Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIUBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 11 REGULAR PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 00--11 JUNE 5, 2000 7:00 P.M. (3-4) 1) Ken Ness Requests to be Heard RE: Downtown Parking (5-6) 2) Board Members of Edenborough Estates Wish to Address the City Council (7-8) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (9-10) 2) Council Determination that Certain Buildings are Structurally Substandard," Approval of Development Agreement, and Schedule Public Hearing for Approval of TIF Plan for Proposed Celestica Site (11-12) 3) Appoint and Designate the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota as Agent for the City of Rochester (13-18) 4) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action (19-20) 5) Request to Set Public Hearing for Charter Amendments by Ordinance/Ordinance Adoption During Emergency Disaster (21-22) 6) Request to Set Public Hearing for Charter Amendments by Ordinance/Repeal of Obsolete Charter Provision (23-26) 7) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (27-28) 8) Rochesterfest Activities (29-30) 9) Street Closings, Meters Bagged Rochesterfest 2000 (31-32) 10) Approval of Accounts Payable (33-36) 11) Resolution Initiating Process for Sale of Temporary General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A (37-40) 12) Closing of Local Improvement Projects/Fund 501 (41-42) 13) Ownership of 1923 Sayers and Scovill Ambulance/Hose Wagon (43-50) 14) RFP for Architectural Services (51-54) 15) Appointment/Firefighter/Fire Department (55-58) 16) Appointments to Park Board Council Agenda June 5, 2000 Page 2 (59-64) 17) Appointment to Library Board (65-66) 18) Appointment to International Affairs Committee (67-72) 19) Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Larry Goodman to Initiate Orderly Annexation for Approx. 109.84 Acres in Part of S 1/2, NE 1/4 of Section 9 and NW 1/4, NW 1/4 of Section 10, Cascade Township (73-80) 20) Wetland Replacement Plan/Lincolnshire North Subdivision (81-82) 21) Use of City of Rochester Police Department Range Facility (83-84) 22) U.S. Department of Justice COPS 1999 Universal Hiring Grant (85-86) 23) COPS Universal Hiring Program FY2000 Hiring Grant Application (87-88) 24) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1999 Public Housing Drug Elimination Grant (89-90) 25) Donations to Police Honor Guard (91-92) 26) Ryan Development Agreement Amendment #1 (93-94) 27) City Land Sale/3rd Avenue NW (95-96) 28) Revocable Permit for Charter House (97-98) 29) Revocable Permit for Lot 1, Block 1, Century Hills Second (99-100) 30) Development Agreement/Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder Property (101-102) 31) Development Agreement/Quarry Ridge/Hindermann Fitzgerald Sub. (103-104) 32) Development Agreement/Emerald Hills Development (105-106) 33) Development Agreement/Eagle Ridge 4t' Development (107-108) 34) Development Agreement/Lincolnshire North Development (109-110) 35) Award of Contract/Public Improvements to Sunset Avenue, Rose Avenue and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor (111-114) 36) Stormwater Management Agreements (115-116) 37) Owner Contract/Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision (117-118) 38) Owner Contract/Century Hills Fourth Subdivision (119-120) 39) Amend Owner Contract/Southern Woods First & Second Subdivisions (121-122) 40) Owner Contract/Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Lot 2, Block 1, Shorewood Retail Replat (123-124) 41) Consideration of Bids/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Baihly Woodland Subdivision (125-126) 42) Consideration of Bids/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Marvale Addition and Whynaught's Subdivision (127-128) 43) Advertise for Bids/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Five Areas in Marion Township (129-130) 44) Bids Received for Parking Control Equipment (131-132) 45) Parking Restriction on Fox Valley Dr. from 23d Ave. SW to the West (133-134) 46) Parking Restriction on 32"d Avenue NW/2300 Block (135-136) 47) Parking Petition 15"' Avenue SW, 2"d Street to 5t' Street (137-138) 48) Designation of Bus Loading Areas at Downtown Bus Stop (139-140) 49) Engineering Service Contract Amendment/Black & Veatch Engineers Council Agenda June 5, 2000 Page 3 E) HEARINGS (141-156) 1) Type III, Phase 1 (00-01) Appeal of the Type III, Phase 1 (00-09) Variance Denial (157-170) 2) Continued HearingfFype III, Phase 11, Preliminary Plat to be Known as Kingsbury Hills Subdivision (171-190) 3) General Development Plan Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church (191-198) 4) Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat to be Known as Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church (199-234) 5) General Development Plan Northern Heights Village (235-258) 6) Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat by Quinstar LLP to be Known as Pinewood Meadows 3`" Subdivision (259-270) 7) Final Plat to be Known as Lincolnshire North Third (271-280) 8) Final Plat to be Known as Emerald Hills Second Subdivision (281-288) 9) Final Plat to be Known as Orchard Hills North Subdivision (289-298) 10) Type III, Phase I, Final Plat to be Known as Eagle Ridge Fourth Sub. (299-306) 11) Type III, Phase 11, Zoning District Amendment Initiated by City of Rochester Common Council to Amend Zoning District on .33 Acres From M-1 to R-1/128 SE Wh Street & 1805 SE 2"4 Avenue (307-314) 12) Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Verna Badger Trust to Annex Approx. 40.17 Acres South of Valleyhigh Road NW, West of West Circle Drive, in Section 20, Cascade Township (315-320) 13) Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church to Annex .28 Acres Along North/East Side of East Circle Drive, Across from Rocky Creek Drive NE (321-326) 14) City Initiated Text Amendment to Amend Sections 60.420 (9) and 61.300 of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (327-330) 15) Permit Parking Petition from Kutzky Addition Neighborhood (331-332) 16) Official Street Map for 16°i Avenue NW (333-336) 17) Project Hearing/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15�' Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway (337-338) 18) Assessment Hearing/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15�h Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway (339-344) 19) Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve 3010 Valleyhigh Drive NW (345-350) 20) Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Five Areas in Marion Township (351-354) 21) Project Hearing/Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10"' Avenue SE from 16- 1/2 Street SE to 19"' Street SE (355-356) 22) Assessment Hearing/Concrete Curb & Gutter on 101h Avenue SE from 16-1/2 Street SE to Wh Street SE Council Agenda June 5, 2000 Page 4 (357-416) 23) General Development Plan by Frank Kottschade to be Known as 40t' Street General Development Plan (417-424) 24) Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment by Frank Kottschade to Rezone 14.40 Acres from R-1 to R-2/South Side of 40�h Street SW, East of 11t' Avenue SW F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (425-426) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS I) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 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 fast to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. LETTERS AND PETITIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR C1 � I ITEM DESCRIPTION: KEN NESS REQUESTS TO BE HEARD RE: DOWNTOWN PREPARED BY: PARKING S. KVENVOLD Ken Ness from Victoria's Restaurant requests an opportunity to speak to the City Council about the shortage of parking in the downtown area. COUNCIL ACTION: Moeon by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: LETTERS AND PETITIONS ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM NO. e - 2, ITEM DESCRIPTION: BOARD MEMBERS OF EDENBOROUGH ESTATES WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD The board members of Edenborough Estates wish to address the City Council concerning the grading of the hillside behind 5314 Belmoral Lane (see attached). COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: Second by: to: r. Edenborough Estates We the Board Members of the Edenborough Estates are very concerned about the grading of the hillside behind 5314 Belmoral Lane. Our lawn service can not mow this area at all. When they attempted to do this, he rolled the lawn mower over. We do not feel that the Association can be responsible for the safety of anyone attempting to mow this area. We believe that the developer should be required to remedy this situation. This situation has been always present since this land was developed. This is a very dangerous area and we feel this should be handled by the city council immediately. Thank you for taking time to consider this problem. Board Members ry, C v REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-49 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS T. SPAETH 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. Council Determination that Certain Buildings are "Structurally Substandard," Approval of Development Agreement, and Schedule Public Hearing for Approval of T1F Plan for Proposed Celestica Site D-3. Appoint and Designate the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota as Agent for the City of Rochester D-4. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action D-5. Request to Set Public Hearing for Charter Amendments by Ordinance/Ordinance Adoption During Emergency Disaster D-6. Request to Set Public Hearing for Charter Amendments by Ordinance/Repeal of Obsolete Charter Provision D-7. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-8. Rochesterfest Activities D-9. Street Closings, Meters Bagged Rochesterfest 2000 D-10. Approval of Accounts Payable D-11. Resolution Initiating Process for Sale of Temporary General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A D-12. Closing of Local Improvement Projects/Fund 501 D-13. Ownership of 1923 Sayers and Scovill Ambulance/Hose Wagon D-14. RFP for Architectural Services D-15. Appointment/Firefighter/Fire Department -�D-16. Appointments to Park Board D-17. Appointment to Library Board D-18. Appointment to International Affairs Committee D-19. Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Larry Goodman to Initiate Orderly Annexation for Approx. 109.84 Acres in Part of S 1/2, NE 1/4 of Section 9 and NW 1/4, NW 1/4 of Section 10, Cascade Township .iD-20. Wetland Replacement Plan/Lincolnshire North Subdivision D-21. Use of City of Rochester Police Department Range Facility D-22. U.S. Department of Justice COPS 1999 Universal Hiring Grant D-23. COPS Universal Hiring Program FY2000 Hiring Grant Application D-24. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1999 Public Housing Drug Elimination Grant D-25. Donations to Police Honor Guard D-26. Ryan Development Agreement Amendment #1 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Request for Council Action Approval of Consent Agenda Items June 5, 2000 Page 2 D-27, City Land Sale/3'' Avenue NW D-28. Revocable Permit for Charter House D-29. Revocable Permit for Lot 1, Block 1, Century Hills Second D-30. Development Agreement/Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder Property D-31. Development Agreement/Quarry Ridge/Hindermann Fitzgerald Sub. D-32. Development Agreement/Emerald Hills Development D-33. Development Agreement/Eagle Ridge 4d' Development D-34. Development Agreement/Lincolnshire North Development D-35. Award of Contract/Public Improvements to Sunset Avenue, Rose Avenue and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor D-36. Stormwater Management Agreements D-37. Owner Contract/Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision D-38. Owner Contract/Century Hills Fourth Subdivision D-39. Amend Owner Contract/Southem Woods First & Second Subdivisions D-40. Owner Contract/Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Lot 2, Block 1, Shorewood Retail Replat D-41. Consideration of Bids/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Baihly Woodland Subdivision D-42. Consideration of Bids/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Marvale Addition and Whynaught's S D-43. Advertise for Bids/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Five Areas in Marion Township D-44. Bids Received for Parking Control Equipment D-45. Parking Restriction on Fox Valley Dr. from 23 d Ave. SW to the West D-46. Parking Restriction on 32"d Avenue NW/2,300 Block ID-47. Parking Petition 15d' Avenue SW, 2"d Street to 5d' Street D-48. Designation of Bus Loading Areas at Downtown Bus Stop D-49. Engineering Service Contract Amendment/Black & Veatch Engineers COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a / IaJG\1�.7F71111 Consent Agenda City Administrator ITEM DESCRIPTION Council determination that certain buildings are "structurally substandard", approval of a Development Agreement, and schedule a public hearing for approval of Tax Increment Financing Plan for proposed Celestica site. ITEM NO. b-Q, PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth Over the past several months, the staff has been with Celestica Corporation representatives to facilitate the construction of a 200,000 square feet manufacturing facility within the City of Rochester. As the Council is aware, Celestica recently purchased the electronic card assemby and testing operations from IBM, and is presently operating within the IBM facility. At this time, Celestica is proposing to construct their manufacturing facility on the former Badger farm property, located at the SW comer of West Circle Drive NW (CSAH 22) and Valleyhigh Drive NW (CSAH 4). As part of that process, a Tax Increment Financing District is being proposed to help write down some of the costs related to site improvements. In this particular instance, the staff is proposing that a "redevelopment" tax increment financing district be created upon a portion of the property where the old farmstead buildings are located. The reason for the creation of a "redevelopment" TIF district is that the life of the district may be longer, and in this instance, additional tax increments may be used to help defray the City's share of the needed roadway improvements to Valleyhigh Drive NW. In order to comply with statutory requirements for a "redevelopment" TIF District, the Council must make findings determining that certain buildings are "structurally substandard". (Reference memo from Terry Spaeth dated 5/30/00 vas sent separately). In order to meet project development timelines, the property owner is requesting that the City into a Development Agreement to permit the "early" removal of the buildings, prior to the establishment of the TIF district. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Council action requested, consists of 3 separate items as follows: 1. Adopt Resolution approving a certain Development Agreement, determining certain buildings to be structurally substandard and initiating process for approval of Development District and Tax Increment Financing Plans. 2. Authorize Mayor & City Clerk to enter into Development Agreement with Badger Development, LLC to allow removal of buildings upon property to be included in a "redevelopment" TIF district. 3. Set a public hearing date of July 17, 2000 to consider adoption of Development District # 16 and Tax Increment Financing District # 16-1. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / DATE: 615100 St:G I IUN: CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport I b _ 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appoint and designate the Commissioner of Transportation for the State PREPARED BY: � of Minnesota as agent for the City of Rochester. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Appoint and designate the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota as agent for the City of Rochester. This will enable the Minnesota Department of Transportation to receive and process Federal and State funding for projects at the Rochester International Airport. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the resolution. COUNCIL ACTION: Motiun by: Sewnd r L 4 Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA ROCBESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES_ ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on May 30, 2000 and requests the Common CounciPs favorable consideration. - to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with TSE International, Inc. for one trailer mounted underground cable puller. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $43,816.50 plus sales tax and TSE International, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a. 10% increase in water revenue rates effective June 6, 2000, and a 10% increase to the Community Fire Protection rate schedule effective January 1, 2001. - to approve a resolution to provide a five. -year written notice to the Minnesota Municipal Power Agency of the City's intent to exercise the Capacity.Change provision of Paragraph 4.02 of,the "Participation Sales Agreement. Between the City of Rochester'and Minnesota Municipal Power Agency," informing Minnesota Municipal Power Agency that the capacity supplied by the City of Rochester to Minnesota Municipal Power'_Agency-for the contract term November 1, 2005 through October 31, 2010 shall be reduced to fifty (50) megawatts, and that the Mayor of Rochester be directed to provide such notice. GENERAL MANAGER:3 Li OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. Second by. to: FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 3 Meeting Date: 5/ 30/ 00 SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF A TRAILER MOUNTED UNDERGROUND CABLE PULLER PREPARED BY: Bill Cook, Supervisor of Environmental, GIS & Fleet ITEM DESCRIPTION: Plans for vehicle/equipment replacement in 2000 include a new trailer mounted underground cable puller for Maintenance & Construction underground crews. Sealed bids were received from two vendors to supply a trailer mounted underground cable puller. TSE International, Inc. bid the lowest price and the bid has no deviations from the specification. Based on an evaluation of the bid proposals which included quoted price, quoted delivery, previous experience with Manufacturer, previous experience with Bidder, availability of service and repair facilities, compliance with Specifications and other Proposal Documents, operating and maintenance costs, TSE International, Inc. is determined to be the lowest responsive bid with a price of $43,816.50. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Management recommends that the Board request the City Council to approve a purchase order to: TSE International, Inc., 5301 Shreveport -Blanchard Highway, Shreveport, Louisiana 71107 in the amount of $43,816.50 plus sales tax. - �2vicewe� S-ZS,bO WVu f, Date FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item# 6 Meeting Date: 5/30/00 SUBJECT: 2000 Revenue Adjustment for Water Utility PREPARED BY: Curt Kraft, Director of Administration ITEM DESCRIPTION: At the Board meeting on April 25, 2000, the need for a revenue adjustment was presented to the Board. Increasing capital costs for the water utility and the impact of city growth and city policy changes on those costs was discussed. The growth of the city has had a major impact on the cash reserves for the water utility. Expenditures for oversize watermain payments on developer projects have increased substantially. Two new wells are currently under construction (one nearing completion, and the other to be finished late this fall). Construction of each new well costs between $350,000 and $400,000 with another project to be added in 2002. In addition, in 1997, the City Council shifted the entire cost of watermain replacement to the water utility. This resulted in an average increase in expenditures of $250,000 annually. In the past, staff recommended rates that would cover operational and capital costs, while trying to maintain a target cash balance of $750,000. With the city policy changes and city growth, staff will be using $1,000,000 as a cash balance target. At this time staff is recommending a 10% increase in rates that would go into effect on June 6, 2000 as shown in the attached rate schedule. Staff is also recommending 10% increases to the Community Fire Protection rate schedule, which is also attached, effective January 1, 2001. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: It is recommended that the Board request the Common Council to approve a 10% revenue increase in water rates effective June 6, 2000, and a 10% revenue increase to the Community Fire Protection rate schedule effective January 1, 2001. G Manager Date PUBLIC r u1� a'r plc ter. ripe drfi -rr (507) 280-1601 E-mail: Ikoshire@rpu.org DATE: June 2, 2000 General Manager's Office MEMORANDUM TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator FROM: Larry Koshire, RPU General Manager SUBJECT: RPU Water Rate Increase 0 At the RPU Board meeting this last Tuesday, the RPU Board approved an increase in water rates effective June 6, 2000, The increase is needed because of the significant capital investment RPU is making in the water infrastructure, and the projections that cash reserves will fall below zero by the end of the year. At the present time, in addition to the capital investment in the infrastructure due to growth and construction of two new wells, RPU is now supporting the full cost of watermain replacement as part of street reconstruction. This is a new policy recently implemented. With the projected 10% rate increase, the capital expenditures would still draw reserves very close to zero depending upon water sales this summer. The Board discussed various rate increase alternatives, but unanimously came to the conclusion that a 10% increase was needed at this time. Historically, the water utility had a 5% increase in rates in 1999, with no increases back to 1993. As part of the Board's deliberations on RPU's water rates, we reviewed a comparison of costs with other Minnesota cities. This is important information in the decision making process, and I would request you pass this on to the City Council for background information. As you can see from the attached rate survey, RPU is lower than outlying communities by a factor of 2 or more on an average monthly water bill. Looking at other selected cities throughout Minnesota, RPU also reflects some of the lowest rates in the state for its water supply. Because of capital improvements draw down on cash reserves, a rate increase is preferred rather than bonding or borrowing. In the future, the Board discussed the need to have a higher reserve level to avoid significant increases at any one given time. We will be discussing this plan as we proceed into the budgeting process. If there is further background information other than what has been provided already in the Request for Council Action form, please give me a call. Attachment LJK:kaw Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 : facsimile 507.280.1542 1? Byron Eyota Rochester Stewartville (As of 6/1/00) Austin Albert Lea Burnsville Minneapolis Moorhead Owatonna St. Cloud St. Paul Winona 2000 Water Rates for Olmsted County Cities Water Rate $1.90 / 1,000 gallons, $5.00 customer charg $3.00 / 1,000 gallons $.70 / 1,000 gallons, $4.00 customer charge $2.37 / 1,000 gallons, $3.00 customer charge 2000 Water Rates from Other Minnesota Cities Average Monthly Water Bill $ 9.00 $ 8.49 $12.50 $16.85 $22.75 $14.00 $22.47 $15.27 $15.87 $20.25 $ 8.72 $18.00 These rates reflect an average monthly residential bill of 9 CCF/month (6,750 gal/month) 4/24/00 FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item # 7 Meeting Date: 5/30/00 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF CHANGE IN CAPACITY SUPPLY PARTICIPATION SALES AGREEMENT PREPARED BY: Walt Lorber, Director of Operations W ITEM DESCRIPTION: RPU's post-1999 power supply plans include exercising recall provisions of existing capacity agreements. In March, the Board approved giving notice to SMMPA of intent to terminate the Cascade Creek combustion turbine agreement, effective April 1, 2001. The next opportunity to recall existing capacity is identified in the notice provision of the Participation Sales Agreement between RPU and MMPA for Silver Lake Plant capacity. The language of Paragraph 4.02, "Capacity Changes", is attached. In 1995, RPU elected to not exercise the 2000-2005 reduction option. To exercise the next reduction option, RPU must provide a five-year notice to MMPA before November 1, 2000. The minimum amount of capacity that RPU can sell to MMPA in the 2005-2010 time frame is 50 mW. Analyses performed by staff and RPU's consultant have shown that the maximum recall of capacity is in RPU's best interest. MMPA is presently paying RPU $42.01/kW-year for 100,000 kW of capacity. RPU has contracted for 25,000 kW from MMPA for $33.00/kW for this summer season. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: It is recommended that the Board authorize the Mayor to provide written notice to MMPA before November 1, 2000, of the City's intent to reduce the capacity supplied under the terms of the Participation Sales Agreement to 50 mW during the 2005-2010 period, with such reduction becoming effective November 1. 2005. (10heral Manager Date UTILTITES REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Iq DATE: 6/05/00 AGENDA SECTION: rn^Sent Agenda __DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION: Request to set public hear — ordinance adoption during emergency disaster. ORIGINATING DEPT: CHARTER COMMISSION b' 6- PREPARED BY: Charter Commission The Charter Commission, upon the request of the City Attorney's office, proposes that the City Council amend the Rochester Home Rule Charter to establish a process for ordinance adoption during a declared disaster emergency without the publication requirement. The proposed amendment to Section 6.07 is identified in bold print as follows: SECTION 6.07. (PublicationI. Every ordinance passed as aforesaid shall be recorded by the city clerk in a book provided for that purpose. Except as hereinafter provided, it shall not be in force, however, until signed by the mayor, attested by the city clerk and published once in the official paper of the city. Ordinances adopted during a declared emergency disaster shall be in force upon adoption without the need for publication. In the case of lengthy ordinances the common council may, by vote of five of its members, direct that only the title of the ordinance and a summary be published, conforming to Minnesota Statutes Section 331A.01, subdivision 10 as amended. Such summary statement shall also contain a notice that the entire text of the ordinance is available for inspection at the office of the City Clerk, at the community library, and at any other public location which the common council may designate. Prior to its publication the title and text of the summary shall be approved by the common council upon determination by the council that the summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Before any such ordinance shall be recorded, the publication thereof as aforesaid shall be proved by the affidavit of the foreman or publisher of such paper. This affidavit shall be recorded therewith and shall at all times be deemed and taken as sufficient evidence of such publication. example of when this change may be necessary is the City's attempt to lare "no -fly zones" following a disaster. The FAA has indicated that it will not enforce no -fly zones until a municipality has adopted a legally enforceable ordinance. Under the Charter as it presently reads, this can not be done until the ordinance is approved, signed and published. The act of publication takes several days to accomplish and the need for the ordinance may be over before the ordinance is effective and enforceable. Under Minn. Stat. §410.12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter may be made by ordinance upon recommendation by the charter commission. Amendment of a charter may be made only after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment. Following the hearing, the council may adopt the ordinance amending the charter by affirmative vote of all its members subject to the public's right to object by petition. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, direct the City Clerk to publish notice of a public hearing to be held Wednesday, July 5, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., to consider the proposed amendment by ordinance. Following that hearing, the council may adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all members present. - - JNCIL ACTION: Mouonby: Second MEETING I 1� DATE: 6/05/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. "^^.sent Agenda CHARTER COMMISSION -D, (O "d DESCRIPTION: Request to set public hearing for charter amendments by ordinance PREPARED BY: repeal of obsolete charter provision. Charter Commission Irie Charter Commission, upon the request o e i y orney s Ott ice, proposes that the City Council repeal Section 11.05 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter. This section was inadvertently left in the charter following the charter recodification in 1985. Prior to 1985, the charter required that the council call for an election by the voters prior to the HRA or other public agency initiating any proposed "public project of urban renewal." The charter exempted development district (TIF) projects from this election process. The 1985 recodification removed the election requirement for public urban renewal projects. The charter is left with an exemption provision but no requirement to be exempted from. As a result, there is no need to retain section 11.05. Under Minn. Stat. §410.12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter.may be made by ordinance upon recommendation by the charter commission. Amendment of a charter may be made only after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment. Following the hearing, the council may adopt the ordinance amending the charter by affirmative vote of all its members subject to the public's right to object by petition. