space. Kevin Mullin noted that he feels it is Royal Management's turn to step up to the plate and talk. Moved by Lund, second by Kruese% to recommend to the City Council that Royal Management be designated as the exclusive developer for the Old Library block Discussion was held: Kevin Lund stated that he has compared the projects side by side and looked at the risks and benefits and has come to the conclusion that the Royal Management project is the best for the City for the following reasons: 1) it is the least disruptive during the construction phase; 2) Time Square doesn't appear to be very well formulated; 3) Royal will have the least impact on the infrastructure (sewer & water) 4) no taxpayer risk; 5) size and scope keeps architectural balance for our size of a downtown; AqDowntown Development District Advisory Board Minutes May 11, 2000 Page 5 of 6 6) no reason why the Royal project can't redevelop 40% of the block while the other 60% is renewed. Lund noted that Time Square has a credibility gap — the City was deceived on the Woolworth development — same might happen with this project. He stated that there are supposedly 17 major retailers who no one knows who they are nor has he seen a commitment from Nordstrom. He feels that Mayo was set-up as the scapegoat when they said they wouldn't be using any office space in the project. He said he is not comfortable with the cost of the parking ramp and feels that the Time Square project is too big, ambitious, costly, and risky and does not feel comfortable with giving the project $40 million. He doesn't feel that the City as a whole is comfortable with this project and thinks that the decision is really a no-brainer on which to choose. Bill Ryan would like to see GAC TS designated the exclusive developer. The Time Square project is more detailed while Royal's is more modest. If all falls together, the Time Square project will result in a better downtown. Wally Arnold agreed with Kevin Lund. He stated that he would like to see the Royal Management project be designated as the developer but would still like to see the Time Square project either scaled down on the remainder of the block or move to a different part of the City. John Kruesel hopes that there would be enough space for both projects to take place. He feels that it is time Royal got a chance to show the City what they propose. He would also like to see both projects work on developing the same block. Chris Colby noted that the tower was stepped back on the block in order for future coordination of development on the rest of the block. Craig Wendland feels that having Royal's project on this corner creates a wall for future retail. Ginny Smith questioned if retail is so important on this block, why was Nordstrom being located on the block to the North? It was noted that Nordstrom would be connected to the other retail on the old library block via skyways. Cynthia Daube questioned at what point in the process of development is Time Square at right now? Henry Dion said that there is a convention in Las Vegas the end of the month were GAC TS will be able to meet with major retailers and at that point they hope to get interested parties to the project. Their major lender will be there also. These are the last two major phases, and once they come together, then they will be ready to roll. Downtown Development District Advisory Board Minutes May 11, 2000 Page 6 of 6 r IM The same question was asked of Royal Management. Kevin Mullin noted that they have their lenders and once they are designated developer, the design process will take place and hope to start construction this fall. Roll Call Vote was taken on the motion of designating Royal Management as designated developer — 3 ayes — Lund, Arnold, and Kruese/ and 2 nays — Daube and Ryan. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, CN. 46urom Kim M. Hanson Secretary (Attached are copies of handouts distributed to the Board.) City of Rochester City Administrator's Office MEMO To: Downtown Development District Advisory Board From: -9k// Douglas A. Knott Date: May 5, 2000 Subject: Modified Time Square Proposal On April 10, 2000 Mr. Chafoulias announced to the City Council that the lack of a major office tenant meant that he would not be able to proceed with the Time Square project. At a news conference held on April 25t', Mr. Chafoulias announced that GAC TS was substituting additional spec office space and high -end residential apartments for the space that he hoped to lease to the Mayo Clinic and that he intended to pursue the project. On May 1, 2000 the Council was urged by GAC TS and a number of individuals and organizations to continue negotiations for the Time Square project. The Council took no action at that time. At this point it appears that the Council intends to make a decision on whether to continue with the Time Square project or initiate negotiations with Royal Management at their May 15, 2000 meeting. The Board was scheduled to review the details of the Time Square project on April 13, 2000. This memo is an update of the March 30th staff review of the project. The project site remains unchanged. The mix of uses in the tower has been modified. GAC TS intends to construct one floor of underground parking below the tower. This would accommodate approximately 150 stalls. The first three floors of the project would remain dedicated to retail and entertainment uses. The retail square footage is approximately 520,000 square feet. This number includes the theater and restaurant space. Downtown Development District Advisory Board May 5, 2000 Page 2 of 3 The original proposal contained seven floors of office space, five of which were to be leased to the Mayo Clinic and two of which GAC TS would have to find tenants for. Under the current proposal, there is now three floors of spec office space. Thirty-six apartment units occupy seven floors of the tower. The apartments are large — in excess of 2000 square feet each. At his press conference Mr. Chafoulias indicated he would undertake a market study to confirm the demand for the units. He also indicated he was uncertain whether they would be rental or owner occupied units. The financial analysis assumes that they are apartments. If they become owner -occupied units, the tax increment estimate would have to be reduced. In total, the tower would rise 22 floors above grade. The reduction in the amount of office space lowers the overall parking demand for the project. The current proposal assumes that the City would construct a 750 to 800 stall parking ramp on the site currently occupied by the Salvation Army and the Response Computer buildings. GAC TS would construct 150 underground parking spaces below the tower. Staff does not feel that the luxury apartments are feasible without this underground parking. This parking should also be intended to address the bulk of the demand created by the hotel (the proposed new municipal ramp is not particularly convenient for hotel guests requiring them to go through the mall to get from their room to their car). No provision is made in either the design or the cost estimate for any type of pedestrian connection to Park Tower. If we don't plan on a connection, staff will need to significantly increase the property acquisition cost estimates for the Park Tower parking lot. GAC TS' consultant estimates that the project will have a market value for tax purposes of $70,882,380. As noted in previous memos, staff believes that the estimate of value for the retail component of the project is high. The value can be refined as the plans and construction cost estimates are prepared and financial pro-formas are developed. Eventually this is a matter that will be decided by the County Assessor. A market value of $70,882,380 produces an estimated tax increment of $2,697,125. Using a "0" inflation rate assumption, a 25-year term for the bonds at a blended interest rate of 7.5%, and assuming 85% of the increment is available to support project costs, the Time Square tax increment will support $23,446,686 in G.O. Bond debt. Under the revised proposal, project costs have dropped from $35,001,733 to $20,209,523. Most of this drop is attributable to a change in the approach to paying for the parking ramp. The earlier proposal had $12.7 million of the Time Square tax Downtown Development District Advisory Board May 5, 2000 Page 3 of 3 increment being used to pay for the new parking ramp. The current proposal removes the cost of the parking from the tax increment equation and makes it an obligation of the parking enterprise fund. The current proposal also eliminates a $5.5 developer tax increment note. This was essentially an up front contribution to the project by GAC TS which would have been repaid only if sufficient tax increment were generated by the project. In lieu of this note, GAC TS pays the $3.0 estimated cost of constructing the 150 underground parking spaces out of its own pocket. Assuming that all of the assumptions are accurate, GAC TS' financial consultant indicates that Time Square would generate approximately $3.1 million more in bonding capacity than is needed for direct project expenditures. They indicate that this $3.1 million would be available to cover a portion of the City's cost in constructing the new ramp (well need a portion of this amount to solve the Park Tower problem). If the City accepts the assumption that the project will increase in value by 2% per year over the life of the bonds, there would be an additional $8.1 million in tax increment that would be available to support parking ramp construction costs. The $8.1 only materializes if the inflation assumptions hold true. While the tax increment analysis assumes that the estimated market value of the project will be $70,882,380, the text of the proposal indicates that GAC TS would only guarantee a value of $60,000,000 for tax purposes. This means that if the project under performs