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, direct the City Clerk to publish notice a public hearing to be held Wednesday, July 5, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., to isider the proposed amendment by ordinance. Following that hearing, the council may adopt the proposed ordinance upon affirmative vote of all members present. __UNCILACTION: Mobonby: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00� AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D _ /1 "F.I DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED 8Y: D NNNA J SCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. FIREWORKS Republican Party of Minnesota 480 Cedar St. Suite 560 St. Paul, Mn. 55101 Fireworks 6/900 & 6/10/00 Mayo Civic Center for Convention Rochester Golf & Country Club 3100 W. Country Club Rd SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Fireworks 7/4/00 Rochester Post Bulletin July 4d' Fireworks Display 7/4/00 Silver Lake Park GAMBLING — TEMPORARY Ronald McDonald House of Rochester 850 2nd St. SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Raffle 7/28/00 AT Willow Creek Golf Course 1700 48d' St. SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Rochester Area Family Y 709 1" Ave SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Raffle 7/24/00 AT Rochester Golf & Country Club 3100 Country Club Rd W Rochester, Mn. 55902 %,uJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 JUNE 5, 2000 HAVC LICENSES Northern Piping & Mechanical 212 County Rd. 1 Dundas, Mn. 55019 MASTER INSTALLER Paul Doyle Rural Route Red Wing, Mn. 55066 MASTER PLUMBER Northern Piping & Mechanical 212 County Rd. I Dundas, Mn. 55019 SEWER & DRAIN LICENSES VanBuskirk Excavating & Hauling 66842 310'h St Dexter, Mn. 55926 SIDEWALKS — CEMENT Country Builders Inc. Rt 2, Box 4 Webster, SD 57274 Esau Quality Concrete 5576 115" St. Riceville, Ia 50466 SOUND AMPLIFICATION Andy Streit FOR 8'h Annul Sumner Pig Roast Essex Park 7/29/00 12:00 Noon until dusk Rochester, Mn. 55901 Khom Chhom & Darin Yous Wedding Ceremony 1302 415` St. NW Rochester, Mn 55901 June 9, 2000 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM Downtown Business Association 4'h Annual Blues Fest 8/19/00 3:00 PM to 10:00 PM Central Park I" Ave & 2nd St NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 r. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D - 7 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. SOUND AMPLIFICATION Lou Grimaldi Daughter's wedding Reception 6/10/00 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM 841 Foxchase Rd SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 (Please Waive 8:00 PM Time Period) GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT RENEWAL VFW POST 41215 16 — 6Ttt St. SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above ADDENDUM licenses. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PAGE 3 JUNE 5, 2000 MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE A.B.A.T.E. 13'h Annual Toys for Tots Motorcycle Run 8/19/00 Harley Davidson Shop (hwy 14 E) to Clements Chevrolet, to Salem Rd SW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Neighborhood Block Parry 6/24/00 Corner of45s' Ave NW & Savannah Dr NW Greg Neumann & John Hornvendt 4469 Savannah Dr NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities. as REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D _ 8 I M DESCRIPTION: ROCHESTERFEST ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA IICHOTT The following licenses, permits and miscellaneous activities are needed for the Rochesterfest 2000 events During the week of June 17d' thru June 25d'. It is also requested that sound amplification permits be given a Blanket approval for waiver of the time requirements for those events that exceed 8:00 PM. DATE OF EVENT LICENSES/PERMITS SATURDAY, JUNE 17 Lumberjack Championships Sound Amplification Permit, 3.2% Beer, Miscellaneous American Heart Ass'n Walk Miscellaneous Bed Races — Government Center Miscellaneous Youth Concert — Fairgrounds Sound Amplification Cemetery Walk Miscellaneous SUNDAY, JUNE 18 Lumberjack Championships Sound Amplification Permit, 3.2% Beer, Miscellaneous •Millennium March Youth Concert Miscellaneous Sound Amplification Permit MONDAY, NNE 19 Downtown Noon Entertainment Sound Amplification Permit Kids Under the Tent Sound Amplification Permit Ice Cream Social Sound Amplification Permit, Miscellaneous Karoke/Comedy Night Sound Amplification Permit Youth Concert Sound Amplification Permit TUESDAY, NNE 20 Downtown Noon Entertainment Sound Amplification Permit Concert In The Park Sound Amplification Permit, Miscellaneous Youth Concert Sound Amplification Permit Teen Dance Dance, Sound Amplification Permit WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21 Downtown Noon Entertainment Sound Amplification Permit Kids Under the Tent Sound Amplification Permit 10 Who Make a Difference Sound Amplification Permit COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ROCHESTERFEST ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 JUNE 5, 2000 Kiwanis Parent/Child Fair Family Fun Night THURSDAY, JUNE 22 Downtown Noon Entertainment Kids Under the Tent Youth Concert Country Night FRIDAY, JUNE 23 Downtown Noon Entertainment Kids Under the Tent Youth Concert Rock & Roll Dance Grand Parade Senior Citizen Center Pre -Parade Party SATURDAY, NNE 24 Teddy Bear Picnic Soap Box Derby Youth Concert Lourdes Alumni & Friends Street Dance SUNDAY, JUNE 25 Veteran's Memorial Dedication Alternate Street Dance Date COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Miscellaneous Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit. Dance, 3.2% Beer Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit. Dance. 3.2% Beer Sound Amplification Permit, Parade Miscellaneous Sound Amplification Permit Miscellaneous Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit. Dance, 3.2% Beer Miscellaneous, Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit. Dance, 3.2% Beer A motion to approve the above Rochesterfest Activities. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING p� I DATE: 6/5/00 " AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK -D 9 I i am DESCRIPTION: STREET CLOSINGS, METERS BAGGED PREPARED BY: ROCHESTERFEST 2000 DONNA d SCM7 The following street closings are needed for the Rochesterfest Celebration for 2000 running June 17d' thru June 25d'. Street closing have been cleared through the Public Works and Police Departments. Saturday, June 17d' & Sunday, June 18"' Streets Closed: East Silver Lake Drive from 7d` to 14't' Street from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Barricades to be manned for Handicapped Access Saturday, June 171t' 8:00 AM through Sunday, June 251h Streets Closed and all Meters Bagged Civic Center Dr from Center Street to 2"d Street S.E. — All meters bagged — No Parking 1st Street S.E. from Civic Center Dr to 1st Avenue S.E. — All meters bagged — No Parking Meters Bagged: West Side of I" Avenue S.E. Between 2"d Street and I't Street S.E. — Bagged for Reserved Parking 5 Meters in S.E. Comer in Library Lot — Bagged for Reserved Parking Monday, June 19, 2000 — No Parking after 3:00 PM Meters Bagged — Johnson Printing Corner (311 2"d Ave NW) 3`d St NW — South Side 2"d Ave NW —East Side Friday, June 23"d Street Closings — Grand Parade 1. Civic Center Dr at Broadway East to 2"d Ave NE 2. 2"d Ave NE from 7`b St NE, South to Civic Center Dr (South Bound Lanes Only). 3. 2"d Ave from Civic Center Dr South to East Center St. (All Lanes). Will be closed at 1:00 PM to allow for parade line-up. Local traffic will be Allowed until 5:00 PM. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: STREET CLOSINGS — ROCHESTERFEST 2000 PAGE JUNE 5, 2000 1. Civic Center Dr from East Center St South to 4"i St SE 2.4`h St SE from 3`d Ave SE East to 11'h Ave SE 3. 11 `h Ave from 4`h St SE North to East Center St. 4. East Center St from 11`h Ave SE West to Civic Center Dr Will be closed at 5:00 PM During the parade, 9ch Ave and East Center along with 10`h Ave and 41h St SE will be Manned by Police Officer and used as emergency/escape routes for local residents. Meters Bagged and Parking Lots Closed: 1. Meters will be bagged in Mayo Field Parking Lot, Civic Center North Parking Lot. No parking after 4:00 PM. Vehicles to be towed after 5:00 PM Posted NO PARKING signs after 4:00 PM on the parade route (including any metered areas). Vehicles will be towed after 5:00 PM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the Rochesterfest 2000 street closing and bagging of meters. IF THE SATURDAY DANCE IS OUT IT WILL BE HELD ON SUNDAY, JUNE 25T" FROM 7:30 P.M. TO 1:00 A.M. / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent Agenda I Finance Department Approval of Accounts Payable Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $3,305,176.15. Less: Any exceptions —JUNCILACTION: Motion by: second MEETING 31 DATE: 6/5/00 Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 33 -- DATE: June 5, 2000 Consent Agenda Finance Department Resolution Initiating the Process for the Sale of Temporary General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A -b- r( Dale Martinson A number of the projects authorized under the City's 1 /2 percent local option sales tax are beginning to get underway. We anticipate significant project expenditures over the next year and a half and recommend issuance of bonds to provide the necessary cash flow. Nearly all of the sales tax revenues collected during 2000 will be dedicated to pay our share of the UCR Sports Complex to the State. (This is necessary to assure that we are not subject to arbitrage rebate payments to the IRS since the State will control spend down on this project.) The requested borrowed funds will therefore fund sales tax project expenditures over the next 18 months including: • Mayo Civic Center Expansion • Airport Terminal Improvements • Water Quality Projection Program Authorized Projects • Initial Highway 52 City Share Expenditures Recommendations of Springsted, Inc., our financial advisors on the sale have been sent separately to Council members. At this time, we propose to issue $17,925,000 of the $71,500,000 authorized under the sales tax legislation. If future sales tax expenditures and revenues occur as we have projected, these may be the only bonds we will need to issue for these projects, since future revenues would cash flow the remaining expenditures. Having said that, I should warn the Council that I have had to revise those projections 14 times so far. We propose to issue general obligation "temporary bonds" that have a three-year term and require interest - only payments each June and December 1:t. At the end of the three years, we will have a better understanding of the timing of project costs and will either be able to reissue the debt over a longer term, or perhaps pay a significant amount down on the principal. We propose a competitive sale of the bonds since it is a pretty straightforward issue. We are, in fact, contemplating holding the sale through electronic bidding (interact sales), a first for us. We recommend setting the sale date for July 17'b with bid award to occur that evening at your regular council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the attached resolution initiating the process for the sale of the City's Temporary General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second 06%01/00 10:07 BRIGGS NOP.GRI -> 950726.59256 t10.S40 F023/209 3q RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION INITIATING THE PROCESS FOR THE SALE OF THE CITY'S TEMPORARY GENERAL OBLIGATION SALES TAR REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000A BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby determined: (a) The City has undertaken or will undertake the making of various eligible public improvements (the "Improvements") pursuant to Laws of Minnesota for 1998, Chapter 389, Article 6, Section 43. (b) It would be advantageous for the City to issue its Temporary General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue financiBonds, ng for Series 2000A (the "Bonds"), to provide the Improvements. (c) The City has retained Springsted Incorporated, in Saint Paul, Minnesota, as its independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to sell the Bonds by a competitive negotiated sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). 2. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are set forth in the "Terms of Proposal" attached hereto, and the Council shall meet at the time and place specified therein for the purposes of considering the bids for the purchase of the Bonds and considering the award of the Bale of the Bonds, 1173702.1 06i01r00 10:07 BRIGGS MORGAN + S5072B5a25S NO.S40 F004i008 / PASSED AND ADOPTED BY ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS STTCOMMON DAYOF UNE, OOOL OF THE CITY OF ATTEST: CITY CLERK PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL Approved this day of June, 2000. (Seal of the City Of Rochester, Minnesota) MAYOR OF SAID CITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing upon a resolution vote being was duly seconded by Councilmember and taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 1173703.1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING i DATE: 6/5/00 CONSENT AGENDA i i em DESCRIPTION: CLOSING OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - FUND 501 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. FINANCE b _ ( =—A.� PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson Attached is a prepared resolution closing completed projects and authorizing transfer of the unexpended balances. The project funds were created and financed pursuant to the approved Capital Improvements program or other specific Council action. The net amount transferred out of closed projects totals $ 474,531.62. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Respectfully request a motion adopting the prepared resolution closing completed improvement projects and transferring unexpended balances pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subd. 4. : Motion by: Second by: to: 3gRESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following local improvement project funds were created and financed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and balances remaining therein are: Project Number Project Description Amount 8207 Substandard Road Charges (120,554.50) trf from J8204 (Future Construction-Asmnt Proj) 120,554.50 8307 Sidewalk Construction — CityShare 41,704.73 trfto J9270 (G/S 55St NW Frwy Dr>Ncklaus Dr) ( 37,108,90) 8521 Replace C&G various locations 84,044.51 8692 Recon 6 St SE <4 Av> 13 Av (trf to J8204) 74,250.09 9215 Recon 18 Av NW from 22 St NW to 37 St NW (trf to J8204 & J4844) 78,622.98 9270 G/S 55St NW Frwy Dr>Ncklaus Dr (104.985.17) trf from J9470 (General Street Reconstruction) 38,534.92 trf from J2201 (General Street Resurfacing) 29,341.35 trf from J8307 (Sidewalk Construction — City Share) 37,108.90 9310 Recon 19 St NW from 32 Av to West Crcl Or (trf to J8204 & J4844) 93,032.44 9324 BIC Kings Run 4th - O/C ( .33) 9327 Recon pvmnt, Ext Sn/S 41 St SW from Bdwy to 2nd Av (trf to 8204) 38,487.37 9328 Recon and Widen 6 Av from 2 St to 6 St SW (trf to J9470) 11,668.78 9353 SnIS W/M 23AvSW 4St>GatesDr,et (trf to J8204) 12,736.33 9363 Recon 7 St NW from 43 Av to west line of Section 32 ( 26,416.05) trf from J9470 (General Street Reconstruction) 26,416.05 9383 Widen, C&G north side 4 St SW from 23 Av to 300' west ( 4,779.44) trf from J8521 (Replace C&G various locations) 4,264.40 trffrom J9470 (General Street Reconstruction) 515.04 9430 BIC Southern Hills Subd ( 2.64) 9446 W/M Ext Carriage Homes 2nd-O/C ( 2.25) 9447 Recon 500 Blck Alley b/t 10 & 11 Av NE 37.37 9450 Rehab 900 Blck-17.5 St SE with C&G (trf to J9470) 13,894.30 9461 W/M Ext S Frtg Rd Hwy 14 West-Univ Pwr Marine (trf to J8204) 7,133.47 9464 Ext SNS W/M 25 St SW from Mdw Hills Dr to west (trfto J9470) 10,588.11 9468 SUS C&G in 6 St NW from CC Dr to 11 Av NW ( 8,436.98) trf from J9470 (General Street Reconstruction) 8,435.98 9472 SUS Ext in 19 Av SW (trf to J1994) 9,680.29 9473 Ext SnIS W/M E.Crcl Dr,16Av NE 3,588.82 9475 BIC Northm Hts Nrth-Subd3-O/C ( 1.10) 9477 BIC Eastwood Hills 2ndSubd-O/C ( .32) 9479 Grade&Surface NrthviewSubd-O/C ( 1,98) 9482 W/M Ext 10 Av SW -Airport Ind Park Subd (trfto J8204) 11,795.56 9489 SM+ Rep] #3 —1998 Var NE 3,274.98 9493 C&G, St Resurf— 21 & 22 St NE (trf to J9470) 21,780.45 9510 SUS ext>sry Hope Lodge -O/C ( 4,669,88) 9515 BIC West Century Subd-OIC 1.01 9516 BIC BamberRidge4thSubd,Ph3-OIC ( .32) 9527 BIC Greenhaven 1st Subd-O/C ( 2.53) 9533 BIC North Park 9th Subd-OIC ( 2.21) 9551 ExtSn/S&W/M>srvBaihlyWdlndSubd ( 35,403.48) trf from J2133 (General SnIS Main Replcmnt) 7,454.16 trf from J8202 (Sewer AvaiVConnecbon Chgs) 27,949.32 9556 BIC Century Hills 3rd Subd-O/C [ 2.31) 9557 B/CNorthrnHtsNrth2ndTwnhms-OIC ( .55) 9560 BIC Emerald Hills Subd - O/C ( 2.31) 9565 BIC SouthernHills 2nd Subd-O/C ( 1.65) 9568 BIC Wedgewd Hills 2nd Subd-O/C ( 1.98) 9569 BIC White Oaks 3rd Subd-OIC (trf to J9578) 28.36 9570 BIC 25 St SE <H63> 800' East ( 5.72) 9575 BIC Manorwds West 11 Subd-O/C ( 3.30) 9581 C & G, Overlay 2 St SE from 11 Av to 16 Av ( 52,575.99) �q trf from J8521 (Replace C&G various locations) 52,575.99 9582 C & G, Overlay 8 St SW from 8 Av to 10 Av ( 23.254.18) trf from J8521 (Replace C&G various locations) 23,254.18 9623 B/C Greystone Subd - O/C ( 3.63) 9635 B/C PinewoodMeadowslstAdtn-O/C f 2.42) Net Funds Transferred $ 474,531.62 WHEREAS, the above listed projects have been completed and all costs of said improvements have been paid. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota under authority of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091, Subd. 4 that: 1. The above named funds shall be disccnfinued and the remaining balances in said funds shall be transferred to the following local improvement project funds: Project Number Proiect Description Amount 1994 Future Construction 9,680.26 2113 C&G Repair — various locations (trf fr J8307) 4,595.83 2113 C&G Repair — various locations (trf fr J8521) 84,044.51 4844 MSAS Construction (from J9215) 24,844.30 4844 MSAS Construction (from J9310) 26,967.81 9470 General Street Reconstruction 60,124.39 9578 Recon 50 Av NW, N of 55 St NW 28.36 8204 Future Construction-Asmnt Proj 264,246.13 Net Funds Transferred $474,531.62 2. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to put into effect the provision of this resolution as of May 31, 2000. Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 5th day of June, President of said Common Council Attest. City Clerk Approved this _ day of , 2000 Mayor of said City (Sea[ of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING + / DATE: 6/5/00 �" AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Fire D - {3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Ownership of 1923 Sayers and Scovill ambulance/hose wagon PREPARED BY: D. Kapler b This Sayers and Scovill truck was built in 1923 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It was the first commercially built Mayo Clinic ambulance. After about 10 years, the Mayo Clinic donated the S&S to the Rochester Police Department for emergency calls. It logged 20 to 30 calls per year. Sometime in the late 1930's , it was passed onto the Rochester Fire Department and converted to a hose wagon. It remained with the RFD until after 1960. The S&S was sold to Jack Ryan, a long time firefighter, who sold it to Bob Mross in 1970. The truck has been stored in a leaky shed in Hamond, MN for 30 years. Mr. Mross offered to sell the S&S to Captain Minard Peterson for $100 with the desire that the truck be restored. Minard Peterson is now offering to donate the vehicle to the Rochetser Fire Department. It is the intention that the truck will be restored by Rochester firefighters with private funds and donations, similar to the restration of the Ahrens Fox. This truck is of more modern design than the Ahrens Fox and would be better suited for parades and other show purposes. The restoration will preserve an important part of Rochester's history. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED That the City Council accept the donation of the 1923 Sayers & Scovill Truck and that the City of Rochester assume ownership and title of the vehicle. GUUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Sayers & Scovill The Sayers & Scovill Company of Cincinnati, Ohio built this truck in 1923. It was the first commercially manufactured Mayo Clinic ambulance. The S&S was donated to Rochester police department for emergency calls and logged 20 -30 calls a year. After being passed on from the police, the ambulance was cut down and converted to a hose wagon by the fire department. This was done in the hight of the depression, and the trick was used until after 1960. The S&S was sold to Jack Ryan, a long time firefighter, who sold it to Bob Mross in 1970. The truck sat in a leaky shed in Hamond, Minnesota for 30 years until Minard Peterson found it. Minard bought the S&S with the thought of returning it to the department, and complete Sayers & Scovill / hose wagon at the Stevensons fire 1942 Sayers & Scovill / ambulance about 1923 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Administration D_ 4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: RFP for Architectural Services PREPARED BY: D. Kapler Consistent with the 1993 Fire Station Location Study, the Capital Improvement Project budget calls for the construction of three fire stations in the next five years: fire station #3 in 2002, fire station #5 in 2003, and fire station #2 in 2005. These stations will all be similar in their basic design and function. To save on the cost of architectural and design services, it is suggested that a prototype fire station be designed that could be adaptable to all three sites: Second Street SW, 40th Street SE, and the vicinity of Century High School. To meet the scheduled for the opening of fire station #3 in the spring of 2002, the selection of an architect and the prototype design should begin this summer. The project schedule is as follows: 6/5100 — Council authorizes staff to solicit proposals for architectural design services. 6/16/00 — Proposal requests sent to architectural/engineering firms. 8/l/00 — Proposals due from architectural/engineering firms. 8/16/00 — Interviews with architecturallengineering firms. 100 — Council approves firm and prototype design begins. 1116/00 — Council approves prototype design - begin construction design for station #3 3/5/01 — Design complete - Council gives authorization for construction bid 4/2/01 — Bid opening 4/16/01 — Bid award by Council 511101 — Site work begins 7/1/01 — Site work complete, construction begins 3/1/02 — Project complete COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council to authorize staff to proceed with selection of an architectural/engineering firm for fire station prototype design. t:ut1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: qq May 22, 2000 Enclosed is our Request for Proposal for architectural and engineering services. The first phase of the project is to develop a prototype design for several new fire stations to be constructed over the next five to seven years. The second phase of the project is to develop architectural, engineering and construction documents for the first of these fire stations to be constructed in 2001-2002. As you will note from the enclosed document, we wish to design and build quality fire stations that will serve the community for 50+ years. By developing a prototype design, we hope to save on the design costs of future stations. The City Council or city staff will provide further design considerations and direction after an architectural/engineering firm is selected. We look forward to your response within the designated time period. If you have any questions feel free to call Administrative Services Manager Jeff Leland or me at (507) 285-8072. Yours Truly, David Kapler Fire Chief REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ROCHESTER FIRE STATION 1.0 Project Description — Phase One, Prototype Design 1.1 The City of Rochester intends to build several similar fire stations over the next five years. 1.2 The City of Rochester wishes to develop a prototype design that can be used for future fire stations of similar size and function. 1.3 The selected architectural firm will first work with the City Council and city staff to study various building configurations, designs, building materials and relative costs. The selected station design must be adaptable to various building sites and neighborhood environments ranging from commercial to residential. 1.4 The selected architectural firm shall present to the City Council and city staff conceptual design alternatives along with recommendations for construction methods and materials and cost estimates. 2.0 Project Description — Phase Two, Architectural/Construction Design, Engineering and Specifications 2.1 Based on the direction of the City Council, the selected architectural firm shall develop the final design and produce the necessary architectural and engineering documents for the construction of a fire station of the following general description. The firm shall work closely with Fire Department Administration in the design and specification of the station. 2.2 The station shall be built to be durable, low maintenance, complement the neighborhood environment, and have a service life of 50+ years. 2.3 The station will have two drive -through vehicle bays that will house the following apparatus: One front line pumper One backup pumper or similarly sized vehicle One pickup/utility vehicle 2.4 The station will include adequate storage and work space. The station will be of one story design, with or without a basement. 2.5 There will be living quarters for 12 people. The living quarters will include four (4) individual bedrooms with a shared bath for each set of two (2) bedrooms. All bedrooms will have three (3) built-in lockers, three (3) pull - down beds, and a desktop. One of the bedrooms will also serve as an office for the station captain. The officer's bedroom/office shall have room for three file cabinets, round table with four chairs, and corner desk. Ll6 2.6 A physical fitness room will be included. 2.7 A kitchen/dining area large enough to be utilized by four to six people will be included. 2.8 There will be a lounge/living area for four to six people. 2.9 There will be a locker area adjacent to the apparatus area with enough lockers to store three shifts of firefighters' turnouts (12). 2.10 A room or area for hose washing and drying equipment will be located adjacent to the apparatus area. 2.11 An area near the main entrance will be included with space for apparatus door controls, radio, computer terminal, telephone, and area to greet the public and take blood pressures. 2.12 Possible additions to one of the stations (40th St SE) include: An office for law enforcement personnel. Space for an ambulance company. Additional space needed would include one additional apparatus bay and two bedrooms with a shared bath. There would be shared use of the remaining facility and living quarters. 2.13 A special purpose work/storage area shall be provided in each station to be adaptable to various uses such as SCBA repair, breathing air compressor station, department supply/warehouse, or vehicle parts storeroom and mechanic's office. 3.0 Process Description 3.1 The City of Rochester will select architects and engineers through a proposal and interview process. The architectural and engineering services will be selected as one contract for design services. 3.2 The proposed schedule for prototype design through construction of the first station is as follows: 6-05-00 Council authorizes staff to solicit proposals for architectural design services. 6-16-00 Proposal requests sent to architectural/engineering firms. 8-01-00 Proposals due from architectural/engineering firms. 8-16-00 Interviews with architectural/engineering firms. 9-05-00 Council approves architectural/engineering firm — prototype design begins. 2 V? 11-06-00 Council approves prototype design — begin architectural/engineering/construction design for station #3. 3-05-01 Design complete. Council authorization for construction bid. 4-02-01 Bid opening. 4-16-01 Bid award by council. 5-01-01 Site work begins 7-01-01 Construction begins. 3-01-02 Project complete. The schedule is built around Council meeting dates. A change in a critical date will generally add two (2) weeks on to the process. 3.3 The general instructions and format for proposal contents are included in Sections 3 and 4 of this Request for Proposal. 3.4 Selection Criteria The successful firm shall demonstrate: Significant prior experience in designing fire stations with residential living quarters; Availability and full commitment to the project of senior and key supporting professional personnel who have had significant prior experience designing, producing construction documents for, and overseeing construction of projects of this type and scale; That proposed key personnel and the firm are capable of: • Producing an outstanding example of functional planning and detailing that meets the highest current technical standards within the relevant disciplines; • Producing a durable building that operates dependably, efficiently, and economically in the severe climatic conditions of the upper Midwest; • Expertly integrating energy and other resource conservation measures into the design of the building; • Create an architectural design that will be responsive to the nature and scale of the project site and surrounding urban area; • Working cooperatively and productively with administration, staff, other consultants, and contractors; 3 Cooperating with other participants, as well as taking initiative, in effectively managing the project to meet the time schedule and budget objectives; • Obtaining local government approvals and handling public hearings. 3.5 The selection committee will be made up of representatives of the City of Rochester. 4.0 Instructions to Proposers 4.1 The proposals shall be directed to: Rochester Fire Department 201 Fourth Street SE Room 10 Rochester, MN 55904 Attention: Administrative Services Manager Jeff Leland 4.2 Questions shall be written and directed to Administrative Services Manager Jeff Leland at the above address or by fax at 507-280-4721. Do not contact selection committee members directly. Written questions shall be delivered by July 14, 2000, 5:00 p.m. to allow dissemination of information to all proposers. 