any time during the period that the bonds are outstanding, GAC TS can ask the Assessor to lower the value of the project to the $60,000,000 figure. In that case none of the $8.1 million would be available. In addition, the $60,000,000 figure doesn't generate enough increment to cover the City's administrative cost. Under the revised proposal, staff believes that the majority of the bonds issued on behalf of the project would be taxable. In this case, the 7.5% interest rate assumption may not be accurate. A higher interest rate would mean there would be less funds available to support project costs. GAC TS DEVELOPMENT LLC P.O. BOX 249 ROCHESTER, MN 55903 Phone (507) 285-5082 Fax (507) 282-5915 May 10, 2000 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council of the City of Rochester Mr. Steve Kvenvold Mr. Doug Knott Re: Time Square Development Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is written on behalf of GAC TS Development, LLC to formally request that the City of Rochester direct city staff to commence negotiations with us on a Development Agreement to redevelop that portion of downtown Rochester we propose for redevelopment as the Time Square project. Approval of this request will allow us to move forward on the next phase of our activities, leasing the retail and office space within the development. We are attending the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) convention later this month, where we have appointments with numerous national retailers who have evidenced serious interest in the Time Square project. At that convention we will also be meeting with our primary lender. A Development Agreement will be necessary for us to secure further tenants and procure financing. We are anxious to complete these important tasks. Our company has significant accomplishments to date: We have secured the Letter of Intent from Nordstrom, a very significant accomplishment for a city of this size; TIME SQUARE "Making a Great City Greater" 2. We have secured a franchise for a Residence Inn by Marriott for a 140 room extended stay hotel; 3. We have demonstrated to City staff that our proposal will provide sufficient tax increments to pay for the City's portion of the redevelopment costs, including the additional parking requirement generated by the Time Square project; 4. We are proceeding with the leasing of the retail and office space. We are more confident now, than at any time in the past, that our Time Square project, as revised, will prove to be the combination of retail, entertainment, office and lodging uses which will "tie together" Rochester's downtown infrastructure and will propel our downtown area to a higher level of function and attraction. We look forward to a favorable determination on our request in order that we may complete a mutually agreeable Development Agreement at an early date. A Development Agreement will be the catalyst to complete the leasing and financing efforts which are already well under way. GUS CHAFOULIAS Chairman GAC TS Development, LLC .CRASS MONROE, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW ■ James R Casserly Email Jamesc@lvassmonn com www km=manr com Direct Dial (612) 8851296 MEMORANDUM To: City of Rochester Attn: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator From: James R. Casserly, Esq. Greg D. Johnson, CPA Date: April 17, 2000 Re: Time Square Project Our File No. 10090-1 Back to basics. Our proposal: GAC TS: CITY: 1.) Constructs 120,000 square foot Nordstrom 400,000 additional gross retail space 140 unit hotel 3 floors office 36 luxury apartments Miscellaneous restaurant and entertainment area 150 underground parking stalls 2.) Pays S 10.00 per square foot for land 3.) Guarantees approximately S60.0 million for real estate tax purposes 1.) Acquires and sells property to GAC TS necessary for the above development SUITE 1100 SOUTHPOINT OFFICE CENTER* 1650 WEST 82ND STREET a BLOOMINGTON, ONNESOTA 5S431-1447 TELEPHONE 61295.5999 9 FACSMLE SIMS56M 2.) Constructs the necessary parking The analysis suggests that $23.4 million for project expenses is available using the City's G.O. bond assumptions By using a small inflation factor (2%) and a 7.5% interest rate, we can show that an additional $8.1 million is available for project expenses The non -parking expenses are approximately $24.3 million. The G.O. bonds will pay for the non - parking expenses and generate approximately $3.1 million for parking expenses and the remaining tax increment should generate an additional S8.1 million for parking expenses. IRC Encl. G:4NPDATA%C%GAC TS DEVELOPMENrD1%CCRRVNEWOW 02DOC _ • Page 2 w'j GAC TS DEVELOPMENT - TIME SQUARE - ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA SOURCES AND USES SOURCES: Tax Increment Revenue Note — Developer 0 Tax Increment G.O. Bonds 12 01 2027 23,446,686 Land Sales 95,665 s . ft. @ 10.00 s . ft. = 956,650 Hotel Tax resent value 12 01 2027 0 Parking Fund Revenues Grants Tax Increment Revenue Note — Other 12 01 2027 8,125,345 TOTAL SOURCES 32,528,682 USES• 17,998,200 Under round Parking 150 stalls @ 0 r stall Gus — 0 Acquisition 10,552,000 Air Rights Acquisition over railroadproperty) 35,000 Asbestos Abatement 845,000 Demolition 720,000 Relocation 1 000 000 Site & Utility improvements 385,000 Infrastructure improvements 225,000 Railroad Track Relocation & Si nalization 600,000 Skyway to Center Street Ram 50% 500,000 Skyway to Galleria from TS 50% 500,000 Environmental Analysis 150,000 Professional Fees 850,000 Contin en 10% 1 636 200 nnnvThlr nAMn oI nrv. r /1f11\11YV fV l 11 uVV.r... 0 Construction 0 stalls @ 13 000 r stall Acquisition — Salvation Army/Response Computer 0 Asbestos Abatement Salvation Arm roe 0 Demolition 0 Relocation 0 Contingency 10.00% 0 Construction Period Interest Throu h 12 2002 1,860,959 Cost of Issuance of G.O. Bond 2.00% 460 000 TOTAL USES $20 319 159 SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) 12.209,52 Less Amount for Developer Revenue Note 0 SURPLUS AVAILABLE FOR CITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS 12,209,523 DEVELOPER CASH REQUIREMENTS Land Purchase 956,650 Revenue Note ____a TOTAL 956,650 GAC TS DEVELOPMENT - Time Square - Rochester, MN �(I ✓— If G.O. BOND ASSUMPTIONS -0%Inflation IC!/! Original Market Value Land Buildina TOTA Total Project Area, including area for new Panting Ramp 1,158,300 2.720,300 $3,878,600 Original Tax Capacity % of new ETC Class Rate 119,712 Retail/Hotel/Restaurant/Office 100.0% 3,878,500 @ 3.00% = 116,358 Luxury Apartments 4.3% 167,705 @ 2.00% = 3,354 Condominiums 0.0% 0 @ 1.00% = 0 Estimated Market Value 570,882,380 Retail -Anchor tenant 120,000 sq. ft. @ $65 per sq. ft. = 7,800.000 Retail, with common area 397,875 sq. ft. @ $100 per sq. ft. = 39,787.500 Theaters 1,500 seats@ 51,500 perseat = 2,250,000 Hotel A 0 rooms @ $44,000 per room = 0 Hotel B 120 roams @ 531,500 per room = 3,760,000 Office (gross rentable) 63.576 sq. ft. @ 5130 per sq. ft. = 8,264,880 Health / Nutrition Center 0 sq. ft. @ $130 per sq. ft. = 0 Restaurants 30,000 sq. ft. @ $105 per sq. ft. = 3.150.000 Underground parking 150 stalls @ $9.000 per stall = 1.350,000 Luxury Apartments 36 units@ $125,000 per unit = 4,500,000 Condominiums 0 units @ $300,000 per unit = 0 Estimated Tax Capacity $2.081,471 Retail - Anchor tenant 3.00% 234,000 Retail, with common area 3.005� 1,193,625 Theaters 3.00% 67,500 Hotel A 3.00% 0 Hotel 8 3.00% 113,400 Office (gross rentable) 3.00% 247,946 Health /Nutrition Center 3.00% 0 Restaurants 3.00% 94.500 Underground parking 3.00% 40,500 Luxury Apartments 2.00% 90.000 Condominiums 0 <= 76,000 1.00% 0 > 76,000 1.65% 0 Estimated Annual Taxes 52,861,711 Retail - Anchor tenant 120,000 sq. ft. @ 52.68 per sq. ft. = 321.715 Retail, with common area 397.875 sq. ft. @ 54.12 per sq. ft. = 1.641.055 Theaters 1,500 seals @ $51.87 perseat = 92,802 Hotel A 0 rooms @ $0.00 per room = 0 Hotel 120 roams@ $1,299.23 per room = 155,908 Office (gross rentable) 63,576 sq. ft. @ $5.36 per sq. ft. = 340,889 Health /Nutrition Center 0 sq, ft, @ $0.00 per sq. ft. = 0 Restaurants 30,000 sq. ft. @ $4.33 per sq. ft. = 129,923 Underground parking 150 stalls @ $371.21 per stall = 55,681 Luxury Apartments 36 units @ $3,437.13 per unit = 123,737 Condominiums 0 units @ $0.00 per unit = 0 Estimated Annual Tax Increment 2.697,125 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Construction 2001 2002 2003 Valuation 2002 2003 2004 Taxes 2003 2004 2005 Percentage Complete 20% 80% 100% Pay 1999 Tax Rate 1.37485 4.0% of Mkt Value Inflation (200512006) 0.00% Administration Fees 2.50% City Contribution 85.00% of Estimated Tax Increment 6.50% 5.00% Blended PV Rate 12/01/2002 7.50% 5.50% City of Rochester City Administrator's Office MEMO To: Downtown Development District Advisory Board From:'.PK- Douglas A. Knott Date: May 5, 2000 Subject: Royal Management Proposal An updated proposal from Royal Management was forwarded to you earlier this week. From a design standpoint, the proposal is very similar to the one submitted in the fall of 1998. With the expiration of the Time Square agreement, Royal Management is asking for exclusive developer status for their project. They indicate that they are prepared to start demolition in the fall of 2000 with completion slated for the winter of 2002. Royal is proposing a mixed -use project. The site includes the old library, the former Christmas Shoppe, and the former Open Table properties. It also includes the south 40% of the Farmers Market Parking Lot and a portion of a public alley. The project consists of a 12-story tower with 10 floors of residential space located above two floors of commercial space. At this point the tower includes 84 extended stay residential units and 36 long-term apartments. The extended stay units are intended for occupancies of at least one month. A skyway would link the project back to the 1t Street Parking Ramp. Royal's market consultant indicates that the project will