4.3 The main proposal body will be submitted in 8 % inches x 11 inches format, bound along the 11 inches edge with 25 faces maximum. Please submit six (6) bound copies. The supplemental materials can be in any format fitting within the 8-'/: inches x 11 inches package and will be at the discretion of the proposer. The appropriateness of the supplemental materials will also be judged as part of the criteria for selection. 4.4 The fee proposal shall be presented on the attached form and delivered in a separate, sealed envelope. Document any qualifications or special conditions affecting your fee proposal. The form of contract will be the AIA B141 agreement as modified for the City of Rochester. 4.5 The deadline for submittal of proposals is 2:00 p.m. August 1, 2000 5.0 Proposal Contents 5.1 The body of the proposal shall include the following items (limit to 25 faces not counting cover letter and cover sheets) Business organization (Name: Corporate office address; Regional offices and office designated to perform work; Form of Incorporation). Project organization chart(s) including consultants or associated firms, and listing the names of key personnel to be assigned to the project. y9 Resumes of key project personnel with references and individual experience with relevant projects. For each person indicate: a) their role on the project team; b) the length of time the person has been with the firm; c) their experience with fire station projects and the capacity in which they served in those projects; a) their education or other pertinent background information. • Statement of ability to staff the project and a schedule for key personnel showing hours allocated to the project by phase of work. • Work plan including general project approach and specific demands on owner representatives. Indicate what you consider to be the most important design issues for the Fire Station. Include a detailed schedule showing start and finish of design and construction phases. • Demonstration of ability to perform within the time and dollar budgets. • Fee proposal including a separate summary of anticipated reimbursables. Use the fee proposal form provided. 5.2 Each supplemental materials to express the distinctive competence of your firm. Please include specific examples from at least two recent projects including photos or renderings, scope statements (size, program, and dollars), small scale plans, date of occupancy, and owner and contractor references. These must be projects in which members of your design team had significant participation. 50 FEE PROPOSAL CITY OF ROCHESTER FIRM NAME BASIC SERVICES The prototype design and construction budget is $1.0 to $1.5 million. In addition to basic service, your fee should include refinement of the building program; any interior design services which may be needed; detailed cost estimates at the schematic, design development, and 90% construction document phases of the design; and as - built drawings on diskette. Estimated Fee for Basic Services: This percentage fee will be converted to a fixed amount based upon the agreed budget at conclusion of schematic design. REIMBURSABLES Estimated Reimbursable: $ Comments: 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �r / DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational / Consent Human Resources b—rs ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointment - Firefighter - Fire Department PREPARED BY: L Gilsrud The promotion of Michael Magruder, Firefighter, to the position of Motor Operator effective May 16, 2000 created a vacancy for the position of Firefighter. The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the top three (3) certified candidates for the position of Firefighter from the established eligibility roster and recommends the appointment of one of the three to the position of Firefighter. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Appointment of Marc D. Machacek to the position of Firefighter in the Rochester Fire Department conditional upon successful completion of an indepth background investigation, medical and psychological examinations. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 10, 5?-- bdow ALI—AMEKICA CITY V,4* May 31, 2000 ROCHESTER FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GREG WALTERS NORB RYAN HILLA CLINE Honorable Council Members City Council City Hall Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Council Members: The promotion of Firefighter Michael Magruder to the position of Motor Operator effective May 16, 2000 created a vacancy for the position of Firefighter. We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of Firefighter from the following list of qualified candidates: 1. Marc D. Machacek 2. Andrew M. Dorn 3. Joseph J. Minnis Fire Chief David Kapler desires to have this appointment effective as soon as possible. Respectfully Submitted, Norb Ryan Secretary Fire Civil Service Commission An Egm(Oppomniq EEmpGyer '5311 ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 30, 2000 TO: Fire Civil Service Commission FROM: David Kapler, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Firefighter Appointments I request that 2 new firefighter appointments be made to fill the following vacancies. 1. Mike Magruder was recently promoted to Motor Operator leaving a firefighter vacancy. 2. Firefighter Ken Bee has been deemed physically unable to perform firefighter duties. He has been off line for six months. This will put us one over the authorized number of firefighters until Ken Bee retires, we believe this will occur in the next 30 — 60 days. &IM6101W10H• AGENDA SECTION: Organizational Business ..'EM DESCRIPTION: Appointments to Park Board ORIGINATING DEPT: W e MEETING 55� DATE: 6/5/00 ITEM NO. D -(6 PREPARED BY: I hereby submit for your approval the following appointments to the Rochester Board of Park Commissioners: Scott Crowley 1025 Chalet Drive NW David Perkins 150 Salem Drive SW Mr. Crowley will fill the expired term of Tim Sitzer and Mr Perkins will fill the expired term of Paul Olander. The four year terms run to June 2004. OUNCIL ACT10N: Mona, er, s.omw W. to: / •; ,.. M : MlNN J i� oy Rp�NE G,o A�r�r •:A'/ N,tEO • AUCUs: ' � • NAME: Mayor Chuck Canfield 201 4th Street SE - Room 281 Rochester, MN 55904-3782 PC�tTVV)2OF0 Fax: 287-7979 VOLUNTEER APPLICATION ADDRESS:_ �O �' r �'ale PHONE: BUS.1p,2L26a2 HOME DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YESo--�-NO PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: e14- I A14 SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON BECAUSE: b" ALL-ANEHICA C'IT)' 4Il PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additior_ information, if desired. a.1 DATE SUBMITTED:4.Z-,g 7• f g SIGNED: Return to: Office of the Mayor 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904-3782 how t.-AMEaICA CITY Woo G NAME: ADDRESS: ROCHESTER CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION David Perkins 150 Salem Point Drive SW PHONE: HOME 288-1771 BUSINESS DO YOU RESIDE IN THE ROCHESTER CITY 1-I101IiTS? YES X NO PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: Retired IBM I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON 2nd Ward Park Board position BECAUSE I have always tried to be involved in community work. I believe Rochester has one of the finest park systems in the state and I would consider it an honor to serve on the board. PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF DESIRED. Graduate of Austin Hiah School 1954; graduate of IIS rommand A rnnPral Staff rnllege; Sr level manages for IBM TSi^ onsible for worTdwidP Lnning fnr all mi,i-rang- systems. Retired from IBM in 1991; retired from US Armv Reserve in 1996 as a It rn],Y_ I commanded the local Rochester National Guard unit from 1967-1972 I was Battalion Commander of all Natinnal Guard (mite in Southam MN fpom 70Qt_TaQ�7 _T was awarded the MN Medal of Merit plus several nther awards I was two-t rm President of Harriet Rishnp PJA- three Years Vice President of Salem Point Homeowners Salem Point Homeowners Assoriatinn three years as President of came and three years as Secretary/Treasurer of same. I was co-chair of U of M Williams Fund Golf tournament. ,- Date Submitted: 5/16100 Signed: ,-A_ _ Return to: Office of the Mayor 201 4th Street SE Rochester, Mn 55904-3782 ••..n................•.•.........•10aaa..0.....a x.........• a . . . Y..•.... a a 0 a . . . . Date of Interview: Other Data: An Equal Opportunity Empfoyer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING J` DATE: 6/5, AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEFT: ITEU NO. Organizational Business Mayor's offirp A _17 EM DESCRIPTION: PREPAAED S A000intment to Library Board I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Rochester Public Library Board: Betty A. Hutchins 4229 Stoneham Lane NW Ms Hutchins will replace- Maggie Brimijoin who resigned. The three,year term runs to January 2003. OUNCIL AC'nON: mown ar. Se=d ey to: bftd iu—AJIERIEd cin V't NAME: ROCHESTER -Aimejata CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION e 1 `` ADDRESS: �a9 S)-Zwe-AQm )-4ne• A"/ '55I0/ _ PHONE: HOME,50%16�E-> j BUSINESS 5j2 7- aNA) -981 DO YOU RESIDE IN THE ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: YES ✓ NO I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON 1, h rr�r y 180,11- PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF DESIRED. a .l l Date Submitted:(_ Return to: Signed Office of the Mayor 2DI 4th Street SE Rochester, Mn 55904-3782 •......4.....••.••.••...... a a. a e a I I."...".. Y........ e•• a n a. a 0... a••! f s•.. e•... Date of Interview: Other Data: An Egw[Opportunity Employer BETTY ANN HUTCHINS 5229 Stoneham Lane North West Rochester, Minnesota 55901 Area Code 507 Telephone: 529-0821 CAREER Management position with a progressive GOAL: organization to utilize and further develop analytical, design, marketing and managerial skills utilizing fifteen years of information technology experience. EDUCATIONAL 1992 UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA M.B.A. - Business Administration, Marketing. 1990 UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA B.S. - Business Administration, General Management Cum Laude Cumulative G.P.A. - 3.75 (4.0 basis) 1985 CHATTANOOGA STATE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE A.S. - Computer Science, Information Systems Magna Cum Laude Cumulative G.P.A. - 3.92 (4.0) HONORS: UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA - Graduate Fellowship - Harriet Hatch Academic Award - Golden Key National Honor Society - Beta Gamma Sigma - Sigma Iota Epsilon - Article Published: Management Decision, 1992: `Poor Quality Products: Is their Production Unethical?' SKILLS: Hardware- IBM ES9000, IBM 3090, PC`s, HP3000, UNIX, VAX Software- COBOL II, DB2, CICS, IMS, SQL, TSO/ISPF, MVS/JCL, EXCELERATOR, MS OFFICE, VISUALBASIC, COGNOS IMPROMPTU, SPSS, VOICE RESPONSE UNIT, PL/l, MS PROJECT Management Concepts- TQM, ISO 9000, Ethical Theories, Structured Methodologies, Project Life Cycle, CASE PROFESSIONAL Black Data Processing Associates (BDPA) ASSOCIATIONS: National Black MBA Association (NBMBAA) : Managed Healthcare Professional (MHP); HIAA Page 1 of 3 WORK EXPERIENCE: 1998 - PRESENT MAYO CLINIC, Rochester, MN 2.0 Years Project Manager - Laboratory Interface Currently managing the Laboratory System Interface projects and creating the processes to document, manage, and measure the development of interface software to support laboratory systems integration using health data format standards (HL7 or ASTM) and communications protocol methods (TCP/IP, Internet, etc.). 1985 - 1997 BLUE CROSS -BLUE SHIELD OF TENNESSEE, Chattanooga, TN: TWELVE years experience in the Information Technology field from Programmer Trainee to Project Manager 6 Months Project Manager - BCBST Y2K Initiative Managed the Analysis Team on the company -wide Year2000 project. Developed processes/procedures and selected software for partially staffed team of ten. Proposal written and approved for a full staff of twenty three analysts. 6 Months Project Manager - TennCare Managed Care System Managed both the Claims/Encounters and the Payments Teams on an HP3000 mid -range machine with an I/S team of six. This client/server project utilizes managed care software purchased and implemented with mainframe interfaces. 3 Years Project Leader - Billing and Reconciliation System Led the replacement of the Reconciliation portion of BCBST's Billing System, a $1,000,000 CICS/DB2 mainframe project with an I/S team of ten. 3 Months Project Leader - Provider Network System Led the APS/DB2/CICS Provider Network Directory System replacing 4-5 paper directories mailed to every provider in BCBST's managed care network in Tennessee, saving the company $80,000+ in paper and printing costs. The project spanned multiple platforms and was implemented as scheduled utilizing an I/S team of five. 9 Months Project Leader - Voice Response Unit System Led a Voice Technology System project merging mainframe and PC technology with an IBM Voice Response Unit. Implemented with an I/S and Vendor team of four. 7 years Analyst/Programmer - Subscriber System Designed, developed, analyzed, coded and tested programs for Marketing, group, and claims processing systems, batch and on-line. Page 2 of 3 63 11 NON-PROFIT VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE: 1992 - PRESENT BLACK DATA PROCESSING ASSOCIATES Board of Directors; Information Technology organization 9 Months President - Southern Minnesota Chapter Currently serving as co-founder and president of the Southern Minnesota Chapter of BDPA. Chapter charter proposal and 2-year business plan presented and approved at the organization's National 2id quarter 1999 Board of Directors' meeting. 1994 - 1997 President - Chattanooga, TN Chapter served as president of the Chattanooga Chapter; managed the growth of the chapter by fifty percent; led the chapter to the receipt of two 1996 national awards (total of five awards presented); and presented three college scholarships to local high school students. 1992 - 1993 Vice President - Chattanooga, TN Chapter Served as co-founder and vice president of the Chattanooga Chapter of BDPA. PERSONAL: Personal and professional references submitted upon request Page 3 of 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING '?&1 DATE: 6/5/0C AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Organizational Business Mayor's Office rEM DESCRIPTION: )ointment —to International Affai ITEM NO. 6-18 PREPARED BY: I hereby submit for;your approval the following appointment to the International Affairs Committee: Kathy W. Wang 1809 Northern Valley Drive NE :OUNCIL ACTION: mow oy SWWWbr.to: i ALL-AMERICA CITY R O CHE S T E R V,l �rrra�e�ata CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION �"cl -> [,./ �,`1, WAN NAME: q ADDRESS: N1; I�thestxf 1,4 SSya PHONE: HOME �� 6 �) 7 BUSINESS_ YES �/ NO — Dr, yoU RESIDE IN THE ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS'? n �G rt t 1- a,re m i eV NL(�W:�;o+1 ChCAIJ ,� �rneo tr'� PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: SoGI'e? I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON Mf mI ,Z BECAUSE I 1 �4 �4.5 C•LVt 1�SJ.n lil ,� t,.l e. t•s �"�P C'..j L..t. f17y /:.f'�uv. �v I p t-L�7 L ' `/ C;� F104 i�.• S I •` L. f ._—__-- @i�. �j.'6. v� i..11YlA Cfi Y.7 Liz }rr)>v: .i. Jv�i G. •, C) ca•., �Y. %,','�. o1Lrtlfv vi �71-.p ))!WES PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF DESIRED. 2,tA; t- I I /5}�I C. Z` SSd<.. Date Submitted: ��"v— Signed: 11 Return to: Office of the Mayor 2010 Street SE Rochester, Mn 55904-3782 •u�rr�u u�rr�ur.u�u •��� u u u a�uu••u .�u 1..0 0. u"u.rru a Vu. u• u.uuu. a u.uu.u... a Date of Interview: Mar Data: An Equal Opportunity Employer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (0 DATE: 06-05-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. JSENT AGENDA PLANNING D ,tq ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00.08 by Larry Goodman to initiate PREPARED BY: Orderly Annexation for approximately 109.84 acres of land located in part of the S1/2, Brent Svenby, NE1/4 of Section 9 and NW1/4, NW1/4 of Section 10, Cascade Township. The property is Planner located north of 62nd Street, east of Bendel Road NW. June 1, 2000 This Orderly Annexation was originally on the May 1, 2000 agenda but was pulled to allow staff to work with the Harvest Hill Church and the Town Board. Previously, the Town Board stated that they would not sign the agreement unless the agreement included language that the Harvest Hill Baptist Church would not be annexed for 5 years or unless the property owner petitioned for annexation. It is staff's understanding that the church does not object to the annexation and the Town Board has indicated that they will sign the agreement. The Town Board meets on June 5th. Staff would suggest that the approval of this annexation be contingent upon the Town Board signing the agreement as drafted. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on April 26, 2000. Motion by Petersson to approve Orderly Annexation #00-08, seconded by Burke. The motion carried 5-0. Property Taxes; ks part of the Orderly Annexation agreement, the City agreed to pay taxes to the Township as if this were an annexation by Ordinance. The property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective will be paid to the Township. For the five years following annexation, the City will make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and 10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The 1999 Township portion of the taxes, on the property to be annexed, is $104.18. Council Action Needed. 1. Should the Council wish to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Cascade Township Orderly Annexation Agreement indicating that the 109.84 acres located north of 62nd Street NW and east of Bendel Road NW should be annexed without hearings by the Minnesota Municipal Board. This amendment document should be signed by the City. 2. The signed amendment should be transmitted to the MN Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning by the City Clerk after the Cascade Town Board has signed the agreement (attached is a filing fee for the application in the amount of $200). Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: (Legal Description sent prior to the May I meeting) 4. City Finance Director: (Tax Information sent priorto the May 1" meeting) 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie & Betts, Inc COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: l08 ANNEltAT,IdN 0 N W50'10'E 1325.34 NWIWO0'E z 70.27 ACRES Q r p Gna 62NsT e Fip 61 st ST N.VSy 6Q�N ST lk LLJ 59TH 0 60TH �b p1PtNSy c z cr W � � w 'D . �a DESCRIPTIOt SEE ATTAC NI ST NW r !F3I�iI�' f 58TH ST $off S7� ST 2 z 3-1 N NLEY sTy N o 1p I �3 NANC 56TH ST D \ Q0 m 22N AVE a `v 55TH ST NW �n FOR ARCON DEVELOPMENT, INC. MCGhie 7625 METRO BLVD. SUITE 350 0onev vp Enpn.en EDINA, MINNESOTA 55439 1646 3.e ♦vL S.E. YX. J <y w 12Ffi5 — -�-- — N 6 51 ST ST t50TH ST ° NW 50TH SZ w 0 49 1/2 LN 49 1/2 ST a la, j N sc4Lr. 1000, DRAWN BY.. M B Betts,ho. Dar, : 10/27/99 Lena S.r .yen Acct. No.: 1204/9561 qa 507-299-3919 DADD ND. : C J 55TH TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission IleeaaraA�ua�t,� imam"*a�c�e!ral �maiiini A�anm�'I�anp��! r. r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GISIADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 5071285-8224 FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: April 18, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Annexation Petition #00-08 by Larry Goodman to initiate Orderly Annexation for approximately 109.84 acres of land located in part of the S1/2, NE1/4 of Section 9 and NW114, NW1/4 of Section 10, Cascade Township. The property is located north of 62n" Street NW, east of Bandel Road NW. Planning Department Review: Applicants/Owners: Estate of Leona Goodman Larry Goodman, Personal Representative CID Ryan & Grinde, Ltd. P.O. Box 6667 Rochester, MN 55903-6667 Location of Property: The property is located north of 62n° Street NW, east of Bendel Road NW in part of the S1/2, NE1/4 of Section 9 and NW1/4, NWi/4 of Section 10, Cascade Township. Existing Land Use: The property is vacant and undeveloped land Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately 109.84 acres of unplatted land. Existing Zoning: The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) District on the Olmsted County zoning map. Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester Zoning map. Land Use Plan: According to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use this property is designated for "low density residential" uses. Adjacency to the Municipal The area is adjacent to the city limits along its southern Limits: boundary. Sewer & Water: The property under consideration can be served with city sewer and water, which can be extended from their present qy locations to serve the property. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 �OApril 19, 2000 Utilities: This area is serviceable from the Northwest High Level Water System which will be within 1/2 mile of the area once the Orchard Ridge Development is serviced. Townboard Review: The applicant has met with the Cascade Townboard regarding this orderly annexation. The Townboard has not signed the amendment to the orderly annexation agreement. General Development Plan: There is no General Development Plan for this area. Report Attachments: 1. Annexation Map 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comments ( 2 letters) Staff Recommendation: • The staff recommends that the City pursue an amendment to the orderly annexation agreement with Cascade Township which would state that the property should be annexed to the City without a hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board. ROCHESTE 171 Minnesota 4/ 10/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for ANNX00-08 on the Goodman property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: This property can be served with municipal utilities. C:\TEMP\ANNEXOO-08.doc qp- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 3ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Wetland Replacement Plan — Lincolnshire North Subdivision October 1, 1997 Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan: MEETING T3 DATE: 6/5/00 ITEM NO. � m John Harford, In October, 1999 Mr. Younge, developer of Lincolnshire, applied for and received approval from the City Council to fill 1.92 acres of wetland area within the Lincolnshire North subdivision area. The replacement plan stated that Mr. Yottnge would replace the wetland with 3.84 acres of wetland in a wetland bank in Dodge County. A condition of approval was that "the applicant must complete the wetland replacement procedures of the wetland rules by completing the purchase of credits and submittal of the credit withdrawal form". The applicant had an agreement to purchase the credits from the wetland bank, however, the bank did not have the credits immediately available. The bank, at this time, does not yet have approved credits so Mr. Younge cannot mee the condition of the resolution. The owner of the bank indicates that the additional wetland area is in the process of being developed and should be approved by Dodge County and the Board of Water and Soil Resources by December, 2000. B WSR has indicated to the City Attorney's Office that Letters of Credit or bonds are acceptable for use when an applicant is proposing the use of a wetland bank, but the timing of the wetland bank does not coincide with the needs of a wetland bank purchaser. Theyterney�s 6fiee has advised the wetland bank owner that he will need to provide a Letter of Credit to the City f Rochester four t_hpe 3.84 acres of replacement wetland. Plannine Staff Recommendation:. The staff recommends that the Council approve an amended wetland replacement plan resolution. The wetland bank owner must submit a Letter of Credit acceptable to the City Attorney's Office in the amount of S31,680 as proposed by the City Public Works Department. The Council should also retain the condition placed on the applicant in the original application stating that the applicant must submit a credit withdrawal form after the wetland bank is approved by the BWSR. Council Action Needed:. The Council should take action to approve an amended resolution to allow for a Letter of Credit to be used to protect the city's interest in meeting the requirements of the wetland rules. Attachments: I. Resolution #642-99. Letter from the wetland bank owner 3CA from the 10/18/99 _agreement between the bank and developer — dated Oct., 1999 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:. �q MYAGGY COLBY �" (THU)10. 14' 99 16:55C 16:54/NO.4261120129 P 2 WEILAND CREDIT PURCHASE A IME THIS AGREEMENT Is made on October 14,1999, between Vivian Johnson- Zumbro Wetland Bank ("Seiler) and Michael Young ("Buyer7. RECITALS: A. Seller is the owner of real property located in the Zumbro Water Shed in, Dodge County, Minnesota legally described as follows; Southeast Quarter (S.E. 1I4), of Section 30. Township 106 North. Range 17 West (the "Property") B. Seiler has restored, on the Property, wetlands and created wetland credits for state and federal wetland credit banking purposes. C, The Buyer desires to purchase wetland credits for use as replacement wetlands under state and federal wetland replacement requirements, NOW, TREREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the parties agree as follows: l . STATE AND FEDERAL APPROVAL Seller has obtained state and federal approval of the wetlands restored on the Property as wetland credits for deposit In state and federal wetland banks. Seller has executed all necessary documentations for the approval of the Property for wetlands permitted to be banked in accord with state and federal rules. 2. MAINTENANCE OF WETLANDS. Seller Is maintaining the Property as wetlands in accord with state and federal requirements. 3, PURCHASE OF CREDITS. The Buyer will purchase three point eight four (3.84) acres of type 1 or 2 wetland credits from Seller for the purchase price of fifty five hundred dollars ($5,500.00) per acre or a total of Twenty one thousand one hundred and twenty dollars ($21,120.00). Twenty five percent (25%) or fifty two hundred and eighty ($5,280) dollars of the amount is payable upon execution of this purchase agreement. The balance or fifteen thousand eight hundred and forty ($15,840,00) dollars Is payable upon approval of buyers project by the local government unit (LGtr), 4. TITUTO THE PROPERTY. Seller shall retain fee title to the Property and will transfer to the Buyer the minimum Interest in the Property permissible to transfer wotland credits attached to the Property. FROM YAGGY COLBY f (THU)10. 14' 99 16:55 " 16:54/NO. 4261120129 P 3 15 5. WARRANTY OF TITLE. Seller warrants that Seller Is the fee owner of the prop" and that there are no liens or encumbrances against the wetland credits being purchased by Buyer herein and will have the full right and use of the wetland acreage credits subject to buyers necessary notices to local or state authorities relative to the replacement of Impacted wetland by these wetland bank credits. 6. MINNESOTA LAW TO GOVERN, This Agreement shall be governed by Minnesota low. 7. NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP. The partles to this agreement shall not be deemed to be partners as a result of any provision of this agreement. 8. NOTICES. All notices required by this Agreement must be in writing and delivered personally or sent by Unified States Rrst Class Mail, and if mailed will be considered effective as of the date of ma(ling. The parties addresses, to which any and all notices shal(be sent, are as follows: Seller: Vivian Johnson 10 1st Street S.E. Hayfield, Minnesota 55940 Buyer: Michael Young 1765 Greenview Dr. S.W. Rochester, MN 55902 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. VIvIdn Johnson Zumbro Wetland Bank Seller Buyer %0 CI11' OF ROC11FSI'LR, HINNESUTA - ISlnEVOCAR LET TEIl OF Attlijign C.TIEDIT 201 — 4111 STREET SE, ROC..N,C(STcm, NN „904 LAAN/LETTEFIOF Iy*1Y*4110plle CIICUIT NQ.:.. — J-2000 t....:,w...:..: ;USl UsGfi . 7777 ..LWIIAT O_O..7. ... .a -§S. VIVIAN J0I ICJSON Ilia Letter of Credit ahcll expire upon the earlier or. I. Ilia close of loinli oss on and of drafts and accalmanyirlp statements or documents %• yt "y e >E,;- RUDNEs _< x 2� mint be prosertod to l andef wl w before that role; or 10 - 1Sr STREET SE, NAY('11ME), MN 55940 2. file day that Lun tar honors a draw under which Ilia full TiUawwii¢�iO `ryiliunriirwr ea '":" a tollount Witte l Wolof Corn is drawn. Londor Indicated above ('Lendm') Iforehy ustabliahoe an bravnt-4Me Letter of U'edfl III la -tor of BonurrJary for a ium or sums nc eucaefinp lha approgao anoum of_ 111LR'lY ClP1E TfIOUSANU SIX IIUNURISt)_�I,C.II'1 -----_________________. Dollars IS 31,1G80_00=—_:_o_—_rj. Meese funxle shall be marls ovatkble to Ronafidaty apsirnat Lendai s rocoipt from Dorwnciary c drafts dravm Insight on Lander of Its add,ma indiinlnd above (or suds other address that Lmuha niny plovida DenoficlaryWill wvillon node of in G•a future) end acconiflardod byllia sipwd waillen statements or documents iaudicatud lidoiv. WAINING TO BENEFICIARY: PLEASE ERAMINE THIS LETTER OF CREDIT AT ONCE. IF YOU FELT. UfW3Lr. TO MEET ANY OF IT: REQUIREMENTS, Eli IiLn sit iGCi On 1'OGE1I ion, YOU SI 1011LR CON "TACT YOUR CUSTOMER IIJMEDIATELY TO SEE IF TNf LETTEII OF CREDIT CAII BE AMUIDEU. OTH1211WISE, YOU WILL nISK LOSING PAYI.1E11" U140CII 11119 LETTER OF CREDIT FOF °AILUI IE 1'O COMPLY Sl'11ICT Cf WI n i ff5 11i11Air AS WRITTEN. a. DfL4FT TEnMS AI ID CO11OR IUI.IS Leader shorn honor thin Ill mile =111 oil try nouurMary under the frttowhig forms slid ccn,ntkxls: Receipt of a certified letter from the City of Rochester Certifying that the Minnesota (bard of Soil aiKt WaLer Resources has not accepted the establislinterIL of the Johnson Wetlands for banking purposes, specifically the area desigilated • for the replacement Of WULISLKls removed from the Lincolushire 31.d and 4Lh subdivision as of June 1, 2001. Upon Landat'n honor of surh drana Ill payrnuut to Ito Beneficiary, Lender, Ones Ito full amount of uedit avaitahle wider Ihis Leper Credit Ilan boon dravm. Gillett ho fully discharged Ill its ohligaltons under Ihis Later of Credit and almll not thereafter ha obligated to looks at further paymonla undo) Ills Letter of Credit in respect of such denaal far payments In Banofttisy or airy o ller person. Its non-cadormh clamand is made, Lmldcr shill Iwlify Benufiein,y of he rnshonor error before tlha limo naoliollud In SOdiol p boiuw. pmoliclary sllalf have no mcril i insi 1 o:: for for any amount paid under this Lasor of Credit after Londuf honors any draft or oth doaniow which crnnptieo shicity wilt Ihis Lunar of Credit, aid Wiidi on He lace appeea olhenrAse In order but whk;h Is signed, formed, pfe twiled try ay pally Or Undo, the name of illy pully purporting to act lot Beneficiary, ptuprunng to claim through B®iefidary, ar posing I Sotak*4ary, fly pitying to Banonciary on avows demanded In accordance with Ihls Lcllor of Cfedal Lander nietton no nepro6enlelan as the a neclnesa of Ilia aeloing dunianded and Lrrmlor shall not be liahle to Beneficiary or err/ alhar parson for or In respect to any amount I paid or disbursed for any mason whalsoo•tar. Inducting. without pndlation, any nonapidicafon or trtsapplicalion by nenoriciary or it prxe:els of such payment. Ily prasowing upon L onder or a axisrmfng bank, naloli:lary cedifias that Denolfdary has not and well n preset upon lute other, unions and until Uonnncclary mlmis with dishonor. Beneficiary pmnihhea in ratum to I ender and mnMnlur only Max seuiv id by Dunoraciary in oxcas of ilia Lollar of Uodd's maaknum drawing amount 2. LciE RrsyniaR01•IJ All drafts natal be milked'DRAWIi Uthilill _._. InAEVOCABL Li. rTER OF CIIEDI'I 110...... DATED _F11y_23�_. 