generate the need for approximately 60 parking spaces. Staff feels that this number is conservative. The primary market for the extended stay component of the project is national and international visitors coming to Rochester for either medical or business reasons. Royal had previously prepared a market study that documented the need for the units. That study is being updated. Downtown Development District Advisory Board May 5, 2000 Page 2 of On May 5, 2000 Royal submitted an addendum to their proposal. Royal indicates that they would accommodate the parking demand by constructing 90 underground parking spaces below their building. Royal has made a number of changes in the project financing. The biggest difference contained in the addendum is the nature of the public assistance. Royal proposes that the City assistance be in the form of "pay as you go" TIF. This means that Royal would front all of the project costs and be repaid as the increment is received. Because the City doesn't issue any general obligation bonds, "pay as you go" financing represents significantly less risk to the City. The City's obligation for repayment is limited to the increment we receive. Royal has also modified their estimate of the amount of increment that the project will produce to conform with the targeted commercial and residential property tax classification rates that the legislature is currently considering. The net effect is that amount of increment drops from $527,000 in the original proposal to $457,000 in the addendum. Royal is not seeking for reimbursement for the cost of the properties that they have acquired. They would like the cost of the underground parking to be repaid through the "pay as you go" reimbursements. The total assistance being requested is $3,830,000. Their analysis indicates that this amount could be paid back over a period of 13 years at a 7% interest rate. Royal has asked that they be given exclusive development rights for their project at the May 15, 2000 City Council meeting. They have indicated a willingness to consider a larger project if the City feels that a more comprehensive development approach is warranted. I have attached a cover letter from Royal explaining the changes and a revised page 10 of their proposal. 36� Royal Management & Development, Inc. Commercial and Residential Properties The Honorable Mayor Chuck Canfield And City of Rochester Common Council City Hall 201 4th Street S.E. Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Royal Management Redevelopment Proposal Addendum Dear Honorable Mayor and Common Council: Based on further discussion and review with city staff, county assessor's office and our consults with Yaggy Colby Associates the following addendum information is offered. • Pay -As -You -Go TIF •We are proposing that all of the $3,830,000 of TIF assistance be provided as Pay -As - You -Go for 13 years at 7% interest. This should eliminate any risk to the City or its tax payers for this assistance. We are also willing to forgive capitalized interest accrued during the construction, which will save the City over half a million dollars. Reduced Acquisition Costs TIF reimbursement is not being requested for the Former Library, Christmas Shoppe or Open Table Building. Reimbursement for acquisition is only being requested for the city parking lot (S210,000). e On Site -Parking Ninety on -site parking stalls will be provided at a estimated cost of $1,260,000. The market analysis prepared by Marquette Advisors identified a need for 60 parking stalls. It is believed that the 90 on -site parking space will help alleviate any necessary off -site parking requirements. e Estimated TIF Eligible Expenses $1,260,000 On -Site Parking • 210,000 Acquisition/City Parking Lot (only) 690,000 Demolition (includes asbestos removal) 215,000 Site and Utility Improvement 715,000 Public Improvement (sidewalk, skyway connection) 740,000 Legal, Design, Engineering and Contingency $3,830.000 Total Requested TIF Assistance 7611 Unfe RWer Turnpike • suite 30a west • Annandale, Virgins 22003 • Tol: (703) 91"191 • Fax: (703) 918.9393 • Tax Increment Financing Worksheet Estimated Building Construction Cost S22,460,000 X 70% Estimated Assessor's Market Value 15,722,000 Taxable Value S364,840 Tax Capacity Extension Rate x 1.37569 Annual Tax $502,000 Current Tax - 45,000 Annual Tax Increment 457,000 Borrowing Capacity (13-years, 7.0% int.) $3,830,000 We believe that this addendum strengthens our project and. at the same time eliminates any financial risks to the city. We look forward to working with the City to redevelop this important area of Downtown Rochester. Sincerely, (UAdA� Imad A. Baker C President S In order to stimulate private investment in this project, the following activities require Pay -As -You -Go Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance: $ 1,260,000 On -Site Parking $ 210,000 Acquisition- City Parking Lot $ 690,000 Demolition (includes asbestos removal) $ 215,000 Site and Utility Improvement $ 715,000 Public Improvement (sidewalk, skyway connection) $ 740,000 Legal, Design, Engineering and Contingency $ 3,830,000 Total Requested Pay -As -You -Go The Developer expects the project to generate $457,000 of annual increment based on targeted property tax rates and an assessed market value of $15,722,000. It is anticipated that a 13-year Pay -As -You -Go term may be necessary to cover eligible redevelopment costs. The developer will work closely with the City as the project moves forward to analyze property tax and Tax Increment Financing issues. By using redevelopment tools of the City to accomplish redevelopment project costs of $3,830,000, private investment of $26.1 million in the City's downtown redevelopment district can be stimulated. For every $1.00 of public investment, over $6.50 of private investment will be leveraged. There are some project activities that the City is best suited to facilitate and some activities the Developer may be best able to facilitate. The Developer is confident that through a partnership with the City, the high costs associated with redeveloping this site can be offset. Without public involvement these costs remain too high to attract private investment. • Pay -As -You -Go Tax Increment Financing Worksheet Estimated Building Construction Cost Assessor's Market Value Taxable Value Tax Rate Annual Tax Current Taxes Annual Tax Increment Borrowing Capacity (13-years, 7.0% int.) $22,460,000 x 70% $15,722,000 $ 364,840 x 1.37569 $ 502,000 - 45,000 $ 457,000 $ 3,830,000 Royal Management Redevelopment Proposal Page 10A Addendum 515100 3(0 PROJECT COMPARISON ITEM TIME SQUARE ROYAL MANAGEMENT Project Type Mixed Use: 550,000 sq. ft. retail; Mixed Use: 45,000 sq. ft. 64,000 sq. ft. office; 120 room retail & office; 84 extended hotel; 1,500 seat theater; and 36 stay apts.; and 36 long - luxury apts. term apts. Parking 150 on site by developer 90 on -site with cost to be 750-800 stall ram — by City. reimbursed by City. Schedule Complete: March 2003 Complete: Late 2002 Assistance Requested Bonding for site acquisition, Reimbursement for relocation, abatement, demolition, demolition, abatement, site infrastructure, site & utility & utility improvements, 1 improvements, DM&E right-of-way skyway bridge, on -site acquisition and track relocation, 2 parking and misc. skyway bridges, 750-800 stall professional services. parking ramp, and misc. rofessionaI fees. Estimated Market Value $70,882,3801 $15,722,000 for Tax Purposes Estimated Tax $2,697,125 $457,000 Increment Financing G.O. Bonds, 25-year term @ 7.5% $3,830,000 Pay -As -You -Go to 8.5%, $20,319,523 including (note: City reimburses as $17,998,200 for project related annual increments are costs; $2,320,959 in bond received) 13 years @ 7% issuance costs and capitalized No bond issuance costs. interest; and $12,700,000 for Royal is not requesting parking ramp. reimbursement for capitalized interest. ' For purposes of an assessment agreement, GAC TS indicates they would use a value of $60,000,000. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3(1 l DATE: 5/15/2000 • -NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. ;OLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATT)RNEY'S OFFICE G ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ptDKINS UU�� G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECQNDtREEADING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). AS 7vp a) An Ordinance Annexing To The City Of Rochester Approximately 175.09 Acres Of Land Legally Described As A Part Of The Northwest Quarter And The North Half Of The Southwest Quarter And The Southeast Quarter Of The Southwest Quarter Of Section 13, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 3f a- �87 — 2 — MARCH 17, 2000 The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Contract Protect Cost Surnmary Project Budget Cast Final Cost Roadway $1,218,500.00 Sanitary Sewer $4,000.00 Water Main $7,000.00 Stone Sewer $0.00 Services $0.00 Subtotal $1,229,500.00 Engineedng/Ccnt.1Interest $365,500.00 Total Construction & Expense $1,595,000.00 Revenue Sources Trial Revenue The project cost is based on construction of 5,280 linear feet of road, 40 ft wide with paved shoulders, and two utility crossings for sanitary sewer and watermains. This project is NOT feasible, unless the city establishes a Transportation Improvement District to recover Substandard Street Reconstruction and Capacity Charges from the benefiting property owners served by the backbone network of roads in the 2,710 acre Northwest Transportation Improvement District. The developers of Weatherstone, Seeger, Ripley and the Graves property should contribute their proportional share toward the project costs. The contributions from the developers along 50' Ave NW make this project feasible and we'd recommend its construction. Submitted for your consideration: 4, d �,o1� Dougl elson, P.E. Manager of Engineering - 3 - MARCH 17, 2000