2000._. ', and Ilia arnount of each dm shall be masked 0111110 thrift. Only ❑enaftctixy or Usnaftdary s Tranalores (wily if Irawletable) may cwnpiote a draft aid amomparyiu sdaternonts or docuanoms required by t hi:: Lauer of Crmlit and matte a draw under Ihis ].offer of Claim. I life original Loiter of Cm lit mu. ad company any drill dracat heratandor. Partial draws [XI are pwndtlod 1_ 1 are not pormilted under this Lollar of Crudit. Landis s honor Of s partial dra.v sit: mlrenpoedlklgly reduce due anutua or Creifll available uptar this Latter of CiaUl. FIALWAng a pollU domv, Lwider shall irdul t oil offglllal Lollar of Claim to BwWlicialy w'idt Ilia partial draw ii0led Ihareah; In lite Wlernadvo, and Ill Its Sole discretion, Lender nld Issue a athalitwo Lunar of Credit to Runeraatary to ilia amount shown above less fiery, pallet (Ifavt(s). 3. N31MI7TED nIANSFERL"ES CTitle Lefler of Csodll may he Iratale,od by Sonandary upon providing Londor With prior written notion of Ilia for. It Traisrereo shell he doomed doh no:v Donoftcdary of Ihia Loner of Credit alai the darnunenis-of ilia Transferee. Including oral roqulfwl under Ihis Letter of Ciatlil, are to lie processed by Lender (of any intarnlodtay) Willoul Ilia nrigiia Damdielar) -1 intervention aid vrldnul wry tudhar iospwisibiftly on Londei s pad to Iha original uanolicl:ry. The rigid to thaw wider il,6lolls del Cmdil oluM be nonlranefareble, except for A. A Italsfur by direct olarelion of tau If, Ilia original Beneficiary's administrator, executor, hafdaupley Intslao, receiver, ftlpildal nlmassor, of ether relxesonlalivas at law, , anti 11. The fuel brunadiale transfer by such Mgat rep ationlalive to a Ihlyd putty after evirne s approval of a govarnnatNal lady pudic oiknhA,tretWe. or oxectiw.t 4. TRANSFEREE'S REQUIRED DOCUMENTS / / When the presenter is a permitted Transferee under paragraph 3 above, the documents required for a draw shall include: A. All documents required elsewhere in this Letter of Credit, except that such documents may be in the name of either the original Beneficiary or the presenter permitted by paragraph 3; and B. When the presenter is a permitted Transferee under paragraph 3.A or a third party under 3.13, a certified copy of the one or mo documents which show the presentees authority to claim through or to act with authority for the original Beneficiary. 5. TIMING OF DISHONOR Under no circumstances shall Lender be precluded from relying upon any reason for dishonor given in a communication which Beneficiary or the presenter receives within three (3) banking days after Lander has received the last document forming part of Beneficiary's presentment (the 'Three -Day Period'). Lender shall be entitled to rely upon any such reason without regard to either (i) the timing of any presentment made before the Expiration Date, or (i) the liming inside the Three -Day Period of any preliminary communication(s) from Lander concerning ilia dishonor decision itself or any reason for dishonor. For any such reason so given during the Three -Day Period, Lender shall be conclusively deemed to have met the 'reasonable time% 'without delay, and other timing requirements as the UCP (as hereafter defined) and U.C.C. may impose. The Expiration Date shall not be extended to accommodate a presentment made with less than three (3) banking days to go before the Expiration Date, and Beneficiary shall not be entitled to submit a draw request or provide Lender with any documents in support of a draw after the Expiration Dais hereof. Nor shall Lender ever be required to communicate a dishonor decision or its reasons within a time less than the Three -Day Period. . 6. COMPLIANCE BURDEN Under no circumstances shall Lender be held responsible for any impossibility or other difficulty in achieving stria compliance with the requirements of this Letter of Credit precisely as written. Beneficiary understands and acknowledges: (i) that unless and until the present wording of this Letter of Credit Is amended with Lender's prior written consent, [tie burden of complying strictly with such wording remains solely upon Beneficiary; and (if) that Lender is relying upon the lack of such amendment as constituting Beneficiary's initial and continued approval of such wording. 7. NONSEVERABILITY If any aspect of this Letter of Credit is ever declared unenforceable for any reason by any court or governmental body having Jurisdiction, Lenders entire engagement under this Letter of Credit shall be deemed null and void ab initio, and both Lender and Beneficiary shall be - restored to the position each would have occupied with all rights available as though this Letter of Credit had never occurred. This non-severability provision shall override all other provisions in [his Letter of Credit, no matter where such provision appears within 0- Letter's body. 8. CHOICE OF LAW/JURISDICTION The International Chamber of Commerce Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 1993 Revision, ICC Publication No. 500 (the'UCp,) shall in all respects be deemed a part hereof as fully as if incorporated herein and shall apply to this Latter of Credit. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed In accordance with the laws of the State of United States or America, except to the extent such laws are inconsistent with the UCP. Lender and Beneficiary 0consent to the Jurisdiction and venue of any court located in the State of MINNESOTA this Latter of Credit. _ in ilia event of any legal proceeding under 9. EXPIRY Lender hereby agrees with Beneficiary that drafts drawn under and in compliance with the terms of this Letter of Credit will be duly honored If presented to the Lender on or before the ExpirationDate. Dated: MAY 25, 2000 LENDER: CITIZENS S ATE BANK 17 HAYFIE-LD BY: TITLE: PRFSTDFNT ENDORSEMENT OF DRAFTS DRAWN: Amount Amount !U RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the City approve the Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan presented by Michael Younge DevelopmentfYaggy Colby Associates for Lincolnshire Fourth Subdivision located north of Arbor Drive N.W., and east of the Douglas Trail. The Plan identifies and proposes to fill 1.92 acres of Type 1, 2 and 6 wetlands in the Lincolnshire Fourth Subdivision development area. The Plan proposes to replace wetlands with 3.84 acres of Type 2 wetland in a wetland bank located in Dodge County within the Zumbro River watershed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City's approval of this Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan is subject to the following condition: The applicant must complete the wetland replacement procedures of the wetland rules by completing the purchase of credits and submittal of the credit withdrawal form. The Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to approve said plan on behalf of the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS /877-/ DAY OF OeTp$Q_ , 1999. ATTEST: &7x/ CITY CLERK (E3tzSIDENT OF SAD COMMON COUNCIL APPROVED THIS /fit/ DAY OF OQ085el- , 1999. (Sea! of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) reslwellmdl.Rnwlm MAYOR OF SAID • • RE.40EST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ME DA AGENDA ITEM October 7,1999 Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan: ORIGINATING North The applicant has proposed the filling of 1.92 acres of Type 1, 2, and 6 wetland on property located on property owned by Michael Younge. The property is located north of Lincolnshire Fourth subdivision north of Arbor Dr., NW and east of the Douglas Trail. The wetlands are flat drainageways that conduct surface water and stormwater runoff from the surrounding development and farmland upstream. The wetland will be filled for the construction of a residential subdivision. The letters explain the sequencing and various alternatives as required by the wetland rules. The Technical Evaluation Panel reviewed the alternatives and the proposed grading plan and found that they meet the minimum standards for sequencing. The TEP agrees that avoidance of the wetlands is not feasible due to the configuration and location of the wetlands, and future encroachment in a residential setting with the wetland configuration on this property, The applicant proposes replacement of the filled wetlands with 3.84 acres of Type 2 wetland in a wetland bank located in )odge County within the Zumbro River watershed. The TEP recommended approval of the wetland replacement flan. Planning Staff Recommendation:. 1. The staff recommends approval of this replacement plan on condition that the applicant complete the wetland replacement procedures of the wetland rules by completing the purchase of credits and submittal of the credit withdrawal form. Citv Council Action: 1. If the council agrees it should pass a resolution approving the replacement plan. Attachments: 1. Report from the applicant and attached letters. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. City Administrator's Office 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Q I � DATE: 6/5/00 U AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police b .a ITEM DESCRIPTION: Use of City of Rochester Police Department Range Facility PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson The Rochester Police Department maintains and administers a firearms range facility located at 4004 West River Parkway, in the City of Rochester. The primary purpose for this range is to meet the mandated training needs of Rochester police Department. Rochester Armored Car, a private security corporation has contacted the Rochester Police Department requesting the use of the city owned range for their firearms training needs. Rochester Armored Car has demonstrated that their use of the city owned range is consistent with their mission, past practice in delivery of service and in the interest of public safety. Rochester Armored Car is willing to enter a contractual agreement governing their use of the Rochester Police Department range facility. This contractual agreement was drafted by the Rochester City Attorney's Office and includes an Insurance: Indemnity clause naming the City as an additional insured party for the amount of $1,000,000. Rochester Armored Car anticipates approximate use of range at twice annually, COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Approval of the contract between City of Rochester Police Department and Rochester Armored Car for the use the Rochester Police range facility located at 4004 West River Parkway, Rochester, Minnesota COUNCIL ACTION: MoBon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 615100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police D .;?- ITEM DESCRIPTION: U.S. Department of Justice COPS 1999 Universal Hiring Grant PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson In July 1999, the Rochester Police Department applied for DOJ funding to assist in hiring eight (8) additional officers for our Department. We received notice last week that our application was approved, authorizing $25,000 per officer for three years for a projected total of $600,000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval for the Rochester Police Department to accept funding from the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office to assist in hiring eight additional officers. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING S(�� DATE: 6/5/00 U AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police V ' a 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: COPS Universal Hiring Program FY2000 Hiring Grant Application PREPARED By: Roger Peterson The COPS Office is committed to assisting law enforcement agencies in securing additional funding to add officers to the streets to engage in community policing. The U.S. Department of Justice is offering a Universal Hiring Grant for their fiscal year 2000 which would provide $25,000 per officer for three years. During the 2001 year, it is the intent of the Rochester Police Department to evaluate the potential need for additional staff. Applying for grant funding now will provide us with the opportunity to receive federal funds in the year 2002 should we wish to have additional officers. Since there is a very significant possibility that universal hiring grant applications will not be offered in the future. Completing the application process at this time will provide potential funding options in the future. The Rochester Police Department would like to apply for the federal government FY2000 COPS Universal Hiring funding. The funding amount would be based upon our department's projected need for additional officers for our FY2002. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to submit an application to the U.S. Department of Justice for COPS Hiring funding for our FY2002. COUNCIL ACTION: Mown by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 O AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Police ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development PREPARED BY: 1999 Public Housing Drug Elimination Grant Roger Peterson The Olmsted County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (OCHRA) has received funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Drug Elimination Grant. The Olmsted County Housing authority has made contact with the Rochester Police Department, asking our Department to provide additional law enforcement coverage. The cost of these additional officer hours will be reimbursed with the grant money that OCHRA has received. OCHRA has indicated that equipment such as cameras, radios for use by the police department could be purchased through this grant. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval for the Rochester Police Department to receive financial reimbursement for additional hours worked by its members and miscellaneous equipment that may be purchased. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seoondby: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 010 DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police L>-aS ITEM DESCRIPTION: DONATIONS TO POLICE HONOR GUARD PREPARED BY: Steve Johnston The following companies/organizations have contributed funds to the Police Honor Guard to assist in training expenses and uniforms/equipment needs: Connelly's Genuine Army Surplus $200.00 Rochester Police Benevolent $1,000.00 Rochester Olmsted County Safety Council $50.00 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council approval to accept the above donated funds for use by the Rochester Police Honor Guard. Appropriate $1,000 to 4110-12140; appropriate $250 to 4110-13227. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works Amendment #1 MEETING ql DATE: 6/5/00 ITEM NO. D-a� PREPARED R. Freese The City of Rochester and Ryan Companies US, Inc. entered into a Development Agreement on January 3, 2000 for the Rochester Marketplace Project. The Development Agreement is subject to the condition that the City and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) execute an agreement with the for street improvement work with MnDOT's 41 st Street right-of-way and for cost sharing for MnDOT's obligations reflected in Exhibit D of the City / Ryan Development Agreement. The City has received a letter from MnDOT stating its intent to participate in funding its share of the street improvements to 41 st Street NW within MnDOT's right-of-way. The City has certain obligations for improvements to the TH 52 West Frontage Road north of 41st Street NW. MnDOT required that the City relocate the west frontage road approximately 100 feet west of its current intersection with 41 st Street NW. The relocation of the frontage road requires the acquisition of additional right- of-way from the owners of the "white buildings", M.A. Mortenson. Mortenson has agreed to dedicate the additional TH 52 West Frontage Road right-of-way needed for the project in exchange for the City relocating the south parking lot entrance from the frontage road to 41 st Street and the construction of new parking spaces in their parking lot to replace those lost due to the frontage road relocation. However, MnDOT has advised the City that the City's use of Municipal State Aid Street funds for construction of new parking lot spaces on Mortenson's property must be reasonably equal to the cost of acquiring the additional right-of-way from Mortenson. MnDOT requires an appraisal and a certification of the appraisal to establish this value. The appraisal process would take at least three months to complete and would severely impact the schedule for completing the frontage road improvements this year. Therefore, the City, Mortenson and Ryan have all agreed to an alternative approach that will keep the Ryan Development Project and the City improvement project on schedule. The agreement has Mortenson conveying the needed frontage road right-of-way to the City. Ryan agrees to construct the parking lot improvements and new access for the Mortenson property (estimated cost $80,720). The City agrees to pay ($81,477.60) for the pavement markings that Ryan was to install as a requirement of the Development Agreement on 41 st Street and the new frontage road south of 41 st Street NW. The staff recommends that the Development Agreement with Ryan Companies US, Inc. be amended to require 1. Ryan to construct the parking lot and access improvements for the Mortenson property, and 2. the City to pay for the poly -preformed pavement markings as shown on the approved construction plans for the improvements covered by the City / Owner Contract. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment 41 to the Development Agreement between the City and Ryan Companies US, Inc. to reflect the following changes: Ryan to construct the parking lot and access improvements for the Mortenson property, and City to pay for the poly -preformed pavement markings as shown on the approved construction plans for the improvements covered by the City / Owner Contract. 2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement with Ryan's pavement marking subcontractor, AAA Striping Service, for poly -preformed pavement markings required on the approved construction plans for the improvements covered by the City / Owner Contract, COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING G13 DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -a ? J ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate - City Land Sale - 3rtl Avenue NW. PREPARED BY: N.&,- M. Nigbur'"W The City has received a request to sell a portion of City Property located along 3rtl Avenue NW located to the South of Elton Hills Drive. This site is the former location of a chlorination treatment facility for the Water Reclamation Plant. This facility has been out of service for a number a years and is currently being used for storage. The properties in this area, including the City's land, has significant topographic restrictions which limit building type and location. Based on the information available and the needs for this site Staff would have the following recommendations; Convey approximately 15 feet to the abutting land owner for their use in constructing a building on their site subject to; • Receipt of a necessary permits by the purchaser which may include site development plan/building permit • Owner pays all costs associated with the sale of the property (including obtaining a metes & bounds subdivision, certificate of survey, and state deed tax and recording fees) • Cost for the acquisition is $3,500.00 Authorize staff to pursue marketing and sale of the remaining property, approximately 40,000 square feet, which is not needed for public purposes. COUNCIL ACTI Adoption of a resolution authorizing the marketing WRP chlorination facility site. and sale of the designated portion of the former %.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA i t cM DESCRIPTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, Public Works D-.P8 r Charter House PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur% The Charter House has asked the City of Rochester for a Revocable Permit to place steps for an emergency exit within the right of way of 3 d Street NW. The recent addition to Charter House placed the emergency exit approximately 3 feet higher than the existing ground surrounding the property. The use of the right of way for the placement of steps allows the Owner to correct a problem without changing the existing structure. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. In addition to the standard conditions the permit should also state the following: • The Owner agrees to maintain the 5 foot sidewalk area and provide landscaping around the stair area. • The Owner agrees to construct the stairs in accordance with the Building Code. • The Owner agrees the stairs will be oriented parallel with the building fagade. • The Owner agrees to pay the City of Rochester $61.00 for document preparation and recording. "K,� -j 31d Slreel NW COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Direct the City Attorney to prepare a revocable permit to allow the placement of stairs and landscaping material within the right of way of 3b Street NW for Charter House. I.uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works Q .aq ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit for Lot 1 Block 1 Century Hills Second PREPARED BY: P M. Nigbur *#� The Owner of Lot 1, Block 1 Century Hills Second has asked the City of Rochester for a Revocable Permit to place landscaping material in a drainage easement containing a storm water facility. The landscape material in the easement area allows the Owner to use this portion of their property as an amenity rather than an encumbrance. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. In addition to the standard conditions the permit should also state the following: • The Owner must submit a landscape plan for the easement area for approval by the City prior to any installation of landscape material. • The Owner agrees that there will be no deep rooting plant material placed on the earthen dike. • The Owner agrees that no trees or shubs will be placed within the high water storage area of the storm water facility. • The Owner agrees to pay the City of Rochester $61.00 for document preparation and recording. • Owner agrees to maintain the easement area including weed and litter control. • The City agrees to maintain the functional characteristics including sediment and debris removal. • The City agrees to replace any damaged landscaping installed by the Owner provided it was approved as part of the landscape plan. If replacement occurs the City shall replace any trees with a 1 '/ " diameter tree and shrubs will be replaced with a 2 gallon size. Any replacements will be from standard nursery stock. Easement Area I� COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Direct the City Attorney to prepare a revocable permit to allow the placement of landscape material within a Drainage Easement on Lot 1, Block 1 Century Hills Second. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by, Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING dq DATE: 140 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 'D _ 3o ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder PREPARED BY: Property. M. Nigburin The Developers of the Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder Property and City Staff have had discussions relating to construction of the subdivision and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Construction of pedestrian facilities. • Dedication of right of way. • Annexation of the entire property within 7 years. • Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Substandard Roadway, Parkland Dedication, and participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed the agreement. -T] 11 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Schoenfelders South Star Inc. for the Pinewood Meadows/Schoenfelder Property. t,vUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1o/ ' 6/5100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Quarry Ridge — Hindermann PREPARED BY: Vr Fitzgerald Subdivision M. Nigbur1zl/I The Developers of the Quarry Ridge Development and the Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision and City Staff have had discussions relating to construction of the subdivision and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Dedication of Property to the City. • Roadway construction/widening along 2nd Street NW. • Payment for traffic improvements including: signalization, traffic diverter, and traffic signage. • Construction of pedestrian facilities. • Construction and dedication of a bus shelter pad area. • Construction and dedication of land area for storm water management facilities. • Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, connection charges, Parkland Dedication, and participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan. TH14/TH52 Interchange Pro'ect Area TFTMTM EE hi 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 Rochester Leased Housing Associates V, Limited Partnership, Mark Hindermann, and William Fitzgerald for the Quarry Ridge and Hindermann/Fitzgerald Development. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ((' DATE: 5/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Emerald Hills Development PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur The Developers of the Emerald Hills Development, lying north of Century High School, 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: • Dedication of Property to the City. • Maintenance and operation of a private lift station. • Construction of pedestrian facilities. • Dedication of land area for storm water management facilities. • Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Parkland Dedication, and participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan. onaa °pPo°^�m imam a urt smm Ctde Drive 0 Oara,aeroCq C uda Roes 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 Fred Schmidt for the Emerald Hills Development. ,-.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /Dy 11 DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works b - 33 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Eagle Ridge PREPARED BY: jt"L M. Nigbur 740! , The Owners/Developers of the Eagle Ridge 4' Development and City Staff have had discussions relating to the project 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: • Participation in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan. • Payment of other development related charges. This agreement does not address the 41" Street SW roadway connection and improvement. 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 Younge Development Inc. for the Eagle Ridge 42' Development. t,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /D? DATE: 615100 �r■n niRW A nlid � Il�lf;�� `■ i��•f••:'� 1 I .._....: rinnm III 1i► , f r ; IIIIIt�tIlII�1111._-_ ��p111 ti7111111���"� �� • �ptEa tt�♦j-anttO/� low an. mm MEN IIIIIt1� � ..is - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE ro 6/ /00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: 'Public Improvements to Sunset Ave, ABY: PREPARERose Ave, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor" J-9656 D. N Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., May 31, 2000 for the following project: "Public Improvements to Sunset Ave, Rose Ave, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor" Project No. 8701-8-97, J-9666 The following bids were received: 1. Winona Mechanical $497,136.45 (low) 2. Haesselton Const $543,589.00 3. Road Constructors $566,929.20 4. Elcor $569,332.50 5. Swenke Construction $603,276.50 Engineers Estimate $613,358.00 This project was proposed to be funded with Special Assessments and Tax Increment Financing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Winona Mechanical at $497.136.45. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS MEETING ! tlf '/ DATE: 6/5/00 ITEM NO. D-3(p PREPARED BY M. Baker `tom The Department of Public Works has received requests on twenty-six (26) different properties, to voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan, in lieu of providing on -site stormwater detention. This department has reviewed the information for these properties and has determined that there is support for participation. Pages 2 and 3 of this RCA identify the subject properties, as well as, the fee that is applicable to each property for the benefit of participating in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. The Owners of the properties identified on page 2 of this RCA have already submitted payment for their respective charges. These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for these properties to participate in the City's plan. The properties identified on page 3 will be invoiced for payment of their applicable charge for participation upon acceptance by the Council for these properties to participate in the City's plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan, for the properties identified on pages 2 and 3 of this RCA. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second to: Page 2 WA The Owner's of the properties identified on this page have requested to participate in the City' Regional Stormwater Management Plan, and have submitted payment of the amounts provides below. These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for these properties to participate in the City's Plan: • Rochester Post Bulletin parking Lot (p/o Block 77, Original Plat — NE quad 2nd St & 2nd Ave NE) $5,154.32 • Rochester City Lines (1825 N. Broadway) $ 485.76 • Rockwood Retaining Walls (Lot 2, Block 2, Alliance Business Park) $3,137.40 • Kline Property (Lot 1, Block 1, Plaza 41 Northwest) $2,213.59 . B & B Ventures (Lot 2, Block 1, J L Replat) $ 790.76 • Adair Electric Company (p/o Lots 1 & 2, Block 6, Golden Hill Addition) $ 80.55 • Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 6 Building Addition (Lot 3, Block 1, Fred Schuster Industrial Park) $2,818.57 • Mayo Foundation - Parking Lot @ 11" Ave & 1°` St SW (p/o Lots 1 — 5, Block 1, Elliot's Subdivision) $1,505.48 • Robert Gill Building (Lot 4, Block 2, West Century Subd) $1,824.82 • Cedarwood Mall, LLP — Roscoe's Restaurant (p/o Lot 1, Block 1, Candlewood Subdivision) $ 967.83 • City Wide Insulation Property (Lot 8, Block 2, Airport Industrial Park) $ 670.90 • Medical Futures LLC (replat of N1/2 Lot 12, Block 3, Cascade Ridge Subd) $1,965.34 • Rochester Overhead Door Co. (Lots 2 & 3, Valleyhigh 2nd Subdivision) $2,763.63 • Greenway Coop Parking Lot Expansion (Lot 1 & p/o Lot 2, Block 1, 37th St Business Park Subd) $ 826.73 a3 115 The Owner's of the properties identified on this page have requested to participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan, and have agreed to pay the charges for participation that are identified below for each property. Upon acceptance by the Council for these properties to participate in the City's Plan, the Owner's will be invoiced for the applicable charges due for each property: • SELCO (Lots 1 & 3, Block 2, Evergreen Gardens) $9,866.88 • The Brittany's $25,642.79 • Trailridge at 41' by IRET $ 5,116.16 • Premier Electric Building (p/o Lot 2, Block 2, 37th St Business Park) $6,419.40 • Americlnn (Lot 2, Block 1, Cascade Ridge Subdivision) $7,934.89 • Don Jerdersee Project (3945 & 3949 10' Ave NW) $1,230.69 • Bisbey Lose, LLC Dental Office (1011 Belair Ln NW) $2,269.63 • Summit Building Expansion (717 3fd Ave SE) $3,259.52 • Russ Meier (Lot 2, Block 1, Laura's Replat) $1,159.50 • Ross Badger (Lot 4, Block 1, Replat of p/o Lot 5 & all of (Lot 6, Block 1, Hendrick's Subdivision) $ 706.72 • Madonna Towers PUD Amendment (Block 2, Silver Acres Subdivision) $4,822.39 • First Unitarian Universalist Church (Lot 11, Block 2, Folwell Heights Fourth) $2,407.60 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING //S DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D . 3 i i eM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision (J9660) PREPARED BY: M. Baker �J Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision — Younge Development Co. (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9660 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision'. � �dC � mks n a' 14 J M! l i�giewdga �Wltb L .PS y COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9660 "Basic Construction to Serve Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision" t:UUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING rl / DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D - 3a EM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Century Hills Fourth Subdivision (J9666) PREPARED By{ M. Baker '1 Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Century Hills Fourth Subdivision — Payne Company (Owner) & JECH Excavating (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9666 consisting of 'Basic Construction to Serve Century Hills Fourth Subdivision". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9666 "Basic Construction to Serve Century Hills Fourth Subdivision" UNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1r611 100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 7' 39j ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amend Owner Contract; Southern Woods First & Second PREPARED BY: Subdivisions (J9430) M. Baker Background: • The Owner and City entered into a City -Owner Contract on or about November 2, 1999, whereby the City authorized the construction of the project entitled "Basic Construction in Southern Woods First and Second Subdivisions". • The Owner has requested that the charges included in the contract related to J9266 "Airport Water Tower" be replaced with an obligation to pay a Water Availability Charge of $1605.50 per acre. City Staff is agreeable to this requested amendment. Staff would offer the following Amended Owner Contract for consideration by the Council: • Southern Woods First & Second Subdivisions — Jerry Schultz & Randy Reynolds (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a First Amendment to City / Owner Contract J9430 'Basic Construction in Southern Woods First and Second Subdivisions". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: • Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amended City / Owner Contract for J9430 "Basic construction in Southern Woods First and Second Subdivisions". COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: rar 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works L>—AIJ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Lot 2, PREPARED Block 1, Shorewood Retail Replat (J9693) M. Ba Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Lot 2, Block 1, Shorewood Retail Replat — Corporate Gardens LLC (Owner) & Fraser Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9693 consisting of "Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Lot 2, Block 1, Shorewood Retail Replat". j �3STSW LI COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9693 "Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Lot 2, Block 1, Shorewood Retail Replay" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0 DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b-q I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Bids: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve PREPARED BY: Baihly Woodland Subdivision, J9599 J. Loehr Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., June 1, 2000 for the following local improvement project: Project No. M002. J9599 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve Baihly Woodland Subdivision." The following bids were received: 1. Heselton Construction $ 610,005.25 ("Low" Bid) 2. Winona Excavating $ 536,315.25 3. S.J. Louis $ 591,181.90 4. Elcor Construction $ 643,015.10 5. Swenke Construction $ 678,149.60 6. Road Constructors $ 780,823.10 Engineers Estimate $ 574,967.10 The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection Agreements), Sales Tax revenue, Developer and/or City -Owner Contract Agreements, and the Sewer and Water Utilities. This project involves the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve 22 developed properties within the project Area. These developed properties are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted awarding the contract to Heselton Construction. Att: Feasibility Report Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Bids: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Marvale Addition and Whynaught's Subdivision, J9600 Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., May 26, 2000 for the project: Project No. M003. J9600 "Sanitary Sewer to Serve Marvale Addition and Whynaught's Subdivision". The following bids were received: MEETING /a,s DATE: 6/5/00 ITEM NO. r')-ya, PREPARED BY:' yJ ki J. Loehr f >cal improvement 1. Swenke Company $1,008,248.80 (Apparent "Low" Bid) 2. Road Constructors $1,168,983.76 3. Winona Mechanical $1,192,909.65 4. Arcon Construction $1,200,951.60 5. Heselton Construction $1,211,040.40 6. Elcor Construction $1,243,003.00 Engineers Estimate $1,267,972.00 Note: 1. Swenke Company indicates that their bid of $1,008,248.80 contains an error. Swenke Company submitted the attached letter and documentation of the error, requesting that their bid be withdrawn. Department of Public Works staff met with Dave Goslee, Deputy City Attorney, to discuss Swenke's claim. City staff feels that Swenke Company's claim is justified. The Department of Public Works .recommends that Swenke Comoanv be allowed to withdraw their bid. 2. The Department of Public Works feels that t ereere i�fication by the City to reject all bids and" re -advertise for bids. Therefore, the Department of Public Works recommends that the 2n' "low"� madder, Road Constructors, be awarded the contract. The project is proposed to be funded from sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges and Sales Tax Revenue, consistent with the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998, This project involves the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve 124 developed properties within the project Area. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted awarding the contract to Road Constructors. Aft: Feasibility Report Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (,�i / DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D-q3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Five PREPARED BY: Areas in Marion Township, J9601 J. Loehr T4J4 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 July 6, 2000 and considered by the City Council on July 17, 2000 for the following project: Proiect No. M004, J9601 "Sanitary Sewer to Serve Nelson's & Christopher Courts Subdivisions and the South Side of Marion Road SE; and Sewer and Water to Serve 20' Street SE from Marion Road SE to 200 Feet East of 37d' Avenue SE & Samelians Subdivision". The project involves the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve 140 developed properties in the project Area. The project is proposed to be funded from the following sources: 1. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges included in future Utility Connection Agreements. 2. Sales Tax revenue appropriated for the Water Quality Protection Program. 3. Water Utility for oversize watermain costs. An Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City of Rochester and Marion Township is finalized. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on July 6, 2000 at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning June 9, 2000. Att: Map Notice of bid COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bids Received for Parking Control Equipment MEETING l,_q / DATE: 6-5-00 ITEM NO. D-4q PREPARED BY: _ D. Rossmar Bids were received May 24,2000 for City Project 8215-35 2000 J-2574 "Upgrade Parking Ramp Revenue Control System" in the City's 5 parking ramps. This project is shown on page 345 of the year 2000 city budget. The bids received are as follows: Vendor Amount Equipment Brand & Model Don Harstad Company Inc. $62,874.96 * Federal APD model 93-100091 Auditor Power Pad McGann Associates, Inc $90,900.00** Amano Model AGP-5210 Republic Parking Systems, Inc. $124,785.15*** Federal APD model SST Auditor Power Pad Notes: * The Harstad bid was non -responsive in that the equipment quoted did not meet the intent of the specifications. ** The McGann bid had an irregularity in that the bidder added a pay item. This procedure is not allowed and invalidates their bid. *** The Republic bid package was missing the bid bond. This also invalidated their bid. There is some question if the Harstad bidder understood the intent of the specifications. It was the intent that this equipment be compatible with magnetic stripe tickets without additional add on features. The model Harstad proposes is compatible with magnetic stripe tickets, but a ticket validator must be added for the equipment to read the magnetic stripe tickets. These validators are approximately $ 5,000 each. The equipment quoted by the other two vendors included the validator as a built-in function. Recommendation: Reject all bids due to the non -responsiveness and / or irregularities. Re -advertise for bids and modify the project to include additional equipment and software from phase 2 of the upgrade program. . COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing bids to be advertised for City Project 8215-35 2000 (J-2574) Phase 1 of Upgrades to Parking Ramp Revenue Control System. Bids are to be received at 11:00 am on Tuesday June 27, 2000 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 13( DATE: 6-5-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works 1 D-15 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Parking Restriction on Fox Valley Drive from 23R' Avenue SW to PREPARED BY: the west Rossman This is a recommendation to restrict parking on a section of Fox Valley Drive SW that is being constructed this summer. The plans have been prepared by the City's consultant Yaggy / Colby and are ready to be sent to Mn/Dot State Aid office for approval. The project is being designed with a narrower roadway as a traffic calming measure. In order to meet the State Aid Requirements, parking will be allowed only on one side thru the entire length of the project. The resolution is needed at this time for submittal with the plans. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (306.2) of section B "No Parking Zones" to read; (306.2) Fox Valley Drive SW, on the south side of the street, from 23f° Avenue to a point 1,740 feet west of 23rd Avenue SW, at all times. uvUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: STA. 60+15.38 FOX VALLEY DRIVE S.W. STA. 43+90.69 FOX VALLEY DRIVE S.W. l ��r k;,,n r,e-J,cllor- fox vq Ile, Tr"z SLJ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: t33 6-5-00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTAGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works ITEM NO. r- » J-4(0 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Parking Restriction on 32Nd Avenue NW / 2300 block PREPARED BY D. Rossmai� The City has received a request from Mr. Jake Clark of the Tyler Tile Company (254-2701) to restrict parking along the entire frontage of his property located at 2300 32"d Avenue NW. This is the location of two businesses, The Tyler tile Company and Action Portable Facilities. The reason being is that the street is filled with parked cars daily from the Crenlo Plant. The parked cars are causing a visibility hazard for the commercial vehicles entering and exiting the driveways of these two businesses. 32nd Avenue is the main entrance into the industrial subdivisions of Heinricks and GF First Subdivisions. It is built 44 feet wide, which is normally wide enough for parking on both sides. However, due to the level of traffic volumes and the amount of large vehicles using the roadway, the staff recommendation is to proceed with the parking removal. The request has been discussed with Mr. Tom Ness of Crenlo Corporation. He has no objection. The parkers are mainly Crenlo employees, and space is available for them elsewhere. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (240.5) of section B "No Parking Zones" to read; (240.5) 32"d Avenue NW, on the south side of the street, from Valleyhigh Drive NW to a point 800 feet west of Valleyhigh Drive NW, at all times. 4vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: lsq G F FIRST C R" -:I L o N 0 s I c� 1 ; . IO' UTILITY EA9EMd Min YJ;[JJ'' VACATED 2 `• 17c 67 TJ ,I t TILL'S ;I 1 ST . loi I ly REPLAT OF HENDRICKS SURD �. LOT I N 'I LOT 1 `I LOT 1iz , _ 1 ..... _ N� SUB-DIV. 1 22 ND ST N. W. v� a 14 IS Ix a Io s . _ ,ZED 5�• ' M G 2 t ah•M �. i t TmYsl ..r � 'L -1 " 1 +w�.:F^ � - •: 'q 1 r 7$ "'ifi'F n�F'^ ,g 1 •� i>•P a.h s'',p yn s. '"it's.r'�'. 1 ; .1,. .r ..' -y -•r...'`�i. - }a-es-ar ..�i -r,* _ 'aye t-y �� ���'�R. _r a+ ..:,:a 1 E-';E�'��.t5�y�•"�', 0 1 B L 0 C K 1 I I REp� pS 0wl E . i�LOCK` I i REPLAT OF HENDRICKS 2 N ly I - y z .. r - _ IIF � -I :4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 135 DATE: 6-5--00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Parking Petition 15" Avenue SW ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works b -4 I ?" Street to 5" Street PREPARED E B,& D. Rossm The City has received a petition from the residents of this neighborhood to control all day parking on their street. The petition is for "Residential Permit Parking on both side of 151" Avenue SW from 2"d Street to 5'h Street, between the hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm, Monday thru Friday. The petition Has been analyzed in the following 4 areas: 1) Is this area residential in nature? Yes. There are two commercial establishments on the north end. These should be excluded from the zone. 2) Is the zone requested at least 32 dwelling unit in size? Yes, it is 40 units, and it is part on Zone 2 "St. Mary's West Zone" which is bounded by 141h Avenue on the east, TH 52 on the west and south, and Second Street north Two other streets in the zone presently have Permit Parking. 3) Is the street congested with parking from an outside source? On street parking has been a problem in the past. It currently is controlled with No Parking restrictions. The residents would like to see the partial day restriction on the east side of 15' Avenue removed so that they and their guests can use the parking. 4) Is the petition signed by 60% of the residents or landowners? Yes, 27 of 40 residents (67%). Additional information: 15" Avenue from 2"d Street to 5'h Street is 30 feet wide on a 66 foot R/W. Average traffic volumes are around 500 vehicles per day. There are two existing restrictions on the block. One can be removed and replaced with the new permit parking. That is the restriction on the east side of the street from 6am to 9am and from 3pm to 5:30pm. The restriction of no parking any time on the west side of the street should remain due to the street width. The petition has been discussed with the City Police Department and they have requested that the hours be limited to 8:00 am to 4:00 pm so that proper enforcement can be provided. Staff recommends to approve the request and that a public hearing be scheduled for July 5th, 2000 to consider adopting the requested parking control. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution calling for a public hearing on July 5, 2000 to consider expanding Residential Permit Parking Zone #2 (St. Mary's West) on the following streets, to be effective between the hours of 8:00am to 4:00pm, Monday thru Friday. 151h Avenue SW on the east side of the street from 200 feet south of 2"d Street to 5th Street. v.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second �r ------ T N t H 5 A C T C W �Ex(J105 Ict�T1oN 72. �Al1i�Vj) ZorJ� 2 Si. Ml9RY'3 l7es� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6-5-00 , DATE: /�"% AGENDA SECTION7 ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENTAGENDA PUBLIC WORKS —••• DESIGNATION OF BUS LOADING AREAS AT DOWNTOWN IAKNA A- BUS STOP Due to the closing of 2nd Avenue SW during construction of Mayo's Stabile Building temporary bus stops were established on 2nd Street SW and 3" Avenue SW. The underground part of the project has been completed. Therefore, 2"d Avenue SW will be opened to traffic. It is proposed that the bus stop be re-established in this block. Buses would be moved from the temporary stops. The temporary stops will be restored to their former designations which were predominantly 3 hour meters. At the same time it is proposed to update the "Comprehensive Parking and Traffic Resolutions Book" to reflect all the permanent bus stop areas at the downtown bus. The attached Exhibit "A" shows the downtown bus stop with the permanent bus stop loading areas re-established along 2"d Avenue SW. This area is used predominantly for commuter buses. It maintains a central area for commuter loading and easy access to city transit buses for transferring. The plan has been reviewed and approved by Mayo. Following is the amended description of the downtown bus stop area. The amended description officially incorporates the west side of the 200 block of 2"d Avenue SW and also includes some minor corrections. ( Changes and corrections are noted by italics.) 1. Downtown Bus Stop including: a.) The north side of the 100 block of 2"d Street SW between V Avenue and 2"d Avenue. b.) The south side of the 100 block of 2"d Street SW between 1"Avenue and 2"d Avenue with the exception of approximately 50 feet of frontage at 114 2"d Street SW. c.) The south side of 2"d Street SW from 2"d Avenue west for approximately 150 feet. d.) The east side of the 200 block of 2nd Avenue SW from 2"d Street SW to the alley. e.) The east side of the 200 block of 2nd Avenue SW from the alley to 3'd Street SW with the exception of supply and maintenance vehicles servicing the Franklin Heating Station. f.) The west side of the 200 block of 2"d Avenue SW between 2"d Street and 3 d Street. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution amending Paragraph 1 of Section C, Zone D "Bus Stops" of the "Comprehensive Parking and Traffic Resolutions Book" per the above description. VCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 139 MAYO BUILDING ) ST SW I .TEWARTVILI E I RING I AUSPN II WEST CONCO�O GUGGENHEIM s<. ER, �EY TAL DOV I GRAND NLER I I LFL _ L l- 1 - -L b7 3: cn PLUMMER CENTER PLACE BUILDING z (Jr, N PINE 201 BUILDING MUPlTAIN, FRANKLIN STATI O N 3RD ST SW IIO CITY TRANSIT ROUTE 1 U a A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I =2� 1� DATE: 6/5(2000 }ENDA SECTION: __nsent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Water Reclamation Plant ITEM NO: ,l b "qq ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Service Contract Amendment PREPARED BY: Black & Veatch Engineers Lyle d. Zimmerman Black & Veatch Engineers have been providing engineering services for several different projects at the Water Reclamation Plant. One of these projects was the inspection and testing the conditions of a 50 foot diameter digester gas sphere. The original agreement did not include the production of contract documents for work on the sphere. The sphere is in need of some minor repairs and complete repainting of the exterior. Black & Veatch has proposed to complete the contract documents associated with this work for a cost not to exceed $10,000. Council Action Requested: It is requested that the contract for engineering services being provided by Black & Veatch Engineers to the Water Reclamation Plant be amended to include contract documents for repairs and repainting of the digester gas for a cost not to exceed $10,000. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I � DATE: 6/5/00 f AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ei .-1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Type III, Phase 1(#00-01) Appeal of the Type III, Phase I (#00-09) Variance Denial Randy Klement May 30, 2000 Rochester Zoniae Board o(Appeals Recommendation: On May 3, 2000, the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals did not approve the variance request of the applicant, Rochester Public Utilities, for the property located at 2301 Baihly Heights Drive SW. The property is zoned R- I (Mixed Single Family Residential) zoning district. The applicant had requested the following: 1) a variance of 18 feet to the allowed setback to the south side front property line. 2) a variance of 25 feet to the allowed setback to the west side property line. 3) a variance of 4 feet to the maximum allowed height of a wall or fence. The variance requested is for the front yard setback on the south side and the west side yard setback for the construction and placement of one 12' x 28' telecommunications equipment shelter and one 8' x 12' telecommunications equipment shelter. Also, the applicant is proposing to construct a 10' high brick wall or fence along the east and south sides of the proposed equipment shelters to screen from the adjacent properties. The proposed wall or fence will exceed the maximum allowed height of six (6) feet. The proposed shelters for telecommunication equipment is a permitted use in the R-I zoning district. The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals felt that the telecommunications equipment shelters could be placed on the lot and still meet the minimum 40 foot setback requirements of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Council Action Requested: Approve or deny the variance appeal by the applicant based on the original staff report and attachments submitted to the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals at their May 3, 2000 meeting. Attachments: 1. Copy of Variance Resolution and minutes of the May 3 d Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, to be signed by the Zoning Board of Appeals Chairperson at their June 5, 2000 meeting. 2. Copy of Staff Report and all attachments submitted to the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, dated April 26, 2000. ,>v..z 4 N� E Distribution: ,�,�, 1. City Administrator 4L 2. City Clerk COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Jun-02-00 09:29 mellon 5072929199 P.02 Dear Council membera% 2243 Baihly Hills Dr.SW Rochester, Minnesota 55902 May 31, 2000 At the City Council meeting on June 5, you will hear a request from RPU for variances on the Baihly water tower site at the corner of Baihly Hills Dr. SW. and Summit Dr. SW. I am writing to ask you to follow the decision of the Zoning Board , who denied the requested variances. Unfortunately, even if you deny the variances requests, RPU claims there is sufficient land on which to build the structures by simply applying for a building per The only consolation is that at least the three telecommunications companies will have to follow city codes for setback and fence height. I am aware that the City Council has to work under federal guidelines for assisting telecommunication companies and that you have written code to help protect Rochester residents. Clearly, though, more needs to be done to protect neighborhoods from this kind of commercialization. Several aspects about this situation trouble me: I. Only neighbors within 500 feet received notice of the appeal to the Zoning Board and subsequently of the appeal to the City Council. While these neighbors will have to look at this construction daily, it will be a black mark on all of the Baihly area. And the time period between the receipt of the notices and the upcoming meetings was relatively short, suggesting that neighbors would either not be concerned about the issue or would not be able to organize and express their concern. 2. An attorney in the neighborhood and a major property developer interpreted the governing codes as ones that could only suggest that variances would not be approved. However, despite receiving petitions and phone calls from property developers and owners, the Planning Department recommended the variances. Their report glossed over all concerns expressed and put an entirely positive spin on the request. And at the Zoning Board hearing, one member of the planning department spent significant time intimidating that a law suit could result if the variances weren't approved. 3. Commercialization does not belong in neighborhoods zoned for single family homes. These companies have options -- finding land ( obviously more expensive) or using existing buildings in locations that are already commercial. By their own admission, these companies do not need this location to make cell phone reception in the area better; they want it because it cheaper and convenient. - 1 - ITEM E-1 FROM: Marcia Marcoux, Councilmember 2' d Ward MOTION: Request to continue this item to June 19`h for final decision. This will allow time to refine potential landscaping/berming designs for this area. Allowing two adjacent neighbors and others to view the final plan. Also, to potentially answer some additional questions. I do feel that a feasible solution could be reached by then. (Realizing that not all persons may totally be in agreement.) STAFF REQUEST: I would ask Planning and Legal Staff to refresh Councilmembers, via Memo — what procedures we looked at while developing this Ordinance. This is to reassure ourselves that we have covered what areas we can without violating Federal Laws. This question has been asked of me in several different forms, while dealing with this issue. THANK YOU 0 May 30, 2000 Mayor Canfield President Hunziker Dennis Hanson Marcia Marcoux Jean McConnell Walter Stobaugh Mack Evans David Senjem "t V P Dear Mayor Canfield, President Hunziker and all members of the City Council, I'm writing you in regards to an item that will be heard on June 5, 2000 by the City Council. It is a request by RPU for variances to the set back requirement and fence height so that two large metal sheds, a smaller equipment box, I I antennas and a 10 ft. fence may be installed in our neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the request because it did not meet all of the requirements necessary to grant the variances. I understand that the City Council has recently rewritten the city code in an effort to protect neighborhoods in Rochester from big businesses. Unfortunately it appears their effort may have failed because of loopholes and gray areas in the wording. I'm sure the City Council did not intend to allow Telecommunications companies to litter our neighborhoods with antennas, metal sheds and cyclone fences with barbed wire. Nor did they intend to allow them to make money on the backs of neighboring properties. Our neighborhood has consulted K. Gretchen Peck, Regional Vice President of Coldwell Banker who advised us that the loss in property values in our neighborhood would be estimated to be a loss of about 20%. We consider that to be unconscionable and expect that if the City Council were to overturn the Zoning Boards decision, by approving a variance, which would cause such great detriment to the neighborhood, our property tax assessment would in turn be reduced. We have been told that the City Government is not allowed to consider the health effects of such an installation. However, I wonder if the Federal Government ever intended for these to be installed to within 100 feet of the bedrooms of our children? Probably not. They probably assumed they would not be put in neighborhoods, but put on a hilltop surrounding the city nowhere near our sleeping children or our elderly parents. There are a number of studies done by reputable investigators published in reputable journals on the health effects of radio frequency exposure. They confirmed with their data that there are implications of serious health effects. The effects ranging in severity from electrical interference with television reception and other household appliances to death from interference with pace makers and defibrillators. I urge you to communicate with out Congressmen and Senators in Washington to repeal the Telecommunications Act of 1996 so that city government may better protect it's constituents from corporations that do not consider the ill-effects they impose on Rochester residents. As elected city officials, I am sure you are familiar with the other city codes, which may have an impact on this issue. I would ask that you table this issue until further investigations can be made into other city codes which would protect our neighborhood from the detriment it would be caused by allowing this to proceed. Your consideration is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Nancy S. Mellon MichaVI w. Mellon 'i 4 ,ka� Lv .YY� 2128 Baihly Summit Drive S.W. Rochester, MN. 55902 *0 June 2, 2000 Dear City Council members - I am requesting that on June 5th, you please uphold the Zoning Boards decision to deny the variance requested by RPU. The May 5th meeting left many of us feeling threatened, that if the variance request wasn't approved, RPU would find a way to get around the law. One member of the panel made it clear that the reason he was voting to approve the variance, was because RPU would apply for a building permit and proceed anyway. I am truly disheartened to see our city government operate this way. All of this left me wondering who was representing us, the people who will have to bear the consequences. This clearly seems inappropriate for any residential neighborhood. Would you want this placed next to your home? Nothing of this nature exists in Rochester in a residential neighborhood. The examples that we were given, Assisi Heights and Golden Hill, do not even come close to what is instore for us. We are faced with eleven antennas, three buildings, and fencing to start with. What protects us from further defacing of our property in the future. Are we to trust what the city tells us, as we did when we purchased our property? We were told this is a residential neighborhood only. I am concerned about health issues, loss of property value, defacing of property in our neighborhood, and the conflict between RPU and the city of Rochester. We have been given no reasons, other than financial, why this could not be done in a more appropriate setting. I do not believe our neighborhood should be responsible for paying the difference in lost property value, in what it would cost RPU to build in a more appropriate and safe setting. Until all of these issues are addressed properly, I hope you will uphold the Zoning Boards decision. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Sheila Sullivan 2119 Baihly Summit Dr SW Rochester, MN 55902 281-3335 Jun-02-00 09:29 Mellon 5072929199 P.03 4. The Planning Department refuses to acknowledge that health factors could enter in posedly because the federal government hasn't done conclusive studies on the issue. /ever, reputable medical journals do discuss voltage hazzards, including documented instances where pacemakers have stopped or less seriously, electric wheelchairs haven't worked, etc. 5. The conflict of interest for RPU is also troubling. We have a city utility petitioning the city for variances and/or building permits which will bring them significant annual income. This is on top of having a monopoly on city utilities. Who has the best interests of Rochester residents as a priority? 6. The proposal went forward with such vague language that almost anything could be built on the site. While the neighbors could hope for brick buildings, RPU has told at least one neighbor that the structures will be steel and dropped in place by a crane. And what will the fence be made of? And who will maintain the area? Oral promises are easily broken and forgotten. What we have seen in driving around looking at water tower sites is nothing closely resembling homes in the area. Our homes had to be architecturally approved by the developer and the Baihly Woodlands covenant forbids fences that enclose property. So why do RPU and the companies it is fighting for not have to meet the same criteria? To say that many in the area are sickened and distraught by this situation is not rstating reaction. It is a helpless feeling to watch the city work against you after you have uuught land and built homes in a neighborhood where you believed only residential housing would exist. Thank you for taking the time to read of my concerns. If you wish to call me, you can reach me at 282-2105 after 2p.m. Sincerely, Marilyn Kelly Theismann -2- M. TYPE III, HASE I DEVELOPMENT APPLICOON l ` CITY OFROCHESTER el The undersigned hereby makes application for a Type III Development as regulated by Section 60.530 of the City of Rochester Land Development Manual. NAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Rochester Public 'Jtilities 4000East River Road NE TELEPHONE NUMBER: (home) (work) E07/280-1605 FAX NUMBER_ 507 ) 280-1542 E-MAIL (IF APPLICABLE) drovang@rpu. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY IF DIFFERENT THAN APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 2301 Baihly Summit Drive (Baihly High Level Water Tower) SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER: 9Pu LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CT Plat Parcel No. 05 5128 1302 (FPINPAIt�892) NW 1/4, NW 1/49 Sec 10T106N R141:1 (see detailed description on attached sheet) REASON FOR APPLICATION: (Please describe in detail if applicable) Variance ante to setback requirements: 25' side yard variance 18' front yard variance, and 10' screening fence height To permit installation of telecommunications transmitter equip,-;Ient on municipal water tower site. City is attempting to minimize the number of telecommunications antenna sites within the City by placing these facilities on water tower sites. DATE: 4/18/00 Respectfully Submitted, PA 4000 East River Road NE 507/280-1605 (Owner or Corporation) U (Address) (Phone) Submittal Instructions (see attached) Return Application to: Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department 6P , 2122 Campus Dr. SE Ce DISTRIBUTION: Rochester, MN 55904 Iratlo .ee Planning Department: (white) City Clerk: (blue) Applicant: (yellow) FORMV. 1820-30 Re WS TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Randy Klement, Planner DATE: April 26, 2000 RE: . Variance (Type III, Phase I), #00-09 Planning Department Review: APPLICANT: ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: REFERRAL COMMENTS: ANALYSIS: Rochester Public Utilities 4000 East River Road NE Rochester, MN 55906 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING! MAPPING HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE WELUSEPTIC FAX 2301 Baihly Summit Drive SW, Rochester Attached R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) Zoning District Attached The applicant is proposing to construct one 12' x 28' telecommunications equipment shelter, one 8' x 12' telecommunications equipment shelter, and a 4' x 10' foundation pad for telecommunications equipment on the southwest corner of the existing water tower site. The 12' x 28' shelter will encroach to within 22' of the south property line and encroach to within 15' of the west property line. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 10' high brick wall or fence along the east and south sides of the proposed shelters and pad that is to be used to screen the adjacent property. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6' chain link fence on the west and north sides of the proposed shelters and pad. According to Section 62.222 — R-1 Site Appearance Standards of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: the minimum setback from the 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 507/285-8345 507/287-2275 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Na property line for an Area Accessory Development (a telecommunications service is considered an Area Accessory Development) is 40 feet in the R-1 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to construct a structure that will encroach to within 22' of the south property line and encroach to within 1 S' of the west property line. According to Section 63.126(4) — Fences, Walls and Hedges of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: "Fences and walls shall not exceed six (6) feet in height above the elevation of the surface of the ground at any point, except 1) that in stances where public safety or security necessitate, the zoning administrator may authorize fences and walls to have a maximum height not to exceed 10 feet above the elevation of the surface of the ground at any point". The applicant is proposing to construct a brick wall or fence that is 10' in height along the east and south sides of the proposed shelters and pad. Staff feels that a 6' high fence is sufficient for safety purposes. According to Section 62.937(1) — Purpose of Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services and Towers of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: The City of Rochester acknowledges the legal right of wireless telecommunications providers to do business within the City. However, the City wishes to implement its legal authority to impose zoning requirements which are nondiscriminatory, not intended to prohibit telecommunications service, and not based on the health effects of radio frequency emissions. Accordingly, in order to establish uniform, nondiscriminatory, and competitively -neutral regulations that protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community, these regulations are intended to: a) facilitate the provision of commercial wireless telecommunication services in City of Rochester and surrounding area; b) minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards; c) avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower antenna failure and weather related occurrences through structural standards, careful siting and setback requirements. d) encourage the placement of commercial wireless telecommunication towers on institutional, commercial or industrial property and large publicly -owned parcels, and; e) maximize the use of existing towers and buildings to accommodate commercial wireless telecommunication service antennas in order to minimize the number of towers needed to serve the community. Also, according to Section 62.937(8) — Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services and Towers — Accessory Utility Buildings of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: All buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be: a) constructed of materials on the exterior of the building similar to the surrounding residential area when located in or adjacent to a residential zoning district. b) buffered and screened from adjoining uses as established in the requirements of the underlying zoning district for Area Accessory Development and section 63.260. c) accessory buildings shall meet the height limitations as stated in section 62.273. The applicant has not indicated what type of exterior finish will be on the proposed buildings. The proposed project will also require bufferyards on all sides of the property, as required by the zoning ordinance. The applicant requests the following: 1) a variance of 18 feet to the allowed setback to the south side front property line. 2) a variance of 25 feet to the allowed setback to the west side property line. 3) a variance of 4 feet to the maximum allowed height of a wall or fence. The Planning staff suggested findings are: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There may be exceptional circumstances or conditions that apply to the applicant's property that may not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district. Because of the location of the existing water tower, the slope of the lot, and the limited size of the lot (150' x 150'), it may be difficult to locate all three sites in the same area of the lot and still meet the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. However, the applicant may be able to separate the buildings on the lot and still meet the setback requirements of the ordinance. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request would appear to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. As stated in Section 62.937 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: the City of Rochester be allowed to maximize the use of existing towers and buildings to accommodate wireless telecommunication service antennas in order to minimize the number of towers needed to serve the community. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request would not appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare. Exterior finishing of the structure similar to the surrounding residential area, proper design of fencing and the use of bufferyards will minimize adverse visual effects to other properties in the area. MINIMIJM VARIANCE: The minimum variances that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the allowed setback to the south property line; a variance to the allowed setback to the west property line and; a variance to the maximum allowed height of a fence or wall. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial. PROPOSE➢ CHAIN LINK MARAPT SHELTER — VIREELOEES.aI 1 AT&T EaU1P. SHELTER — 151 �IAN EXISTING DRY WELL 1 11 i o W COAX } � CCk JEEIA WTE } ,} N }1} 1 11 1 N TELCO ROUTE ELECTRICAL RINTE EXISTING TRANSFORMER EXISTING TELCO PEDESTAL 2 BAIHLY SUMMIT DRIVE SITE PLAN a is 30 6➢ Page 4 M City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals L Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 ABSENCE N DETRIMENT: The granLgofthis variance request does not appear to be materia etrimental to the pulfare or to other property in the area. However, the gr g of this variancst would be detrimentatfo the intent and purpose of the of Rochester Ordinance L--arid Development Manua that the rebu g of the s to its s style would not meet the allowed 't factor,. or areahe mum percentage of landscape area and minimum r red o tree space requirements. The intent of Chapter 65, Nonconformity chapter is t jy nonconformity and the normal Mai ce and repair th , and t e age their move toward conformity when the opportunity "rough a dis t ce or destruction. MINIMUM VAR he minimum v lances that dd be necessary to alleviate th d hardship would b variance to Se 63.304 — Multiple Building of and Section 63.310(1) and Section 63.31 — Residential Developments. Type III, Phase I, Variance Request #00-09 by Rochester Public Utilities to allow for the construction of two (2) accessory structures that do not meet the setback requirements and a fence that exceeds the maximum height limit The property is located at 2301 Baihly Summit Drive SW and is in the R-1 (Mixed Sinale Familv Residential) Zoning District. Ms. Carol McCaleb stepped down from the dais due to a personal conflict. Mr. Klement presented the staff report dated April 26, 2000. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Klement commented on the letter from Ms. Marcia Marcoux, Council member 2nd ward, regarding the neighborhood meeting on April 27, 2000 at 7:00 p.m., along with the signatures of the neighborhood opposing the variance. These letters are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Schimnich wanted to clarify that AT&T wants to pay for the rights to use the tower from RPU. Mr. Klement replied yes, or they would enter into some type of contract with RPU to place an antenna on the existing tower. Mr. Ellis opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Douglas Rovang, Sr. Civil Engineer for RPU, addressed the Board. He presented a copy of the information packet that had been sent to the RZBA Board members and provided to the residents of the Baihly Woodlands neighborhood. This information is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. (� Page 5 Gity of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 The applicant commented on the information packet to the Board members and audience. He clarified that when it gets to the information related to: telecommunications; theory; equipment; radio waves and issues like that, he does not have the knowledge, but there are two (2) people from telecommunications that will speak on that matter. The applicant commented on the number of installations on top of water towers in the Rochester area. He stated that he would like to show some overheads to the Board and audience. The first overhead was of the site plan. It showed where they plan to locate the buildings on the site. The second overhead showed the vegetation that will be located on the site. It will make a bowl around the water tower site. He explained that when they sand blast and paint the tower, they put a canvas around the tower, from top to bottom, to keep the dust and paint enclosed. The third overhead showed the two structures. The largest structure, 12 x 28-foot, will be the proposed AT&T structure. North of the AT&T structure, will be the proposed Arial Communications structure that will be 8 x 12-foot. There will be a proposed equipment base, 6 x 10-foot equipment installation with weatherproof enclosures on it. They will put a fence around the site, with a cyclone fence on the backside for security. He agreed with the staff that a 6-foot fence would provide adequate security. The reason for the 10-foot high wall is to contain the site structures from the public view. The AT&T and Arial structures will be 10 feet in height. The fourth overhead showed the south and east elevation, showing what the proposed wall would look like. The applicant stated that this is a reasonable use of the site and that they are willing to work with the neighborhood. Mr. Haeussinger asked the applicant if there was a reason for the buildings being erected in the place shown. The applicant replied that they tried to locate on the west side of the site to stay away from the housing in the neighborhood, and there is a water main and storm sewer on the east side. Mr. Schimnich stated that the applicant named some of the other tower locations in the Rochester area and these were mainly in commercial areas. The applicant stated that there are towers in residential areas in the Rochester area. He named off some of the locations: John Adams, Willow Heights, Golden Hill, etc. Page 6 �f✓j / City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals // I Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 Mr. Schimnich asked the applicant if the other towers met the zoning ordinances. The applicant replied yes. Mr. Schimnich asked the applicant if any variances were required for the towers in the residential areas with structures on the site. The applicant replied no. They were on the sites prior to the most current zoning ordinances. Previously, we only had to meet the same setbacks as residential property, basically a 6-foot side yard. When the most current zoning ordinances went into effect, it changed the accessory structure use category, by increasing it up to 40-feet. Mr. Haeussinger asked the applicant who would be responsible for maintaining the fences. The applicant stated that the telecommunication companies would be responsible for the maintenance, not RPU. Mr. Ellis asked the applicant how many providers does RPU work with. The applicant replied 15 or so. Mr. Haeussinger asked the applicant if the leases that RPU has with the telecommunication companies were portable. The applicant replied no. Mr. Mike Billings, (of OMNI Contracting, Inc.) representing Northern PCS, which is a Sprint affiliate, addressed the Board. He explained that they are proposing to place the 8 x 12-foot slab for the outdoor equipment. He stated that his company built at the Apache Mall tower, Assisi Heights, and a couple of the Motels, downtown. Mr. Billings commented on the general maintenance being done on a monthly basis of the sites. Each site is monitored, and if there is a problem, they are notified right away. Mr. Ellis asked why their building is smaller then the other two. Mr. Billings replied that it is a PCS carrier. They are using a brand new technology that is a less than a year old. They will be using a Northern Metro Cell Platform, which is smaller, and does not need as much space. Mr. Staver asked Mr. Billings if the size of the structure is due to the technology being used. Mr. Billings replied that PCS uses smaller equipment, and is digital only. Page 7 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 Mr. Ellis asked if there would be any problems with transmission for the neighborhood. Mr. Billings stated that this question always comes up at every zoning meeting. Washington DC came out with a study, that your microwave oven and color TV produce more radiation and RF energy than from a cell phone tower. Ms. Julie Townsend, representing AT&T Wireless Services, addressed the Board. The FCC has created regulations that all carriers have to abide by. Ms. Townsend handed out a paper from the FCC on Wireless Systems to the Board and staff. A copy of this report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Townsend explained that the AT&T structure is larger, 12 x 28- feet, as AT&T uses larger equipment. Maintenance is done approximately every 4 to 6 weeks, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., unless that is an emergency situation. The exterior of the shelter can be made of whatever material the neighborhood would like. It can be wood, stucco or brick. Mr. Staver asked how they go about choosing a site. Ms. Townsend stated that AT&T does not have very good coverage in the Rochester area. The AT&T Radio Frequency Engineer took a look at the Rochester area, and it was decided that this location was the most likely area, to improve the reception. Per code, they are to look at the existing towers to put their telecommunication antennas on, before erecting a new monopole. Mr. Douglas Boese, of 2217 Baihly Summit Drive SW, addressed the Board. He expressed his concerns that this is a residential area and this would effect the property to the west. He stated that they cannot fit the structures into this small area. Mr. Michael Mellon, of 2128 Baihly Summit Drive SW, addressed the Board. He read a letter from Ms. Maxine Thompson, of Charterhouse. Ms. Thompson stated that she owns the property to the west of the tower., and does not want this variance approved. This letter is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Marlyn Theismann, of 2243 Baihly Hills Drive SW, addressed the Board. She expressed her concerns that the Board did not receive all the correspondence from the Thompson family. She read a letter from Mr. Gershom Thompson, JR., M.D.,which was e-mailed to Ms. Marcoux, asking the Board to deny the variance. This letter is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Sheila Sullivan, of 2119 Baihly Summit Drive SW, addressed the Board. She explained that in the covenants of the neighborhood, it does not allow chain link fences. Anyone that wish's to put up a fence in the neighborhood must have the approval of the neighborhood, per the covenants. Page 8 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 163 Ms. Alice Fisher, of 1154 23' Avenue SW, addressed the Board. She expressed her concerns that this would lower the value of their homes. Mr. Nancy Mellon, of 2128 Baihly Summit Drive SW, addressed the Board. She expressed her concerns and disapproval of this variance. Ms. Monica Damario, of 2111 Baihly Heights Drive SW, addressed the Board. She expressed her concerns regarding the health hazards this would produce for the neighborhood. Ms. Nancy Mellon, of 2128 Baihly Summit Drive SW, addressed the Board. She read a health report that indicated that the towers do interfere with: wheel chairs, pace makers, defibulators, etc. This report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Karen Canzanello, of 2212 Baihly Hills Drive SW, addressed the Board. She expressed her disapproval of this variance. Mr. Greg Wiseman, of 2333 Baihly Hills Drive SW, addressed the Board. He explained that when he bought his property, there was a covenant that stated that there cannot be any fences errected in this area. It also stated that the area had been established as a high class restricted residential district and free from objectionable or value destroying features. He feels that this would be detrimental to his property. Ms. Karen Clark, of 2209 Baihly Summit Drive SW, addressed the Board. She stated that she is strongly against the variance. Mr. Douglas Rovang, Sr. Civil Engineer for RPU stated that the fence was intended to screen the area from public view, but it could be eliminated. They are willing to work with the neighborhood on this. Mr. Robert Fisher, of 1154 23' Avenue SW, addressed the Board. He expressed his disapproval of this variance. Mr. Ellis Closed the Public Hearing. Mr. John Harford of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department, stated that he would like to clarify what the variances are for, so the Board will understand what they will be voting on. Mr. Harford stated, that the main reason that he is here tonight, is that he was involved with the original ordinance provisions after the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed and the Planning Department was notified, as a community, that they would be dealing with this. Under the Act, the communities cannot interfere with provision of services. Cities can walk a fine line on those issues. There have been a number of law suits, by telecommunication companies since 1996, dealing with health and safety issues. This is something that the Board cannot consider. That is the purview of the Page 9 pity of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 Federal Government. A number of cities and counties around the country, have lost court cases on that very issue. When writing the ordinance originally, they were careful to make sure that they recognized that factor. This is a permitted use in every zoning district in the city. The problem that we ran into, when originally looking at this area, is that we have a lot of scattered residential and commercial areas, and they don't always fit neatly on hill tops or in valleys. When the staff, planning commission and city council were looking at this, they recognized that if they said, only this use would be allowed in commercial and industrial districts, we might create some problems legally for the city, as they might be considered interfering with the provision of that service to the customers. So they said that they would allow this use, calling it an area accessory use, and set certain standards. The intent was to minimize the number of towers. They would ask providers if building a tower, first to do a survey to see if they can identify individual buildings, towers, light poles, any kind of structure over 60 feet that could possibly handle the antenna, and the provision of service in a particular area. So the telecommunication companies are required to do this first, and that is why it attracts them to water towers, because it is an existing tower and does not need to be surveyed. RPU could build the buildings without the fence, and could build the buildings to meet the setback requirements. If a site plan were submitted that would meet all the requirements in the ordinances, setback requirements, buffering and screening, the Planning Department would issue it as an allowable use over the counter. There would then be no need for a variance or public hearing. Mr. Ellis reopened the Public Hearing. Mr. Doug Boese, of 2217 Baihly Summit Drive SW, addressed the Board. He expressed his disapproval of the variance and stated that if the Board denied this variance, AT&T would not be able to sue. He asked the Board to call Terry Adkins (City Attorney) on to confirm this information. Mr. Ellis closed the Public Hearing. Discussion ensued towards the findings. Mr. Staver stated that this is a unique situation. In reading through the technical points of the ordinance, the Board's job is to implement those things in a way that minimizes adverse effects on adjoining property, and to maximize the use of existing towers. Mr. Haeussinger commented on the possibility of relocating the structures on the site. Mr. Staver pointed out that the applicant could relocate the structures on the site to meet all the restrictions. Then there would be no need for a variance. Page 10 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 1557�� Mr. Harford stated that in Section 62.937(8)(a), it states that all buildings and structures accessory to a tower, shall be constructed of a material on the exterior of the building similar to the surrounding residential area when located in or adjacent to a residential zoning district. Mr. Slaver asked about the fencing. Mr. Harford replied that it would need to meet the buffer yard requirements for that area. Mr. Schimnich stated that he has a problem with Section 62.937(1)(d). The City constructed the code to encourage the replacement of commercial wireless telecommunication towers on institutional, commercial or industrial property in large publicly owned parcels. This parcel does not meet either of those codes. Mr. Ellis asked Mr. Schimnich if he was referring to useable use. Mr. Schimnich replied yes. Mr. Schimnich asked if the Board denies this variance, would the applicant be able to redo their plan and still build there. Mr. Douglas Rovang, of RPU stated that they could do that and meet code. Mr. Langanki stated that the buildings are going to be on that site no matter what is decided here. May be we can protect the neighborhood by putting some conditions on the approval. Mr. Ellis agreed with Mr. Langanki. Mr. Schimnich stated that there is not an exceptional circumstance in this matter. Mr. Langanki feels that we should table this variance to the next meeting and have RPU meet with the neighborhood and see if they could come up with a happy solution. Mr. Slaver stated that he is hearing that the neighborhood does not want this variance approved. Mr. Staver made a motion to approve Variance Request #00-09 by Rochester Public Utilities. Mr. Langanki seconded the motion. The motion was 2-3, with Mr. Haeussinger, Mr. Schimnich and Mr. Ellis voting nay. The motion to approve Variance Request #00-09 by Rochester Public Utilities, did not pass. Mr. Ellis stated that the applicant has the right to appeal to the City Council. Page 11 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 Mr. Harford stated that the applicant would need to file an appeal with the Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department within 10 days of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals decision. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. As may be brought up by members. Mr. Kevin Schimnich has resigned from the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, effective on June 1, 2000. ADJOURN: With no other business, Mr. Ellis adjourned the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: Philip H. Wheeler, AICP Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept. dis Mr. Bob Ellis, Chair REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f V / DATE: 6-5-00 NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONTINUED ITEM PLANNING e �� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-16 to be known as PREPARED BY: Kingsbury Hills Subdivision. Mitzi A. Baker, May 31, 2000 NOTE: This item was previously continued to allow the applicant to submit a revised preliminary plat that includes access to 55`" St. that will be compatible with the proposed grades for the reconstruction of this segment of 55"' St. NW. Also, McGhie & Betts, Inc., on behalf of the applicant, submitted a formal request to the Ciryfor voluntary participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan to provide storm water management for this development. In response to the revised preliminary plat, request for participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan, and additional information from referral agencies, staff recommends amendments to the conditions/modifications recommended by the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission. Recommended changes are shown with strip text, for text to be deleted, and underline text is new language to be added. In summary, conditions #1 and #3 may be deleted, conditions #4 and #5 should be modified. 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. The Plat shall be revised an fGFIG im' The „ Court A11402'shall Foad", name type be from a „ to a „ „ and the roadway shall Ghanged The roadway .afne lggn ..-1 ury Cer Frt 4149' shaft be changed to 4(in..sbury place 411442 northerly 50 feet of the ivest line of I ol 1, Block 4. 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. fGF 1hia development. 2- Qlafvn he water management must pmvided WG91 or the applicant Fnay senstrwGt turn ianes4FGn;-"'Street Fde a substandard street FeGGns1FUVliQn Ghar7ge The Owner shall contribute to the Traffic Improvement District (TID) at the rate established for the district by the City Council. If the TID is not implemented, the applicant shall: a) Construct necessary turn lanes to serve the property. AND b) Pay the Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge. OR c) Provide construction work in lieu of cash payment as outlined in the Policy COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second Page 2 RCA r 05/31/00 ` i 5. The applicant shall construct pedestrian facilities within Outlot A (in addition to both sides of all roadways) ano snail dedicated said Outlot to the City. The applicant shall also construct a 10' bituminous path along the south side of 55`h St. NW. At the City's option, the Owner shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to allow the construction of the pedestrian path along 55m St. NW at a future date. Ll rec s. Easements for a temporary turn -a -round must also be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. I - Council Action Needed; The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact as a basis for the decision. Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated April 20, 2000. 2. Minutes of 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. McGhie & Betts, Inc. p.m. on Monday June 5, 2000, in the Council/Board .---- ------------, . s ----- ---- � o 9tl Z � v 4 d 11p gill a e t i is 1a�°�31' g�ti� tiif�7!s�l�edF � iall lair �{{� b 0 G CD C ow� •� WV. d � w�l xzl � U _I al 2 ipp IPA TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: April 20, 2000 y�iiiap�t�imA1 Ii,.�■►u� tnot,� out 7111��I;� _ • , �i��ii i���I��iii ���11 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATICN/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 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 55t" St. NW, west of the Wedgewood Hills Subdivisions and 50th Ave. NW. Planning 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 55904 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 OPPORTUNITWAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 April 20, 2000 Development Review: Location of Property: Zoning: Proposed Development: This plat is located west of 50th Ave. NW and the Wedgewood Hills development and south of 55" St. NW. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. 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: 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 e, 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 comer 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 55`h St. NW and controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 55fh 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 55`h St. NW right-of-way. 3. Right and/or left turn lanes will be required from 55`h St. NWW, 4. A contribution will be required for reconstruction of 55+h St. NW. Current City policy for substandard streets would require a contribution of $30 per foot of frontage. If a Traffic Improvement District (TiD) is adopted for 5e 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 filling of these areas shall occur prior to obtaining "no -loss" or replacement approval from the LGU. 8. 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. Page 4 April 20, 2000 The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61.225 (effective 5/15/199). 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 5518 St. NW. 5. The applicant shall construct pedestrian facilities within Outlot A (in addition to both sides of all roadways) and shall dedicated said Outlet to the City. The applicant shall also construct a ?0' 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. Nydric 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. 1�3 Ib�rpu N we pledge, we delivee April 6, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-16 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 maybe subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. 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 551h 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, 06--AA R 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 FAF ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/24/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur REVISED 5124/00 16 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 (PIO GDP#146) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Comments that are no longer applicable are shown with Str-ikethFOUgh, all other comments from are previous review are still relevant. New comments are indicated with BOLD 1. Public Works Staff concur with the changes indicated on the revised Preliminary Plat. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. 3. A Grading & Drainage Plan must be submitted and approved prior to Final Plat approval. 4. Controlled access is required, as shown on the Preliminary Plat, along the satire fF9Rta96 f st M.P , AIR the ef the single public street access. in 5. Right and/or left turn lanes will be required from 551h St NW. 6. Dedication of 60 feet of right-of-way will be required for 55`h St NW. 7. A temporary turn -around is required at the southerly extent of 56`h Ave NW, 8. 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. At the City's option, the Owner shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to allow the construction of the pedestrian path along 55th St NW at a future date. a C:%TEMPtPP#00.16 Rev 5-19.doc (W ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/24/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4m Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 9.a) The Owner 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 turnlanes 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. 10. Outlot A should be dedicated to the City. 11. 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. 12. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure to serve this development. 13. 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 TID. 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 551h 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). 4• Remainder of the property subject to Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre. -e Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre. rA C:7EMP%PP#00-16 Rev 5-19.doc ROCHESTER /49 Minnesota 5/24/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 40' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 f• Storm Water Management Fee for voluntary participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan Q $1,983.50 per acre (if on -site detention is not provided). ❖ Substandard Street Frontage Charge ® $30.00 per foot of frontage on 55 h 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 C:\TEMP\PP#00-16 Rev 5-19.doc park & recreation ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Kingsburry Hills 1" Preliminary Plat #00-16 * REVISED Acreage of plat.......................................................... 20.02 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 73 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 3.65 units /acre Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.78 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. $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 O Box 247 Byron, MN 55920 \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOT2\2000\DEDICATION\NW 2898\KINGSBURY 1ST.DOC Page 13 0 • 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 betv'en Lots 5 & 6, Block 1 and L 8 7, Block 1 be labeled utility and drainage easem 0 and be a minimum of eat. 3. The owner shall execute ith the City ontribution agreement for 23'a Avenue SE, prior to the submittal of th 'nal pl 4. Outlot A shall be dedicated to '^ City. 5. Pedestrian facilities are uired al bath sides of the entire frontage of Valverde Lane SE, including O t A, and am the entire easterly right-of-way of 23 Avenue SE. 6. Remove grass w king trail indicated o\fort f A, or work with the Park & Recreation Department for an appropriate surface 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 reporl 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: a Page 14 ! 0 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" 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. 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 55M 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 City. The applicant shall also construct a 10' bituminous path along the south side of 55th St. NWW, 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, del report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted the issues with the applicant, who is in agr revisions prior to the Council meeting. Mr office by the afternoon of Monday, May 1 Council meeting. He pointed out a Corr instead of "pang." Staff recommends Fpril 21, 2000, to the Commission. The staff ming Department. He stated that staff discussed Stint with those revisions, and they will provide the enX noted the revisions will need to be in the 10, lnXrder for this to proceed to the May 15 to con ' ion number 1: it should say "pond" d with th uggested conditions. Dave Bell, Freedom Development an Consulting, St. Clou MN, addressed the Commission. He stated they are in agreement witfeverything staff explain . He asked about the issue of the $30 per foot for substandard ro s and wondered if this is tx same kind of situation where they will have the acreage chargelased on a Transportation Imp vement District (TID). REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-5-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 6 .3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #153 Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, May 25, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on May 10, 2000 and recommends approval subject five conditions and modifications. Burke moved to approve GDP 152 with staff suggested findings and conditions and modifications, Quinn seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. 1. Right and left turn lanes will be required from CSAH 221East Circle Drive. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this property 3. When platted, the entire 80'right-of-way for the public road shall be platted and controlled access shall be platted along the entire frontage of CSAH 2VEast Circle Drive and also along the new roadway from CSAH 22 northerly to a point 200 feet along the east side and 180 feet along the west side. 4. Pedestrian facilities which are required to be constructed concurrent with development of this property will be along the east side of the new roadway and also along the frontage of CSAH 221East Circle Drive adjacent to this property, a ,a -r,5[s 8 s ? - -6e„� 4-f�- When platted, easements for utility extension and a temporary turn -a -round will be required. Council Action Needed: 1. 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. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 3, 2000 2. Minutes of May 10, 2000 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Yaggy Colby Associates 7. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 5, 2000 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. t.,JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: (%L- � 0 .".S.(:. b.ti.: ✓'.'i!u\i 1 ; ..-... .. . .. ... ..n. .k•-`iT.r.'.:�ra_i'-iY..its�sib`�K.'�_i.�_.'.�..:.Y.n: {t�anN� r�vx�Hlrt� x�oa ano'lsroEotax Y S ' k. •r'y' i �. i ..� rt oz • },y 3'v:; � . �.• _ .\�'•: _ ((/. 1. .------. ':�f,:; :^ �.�._ �. ..I?MV / iI• R \ .. %�„' / 4{ If / a � ol 4,11 TO: FROM DATE: RE: City Planning and Zoning Commission Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner May 3, 2000 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 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 General Development Plan #153 to be known as Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church Plannino Department Review: AppllcantlOwner: Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church 942 9v' Ave. NE Rochester, MN 55906 Consultants: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Size and Location: This property is located along the north/east side of East Circle Drive, across from Rocky Creek Drive, and is approximately 6.5 acres in size. Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to build a Church facility at this location. A residential collector road is proposed along the westerly side of the parcel which will be aligned across from Rocky Creek Drive. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as suitable for "low density residential" types of development. Zoning: Most of this property is in the City and currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). The westerly 40' of the future public road is in Haverhill Township and is believed to be zoned A-4 (Agricultural -Urban Expansion) district. An annexation petition has been filed for that portion of the property. Streets: The GDP proposes one new public roadway that will serve this property and the abutting properties. This AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 • General Development Plan May 3, 2000 road is proposed as a residential collector with 80' of right-of-way. Sidewalks: Sidewalk will be required on both sides of the new roadway. A trail is also required along CSAH 22/East Circle Drive. Drainage: This site is relatively flat. The narrative submitted with the application indicates that the applicant intends to request voluntary participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Wetlands: No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer is not currently available at the site to serve this property. There is an executed and approved Development Agreement for this property that allows the applicant to utilize a septic holding tank, initially, with a requirement for connection to the City's sanitary sewer system in the future. Water is available to serve this property. Parkland Dedication: If this property develops with a church, as proposed, there would not be a requirement for parkland dedication. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Dept. Transportation Div. (see attached) 2. Rochester Public Works (see attached) 3. Olmsted County Public Works (see attached) 4. RPU Water Division (see attached) 5. Planning Department GIS Division 6. Olmsted County SW CD Report Attachments: 1. Copy of General Development Plan 2. Referral Comments (6) 3. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. 117s Page 3 l General Development Pla • May 3, 2000 Land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the "low density residential" land use designation for the property. This property will meet the site location requirements for a church within a low density residential zoning district. 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. Access to this site will be from East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. Modifications that will be needed to accommodate this development include installation of right and left turn lanes from East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. This GDP proposes a public roadway that will provide access to adjacent parcels. The proposed use of this property as a church is consistent with the zoning of the property and should be compatible with existing and or permitted future use of adjacent property. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. This property is designated for low density residential" uses. Limited non- residential uses are allowed within "low density residential" areas. The proposes use of this property for a future church is consistent with the mix of uses permitted within such areas. 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 this site will be from East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. Modifications that will be needed to accommodate this development include installation of right and left turn lanes from East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. This GDP proposes a public roadway that will provide access to adjacent parcels. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. The GDP recognizes the intent of the ROCOG Long Range Bicycle Plan by reflecting the proposed location for a bikeway along the frontage of East Circle Drive. it is the plan for this trail to extend from the Century High Pedestrian Bridge north and west to link with the existing bike trail that currently ends at Alberta Drive. The applicant will need to work with the Public Works Dept. to establish the appropriate timing for construction of the trail and expected participation in terms of cost and/or easement dedication. 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 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. Page 4 General Development Plan May 3, 2000 Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. Access to this site will be from East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. Modifications that will be needed to accommodate this development include installation of right and left turn lanes from East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. This GDP proposes a public roadway that will provide access to this and adjacent parcels. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. The GDP recognizes the intent of the ROCOG Long Range Bicycle Plan by reflecting the proposed location for a bikeway along the frontage of East Circle Drive. It is the plan for this trail to extend from the Century High Pedestrian Bridge north and west to link with the existing bike trail that currently ends at Alberta Drive. The applicant will need to work with the Public Works Dept. to establish the appropriate timing for construction of the trail and expected participation in terms of cost and/ or easement dedication. 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. Sanitary sewer is not currently available at the site to serve this property. There is an executed and approved development agreement for this property that allows the applicant to utilize a septic holding tank, initially, with a requirement for connection to the City's sanitary sewer system in the future. Water is available to serve this property. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. The GDP recognizes the intent of the ROCOG Long Range Bicycle Plan by reflecting the proposed location for a. bikeway along the frontage of East Circle Drive. it is the plan for this trail to extend from the Century High Pedestrian Bridge north and west to link with the existing bike trail that currently ends at Alberta Drive. The applicant will need to work with the Public Works Department to establish the appropriate timing for construction of the trail and expected participation in terms of cost and/ or easement dedication.. M �( Page 5 )U• General Development Plan May 3, 2000 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. This site is relatively flat. The narrative submitted with the application indicates that the applicant intends to request voluntary participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. 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 for this GDP appears appropriate for the proposed use and to allow for future development of adjacent properties. Summary & Recommendation: Staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable criteria: 1. Right and left turn lanes will be required from CSAH 221East Circle Drive. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this property 3. When platted, the entire 80' right-of-way for the public road shall be platted and controlled access shall be platted along the entire frontage of CSAH 221East Circle Drive and also along the new roadway from CSAH 22 northerly to a point 200 feet along the east side and 180 feet along the west side. 4. Pedestrian facilities which are required to be constructed concurrent with development of this property will be along both sides of the new roadway and also along the frontage of CSAH 221East Circle Drive. 5. When platted, easements for utility extension and a temporary turn -a -round will be required. Page 6 / General Development Plan r r � j May 3, 2000 Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan In approving a General Development Plan, the Council shall make each of the following findings: 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. 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. C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. 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. 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. 3. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. 4. 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. i IFPage 7 General Development Plan May 3, 2000 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. 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. 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. % IF/ I',' FROM: Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division City Annex 00-9 No objection to proposed GDP or Preliminary Plat. Controlled access is GDP #153 provided along East Circle Drive consistent with access control that has Prel Plat 00- been established by Olmsted County. On the final plat controlled access 21 Christ our should be indicated along the west line of the proposed plat between the Rock right of way of CSAH 22 and the proposed access point. This access point Lutheran approximately is setback a roximatel 250' which meets the standards of the Land Development Manual. The GDP recognizes the intent of the ROCOG Long Range Bicycle Plan by reflecting the proposed location for a bikeway along the frontage of East Circle Drive. It is the plan for this trail to extend from the Century High Pedestrian Bridge north and west to link with the existing bike trail that currently ends at Alberta Drive. The applicant will need to work with the Public Works Dept to establish the appropriate timing for construction of the trail and expected participation in terms of cost and/ or easement dedication. jep 00CHESTEW Minnesota 511100 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 #00-21, & GDP#153 ,on the Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Pursuant to the executed Development Agreement, Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. 2. Controlled access must be provided along the entire frontage of East Circle Drive, and along Rocky Creek Or NE, to a point along the east side of the Rocky Creek Or NE ROW lying 200 feet northerly of the ROW line of East Circle Drive, and to a point along the west side of Rocky Creek Or NE lying 180 feet northeasterly of the ROW line of East Circle Drive. 3. The entire 80 feet of ROW for Rocky Creek Or NE shall be dedicated on the Final Plat. 4. Pedestrian facilities, constructed concurrent with the development, will be required along the east side of Rocky Creek Or NE and the north side of East Circle Dr. 5. Sanitary sewer & water service lines will be required to be extended to the adjacent property lines. 6. Easements will be required for the extension of off -site utilities. 7. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure to serve this development. 8. The Development Agreement addresses the temporary use of a septic holding tank. 9. A temporary turn around will be required, as shown on the Preliminary Plat, at the northerly extent of Rocky Creek Dr NE. Execution of an easement for said turn- around is also required. 10. The median traffic island is not needed. A 46 foot wide face to face section should be constructed along the entire length of Rocky Creek Or NE and striped as a three lane section. Charges/fees applicable to the development of the property are specified in the Development Agreement, with the exception of the following: ? Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: C:ITEMP%PP#00-21.dac we rledfe, we deliver April 27, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-21 and General Development Plan #153 by Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church to be known as Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property maybe subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. All water services and or public water mains should be installed to Lot 1 as a part of this project. Additional public water mains may need to be extended within Lot 1 as a part of the building project, which would require 20' minimum utility easements and an owner contract with the City Public Works Department at that time. 3. 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,��,,,.,�%' rs• 06-AA 1"'�"�+�" v Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 i PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTME 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 April 24, 2000 Suzanne LaPalm Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Suzanne: The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III Phase II Land Subdivisio (Preliminary Plat) #00-21 and General Development Plan #153 by Christ Our I Lutheran Church and has the following comments: • Access permit will be required from Olmsted County Public Works Department. • Right and left turn lane will be required from CSAH 22 (East Circle Drive). • $175 will be required for street sign and $50 per sign at Co. Rd. 144. • Any curb and gutter shall not be located on CSAH 22 right of way. Sincerely, 1"4w") Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:ss LV gindcdplan:one.aoc i Administration AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste pq CJ 04/12/00 YCA #5578 LD2 CHRIST OUR ROCK LUTHERAN CHURCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church property is located north of and adjacent to East Circle Drive (C.S.A.H. No. 22). Century High School is further to the southeast and the future extension of Rocky Creek Drive NE will be on the west boundary of the property. The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan (GDP) in accordance with Appendix B E-3. a) Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of the applicant, may create potential problems in street, drainage, public utilities or building design and construction, and how these problems will be investigated further or engineered to overcome the limitations. The attached GDP shows the area under consideration. The Olmsted County Soil Survey indicates shallow bedrock on the easterly half of the property (299A Rockton loam and 491B Waucoma loam). Soil borings will be completed during the engineering phases to determine subsurface conditions and the bedrock depth in the areas of construction. No hydric soils are indicated in the Soil Survey. A visual survey of the property was performed in 1999, and no wetlands were observed. b) Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs. The storm drainage does not appear to cause problems that will result in the increase of normal costs imposed. c) Identification ofpotential off -site drainage problems. There should be no problems with off -site drainage created by this development. The property owner is planning on participating in the city's storm water management plan. '.' APR ! 2 20W b...+sue..... ROLtSES� cK G'�Pn`SEU ( PLANNING DEPARTMENT +•q(n lDr i Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church General Development Plan Page 2 d) Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration. Water service is available to the site from the 12" water main that crosses East Circle Drive and is extended from Rocky Creek Drive to the south. Sanitary sewer service is not available at this time. The owner has a development agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the use of a sanitary holding tank until the time sanitary sewer is available. e) Identification ofpossible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of the applicant. Erosion control measures will be incorporated into the grading plan during final design. f) A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. The site will be developed as one phase with possible building additions in the future. 01 'APR ! 2 Y 7 Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 5. The Applica shall meet the Parkland Dedication requirements via deferre71and dedication. L d to be dedicated at such urge as the park is accessed via the Park Depart ent wishes to begin development of land. Addityonal ded be required as lot are platted in Outlot D and Outlot C. 6. Construction access all be limited to 11'" Avenue SE, an South Park Subdivisia not through the existing 7. Prior to recording the Fina V- fnts (Mylars he applicant shall execute easements for and subsequct a tem rary turn around at the southerly end of 2e Avenue SE. B. This plat does not include tn fright -of --way consistent with the approved General Developme'thin Outlots C and D). The applicant shall re -plat Outlots C and D in thedicate R-O-W consistent with the approved GDP; or shall dedicate the R-e roads upon formal request by the City, whichever is first. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ms. Fogarty presented is on file at the Roches With no others staff report, dated May 3, 2000, to DImsted Planning Department. to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public Commission. The staff report ng. Mr. Werven m ed to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-0 Rochester. s. Schultze seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. 1. The JIFea has not transitioned to industrial uses as anticipated Ur n Service Area Land Use Plan was adopted in 1979. 2. Phe existing uses of the properties are single family detached d, appropriate and compatible with the adjacent properties and the The would not constitute the City of the Rochester Ilin which are -.-., n,,,,, W �,,,,*L Uur MOCK t-uineran Church to be known as Christ O Rock Lutheran Church. The Plat ro oses to subdivide 6.48 acres of land into 1 lot fc the development of a church. The Plat also dedicates right of way for one new public roadway. The General Development Plan proposes one public roadway and one lot Mage 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 shown as a proposed church site. The property is located along the north side of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and allows for the continuation of Rocky Creek Drive NE on the north side of East Circle Drive NE. Ms. Baker presented the staff reports, dated May 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. She stated that staff recommends approval of the GDP with five conditions, and she modified condition number 4 to state, "Pedestrian facilities which are required to be constructed concurrent with development of this property will be along the new roadway and also along the frontage of CSAH 22IEast Circle Drive adjacent to this property." Ms. Baker noted that staff is also recommending approval of the preliminary plat, with the same modification being made to condition number 4 on the preliminary plat. Mr. Burke asked if it is unique to allow holding tanks. Mr. Nigbur explained that in this situation, with a church, they will be a low volume user for water and septic. The City will have services available to this property within the next 2-5 years. He stated that having a holding tank for that time frame is a very low risk to the City. The Church will be pumping it at their own cost and will abandon the tank when City services become available. Mr. Burke asked if a time frame limit has been set for use of the holding tank, and whether a precedent is being set. Mr. Nigbur explained that a precedent isn't being set because for a normal volume user, the holding tank would be very expensive to pump out on a weekly basis, so it would not be an option. Mr. Werven asked if staff needs to provide standards for the holding tank. Mr. Nigbur noted that the agreement states they will need to match the County requirement for holding tanks and septic systems. It is outlined that within a year of City services being available, they will need to hook up to those services. Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated they are in agreement with all the conditions on both proposals and he asked for more specific wording on condition number 4. He suggested instead of saying "concurrent with development of this property along the new roadway," that the condition read "...along the east side of the new roadway..." Ms. Baker stated that is acceptable. Mr. Dumond made himself available for questions. With no others wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke moved to approve General Development Plan #153, to be known as Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church, with staff -suggested findings and conditions as modified. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. i Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 Conditions: 1. Right and left turn lanes will be required from-CSAH 22/East Circle Drive. Qe 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this property 3. When platted, the entire 80'right-of-way for the public road shall be platted and controlled access shall be platted along the entire frontage of CSAH 22/East Circle Drive and also along the new roadway from CSAH 22 northerly to a point 200 feet along the east side and 180 feet along the west side. 4. Pedestrian facilities, which are required to be constructed concurrent with development of this property, will be along the east side of the new roadway and also along the frontage of CSAH 22/East Circle Drive adjacent to this property. 5. When platted, easements for utility extension and a temporary turn -a -round will be Ms. Petersson moved to approve Preliminary Plat #00-21, to be know as Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church, with staff -suggested conditions as modified. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Conditions: 1. Right and left turn lanes shall be required from CSAH 22/East Circle Drive. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this property. 3. When platted, the entire 80'right-of-way for the public road shall be platted and controlled access shall be platted along the entire frontage of CSAH 22/East Circle Drive and also along the new roadway from CSAH 22 northerly to a point 200 feet along the east side and 180 feet along the west side. 4. Pedestrian facilities, which are required to be constructed concurrent with development of this property, will be along the east side of the new roadway and also along the frontage of CSAH 22/East Circle Drive adjacent to this property. 5. Easements for utility extension and a temporary turn -a -round will be required prior to recording the final plat documents (mylars). 6. Sanitary sewer and water service lines must be extended to the adjacent property lines. 7. The median traffic island is not needed. The Plat shall be revised to provide a 46 foot wide face to face section to be constructed along the entire length of Rocky Creek Drive ME and striped as a three lane section. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 191" DATE: 6-5-00 er_GNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S . q' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase ll, Preliminary Plat #00-21 to be known as Christ PREPARED BY: Our Rock Lutheran Church. Mitzi A. Baker, Se ior Planner May 25, 2000 City Planning and Zoninq Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing an May 10, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Preliminary Plat #00-21, subject to the following modifications and conditions. Petersson moved, Quinn seconded, the motion carried 7.0. 1. Right and left turn lanes shall be required from CSAH 221East Circle Drive. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this property. 3. When platted, the entire 80'right-of-way for the public road shall be platted and controlled access shall be platted along the entire frontage of CSAH 221East Circle Drive and also along the new roadway from CSAH 22 northerly to a point 200 feet along the east side and 180 feet along the west side. 4. Pedestrian facilities must be constructed concurrent with development of this property, will be along the east side of the new roadway and also allon(g the a frontage of CSAH 22/East Circle Drive adjacent to this property, Easements for utility extension and a temporary turn -a -round will be required prior to recording the final plat documents (mylars). 6. Sanitary sewer and water service lines must be extended to the adjacent property fines. 7. The median traffic island is not needed. The Plat shall be revised to provide a foot wide face to face section to be constructed along the entire length of Rocky Creek Drive NE and striped as a three lane section. 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. Attachment: witE': sa/�' Q ��""'""�`�� ' C Z tr r►, ism t(.t �,.. , P�rwo, �, , G D 7' ha= 1. Staff Report dated May 3, 2000. I �. 2. Minutes of May 10, 2000 CPZC Meeting COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: A 1v iu^a Y mrii moo ab c YIOS3NNIW'N3 ?N r i HDiinH7 NV213Him UlO 1S121HJ ie E i ' ..ter-ii+> �•i��'�iiris�� puoq�.o�rfJ , ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/286-8232MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: May 3, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Type III, Phase 11 Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-21 Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church to be known as Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church. The Plat proposes to subdivide 6.48 acres of land into 1 lot for the development of a church. The Plat also dedicates right of way for one new public roadway. The property is located along the north side of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and allows for the continuation of Rocky Creek Drive NE on the north side of East Circle Drive NE. Planninq Department Review: ApplicantlOwner: Consultants: Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church 942 9th Ave. NE Rochester, MN 55906 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Planning Department Transportation Division; Olmsted County Public Works; Rochester Department of Public Works; RPU Water Division; Planning Department GIS Division; Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (5 Letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat Development Review: Location of Property: This plat is located along the north/east side of CSAH 22/East Circle Drive. Zoning: Most of this property is in the City and currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). The westerly 40' of the future public road is in Haverhill Township and is believed to be zoned A-4 (Agricultural -Urban AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Paget 0 May 3, 2000 Expansion) district. An annexation petition has been filed for that portion of the property. Proposed Development: The applicant is proposing to build a Church facility at this location. A residential collector road is proposed along the westerly side of the parcel which will be aligned across from Rocky Creek Drive. Streets: The Plat proposes one new public roadway, Rocky Creek Drive NE, that will serve this property and the abutting properties. This road is proposed as a residential collector with 80' of right-of-way and is aligned across CSAH 22/East Circle Drive from the existing Rocky Creek Drive intersection. Utilities: Sanitary sewer is not currently available at the site to serve this property. There is an executed and approved development agreement for this property that allows the applicant to utilize a septic holding tank, initially, with a requirement for connection to the City's sanitary sewer system in the future. Water is available to serve this property. Sidewalks: Sidewalk is required on both sides of Rocky Creek Drive. A trail is also required along CSAH 22/East Circle Drive. Drainage: This site is relatively flat. The narrative submitted with the application indicates that the applicant intends to request voluntary participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. Specific grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a Final Plat application. Wetlands: No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. Spillover Parking: Spillover parking for this Plat will be evaluated when the final site plan for the development is submitted. Parkland Dedication: If this property develops with a church, as proposed, there would not be a requirement for parkland dedication. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church GDP which is being reviewed concurrent with this Plat application. J� ( Page 3 May 3, 2000 rA Staff Recommendation: The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61.225 (effective 5115/199). In order to meet the criteria, approval of this plat should require the following conditions or modifications: 1. Right and left turn lanes shall be required from CSAH 221East Circle Drive. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this property. 3. When platted, the entire 80'right-of-way for the public road shall be platted and controlled access shall be platted along the entire frontage of CSAH 221East Circle Drive and also along the new roadway from CSAH 22 northerly to a point 200 feet along the east side and 180 feet along the west side. 4. Pedestrian facilities must be constructed concurrent with development of this property along both sides of the new roadway and also along the frontage of CSAH 221East Circle Drive. 5. Easements for utility extension and a temporary turn -a -round will be required prior to recording the final plat documents (mylars). 6. Sanitary sewer and water service lines must be extended to the adjacent property lines. 7. The median traffic island is not needed. The Plat shall be revised to provide a 46 foot wide face to face section to be constructed along the entire length of Rocky Creek Drive NE and striped as a three lane section. REMINDER TO APPLICANT: • This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the developer wishes to record the Plat prior to completion of improvements. • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract that requires the developer to construct the public roadways and utilities. CRITERIA FOR LAND SUBDIVISION PERMIT (PRELIMINARY PLAT) Effective May 15, 1999 61.225Findings for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: Page 4 jn,^ May 3, 2000 19 / A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. S. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long - Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, —addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are —provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands; M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l 9 DATE: 6-5-00 ` AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING , civl DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #152 Northern Heights Village PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, May 25, 2000 City Plannina and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on May 10, 2000 and recommends approval subject seven conditions and modifications. Petersson moved to approve GDP 152 with staff suggested findings and conditions and modifications, Schultze seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. 1. Stormwater management must be provided for this development. The GDP indicates stormwater detention for the proposed development via a detention pond along the south right-of-way of CSAH 22/East Circle Drive, and immediately east of the First Church of the Nazarene property. A large portion of the detention pond structure is shown within the current Olmsted County Right -of -Way Plat No. 56. Written approval from Olmsted County will be required for the pond structure to be built within the right-of-way or the applicant will need to obtain the property or relocate the pond to be outside of the right-of-way. This stormwater pond location has been identified as a site for a regional basin. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 2. Controlled access exists along CSAH 22. Additional controlled access will be required within 200 feet from the intersection of any new street with CSAH 22 at the time of platting. ' "edestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roads, and will also be required along the Louth side if CSAH 22. The developer and staff shall mutually determine the location suitable for a pedestrian ,'acility along CSAH 22, prior to submittal of the first preliminary plat for this property. 4. Prior to submittal of the first final plat for this property, the developer shall execute a development agreement with the City for the entire GDP that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 5. A detailed Wetland Delineation report and a replacement plan are required if the applicant intends to fill or drain Wetlands. This GDP shall be revised to identify any Wetlands that may exist on the property. 6. This development is subject to an upper trip generation limit of 1,300 trips per day, which has been noted on the GDP. Design improvements that shall be provided by the developer include: D An inbound right turn lane on eastbound Circle Drive D On the northbound (outbound) approach to East Circle Drive two lanes or a wide flare shall be provided to allow right turning traffic to turn at the intersection without delay from left turning vehicles D An inbound left turn lane on westbound Circle Drive D The applicant will be required to share the cost of installing a permanent median with the developer of the property on the north side of Circle Drive 7. Parkland dedication for this development shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land as outlined in the April 26, 2000 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. .. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: to: w ♦� >< m a �Q4 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: May 3, 2000 - REVISED ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285.8232 PLANNING GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285.8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: General Development Plan #152 to be known as Northern Heights Village Planning Department Review. Applicant/Owner: ABBCO Company 709 21 `I ST. NE Rochester, MN 55906 Consultants: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Size and Location: The property is located north of the Glendale Hills and Northern Heights North 2nd Subdivisions and south of East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped. Proposed Use: The General Development Plan includes approximately 49.8 acres of land that is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). Development is proposed to include approximately 173 housing units that could include a mixture of housing styles permitted in the R- 2 district. The GDP proposes new public roadways, including four cul-de-sacs with only one access to the development at CSAH 22. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as suitable for "low density residential' types of development. Zoning: Most of this property is in the City and currently zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). A portion of the property, on the far east side, is in Haverhill Township and is believed to be zoned A-4 (Agricultural -Urban Expansion) district. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER aoX Page 2 0 ' General Development Plan May 4, 2000 Streets: Sidewalks: The GDP proposes new public roadways, including four cut -de -sacs with only one access to the development at CSAH 22. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of the roadways. A trail is also required along CSAH 22/East Circle Drive. Drainage: The property generally drains to the north and west. A stormwater pond is proposed to be located south of CSAH 22, west of the roadway that will access CSAH 22. Over half of the pond would be located within the County road right-of-way. At this time, the County's position is that the pond can not be constructed within the right-of-way. The applicant will need to work with the County to purchase this right-of-way or the County could dedicate the right-of-way to the City of Rochester if the City is willing to allow the pond to be constructed in City right-of-way. These options will need to be explored further and resolved. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Wetlands: No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the consultant further examined the site for wetlands. LGU staff has met with the applicants consultant and will be meeting on the site prior to the Planning Commission meeting to determine the presence and location of Wetlands. Public Utilities: Services are, or will be, available to serve this property. A portion of this site will be served by the high-level water system. Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication requirements for this development will need to be satisfied through a combination of land and cash in lieu of land. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Dept. Transportation Div. (see attached) 2. Rochester Public Works (see attached) 3. John Harford, Planning Dept. & Wetlands RGU (see attached) 4. Rochester Park & Recreation (see attached) 5. Olmsted County Public Works (see attached) 6. RPU Water Division (see attached) Report Attachments: 1. Copy of General Development Plan 2. Referral Comments (6) 3. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative Page 3 l% General Development PI• QI May 4, 2000 Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. Land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the "low density residential" land use designation for the property. Most of this property is currently within the City of Rochester and is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential), a portion of the property, on the east side, is currently in Haverhill Township. This part will need to be annexed prior to development. 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. This property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential), with a portion of it still in Haverhill Township believed to be zoned A-4 (Agricultural — Urban Expansion) District. Properties to the south and west are zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and are platted and developed with single family homes. Both the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts are considered "Low Density Residential" and include uses that are compatible. Most of the north and eastern limits of the development abut East Circle DriveICSAH 22. Access to this site will be from East Circle DriveICSAH 22. Modirrcations that will be needed to accommodate this development include installation of right and left turn lanes from CSAH 22and the installation of a permanent median within CSAH 22. Trip generation from this site will need to be limited to 1,300 trips per day or less. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. A trail is also needed either along East Circle Dr.iCSAH 22 or through the GDP property to provide trail connections to future signalized intersections of Northern Valley Drive and Rocky Creek Drive so the pedestrians and bicyclists would have access to future signalized intersections to cross Circle Drive and access the primary bike trail in the corridor. With Century High School to the east and commercial uses, employment locations and existing trails to the west, pedestrian connections from this development to those locations is important. The final location and grade for the trail will need to be coordinated with the City Public Works Department. This development provides for only one ingress and egress, which is located at East Circle DriveICSAH 22. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) requires a second access for any development projected to generate more than 500 trips per day. A second access opening to East Circle DriveICSAH 22 exists to the west of the one shown on the GDP, at a location shared with the abutting church property. Property to the south and west is already platted with single family lots, without public road right -of --way access to the Northern Heights Village property. When the property to the south was i Page 4 General Development Pian May 4, 2000 platted, an access to this property was contemplated but not approved by the Rochester Common Council. The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Modification to allow for development of this parcel, as proposed, with only one access. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The development density is consistent with a Low Density Residential land use designation and the mixture of housing styles and densities is also consistent with the Land Use and Housing Plans. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. Access to this site will be from East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. The applicant and his consultants have worked with staff to look at feasible trip generation limits for this site given the fact that a traffic signal will not be considered as a traffic management solution at this intersection, since signals are likely will be warranted in the future at Northern Valley Drive to the west and Rocky Creek Drive to east An upper trip generation limit of 1300 trips per day has been identified and is noted on the GDP as the proposed intensity for the site; this limit would a allow up to 130 single family detached units or 175 townhome units or some mix of residential dwelling styles between those numerical limits. At this trip generation level the intersection should operate at an acceptable level of service under current and future traffic conditions. Design improvements that will be required to support this level of development include: ➢ An inbound right turn lane should be provided on eastbound Circle Drive ➢ On the northbound (outbound) approach to East Circle Drive two lanes or a wide Rare should be provided to allow right turning traffic to turn at the intersection without delay from left turning vehicles ➢ The applicant will be required to install an inbound left turn lane on westbound Circle Drive ➢ The applicant will be required to share the cost of installing a permanent median with the developer of the property on the north side of Circle Drive Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. Access to this site will be from East Circle Drive/CSAH 22 The applicant and his consultants have worked with staff to look at feasible trip Page 5 General Development Plan May 4, 2000 generation limits for this site given the fact that a traffic signal will not be considered as a traffic management solution at this intersection, since signals are likely will be warranted in the future at Northern Valley Drive to the west and Rocky Creek Drive to east. An upper trip generation limit of 1300 trips per day has been identified and is noted on the GDP as the proposed intensity for the site; this limit would a allow up to 130 single family detached units or 175 townhome units or some mix of residential dwelling styles between those numerical limits. At this trip generation level the intersection should operate at an acceptable level of service under current and future traffic conditions. Design improvements that will be required to support this level of development include: ➢ An inbound right turn lane should be provided on eastbound Circle Drive ➢ On the northbound (outbound) approach to East Circle Drive two lanes or a wide flare should be provided to allow right turning traffic to turn at the intersection without delay from left turning vehicles ➢ The applicant will be required to install an inbound left turn lane on westbound Circle Drive ➢ The applicant will be required to share the cost of installing a permanent median with the developer of the property on the north side of Circle Drive This development provides for only one ingress and egress, which is located at East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) requires a second access for any development projected to generate more than 500 trips per day. A second access opening to East Circle Drive/CSAH 22 exists to the west of the one shown on the GDP, at a location shared with the abutting church property. Properties to the south and west are already platted with single family lots, without public road right-of-way access to the Northern Heights Village property. When the property to the south was platted, an access to this property was contemplated but not approved by the Rochester Common Council. The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Modification to allow for development of this parcel, as proposed, with only one access. 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. A portion of this site will be served by the high-level water system, which will be extended from development to the south. Main level service will be available from the church located adjacent to the west. Sewer is also available to be extended from the church parcel. ^� Page 6 (/,l[ General Development Plan May 4, 2000 Preliminary water system modeling indicates that with the extension of the current intermediate system, fire flows in the entire intermediate area of this property will be below the minimum set by the Fire Prevention Bureau for this type of use. This substandard flow condition however will be eliminated with the completion of the planned Deer Haven project to the north that will complete a connection to the high level system and include the installation of a pressure reducing station. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. A trail is also needed either along East Circle DUCSAH 22 or through the GDP property to provide trail connections to future signalized intersections of Northern Valley Drive and Rocky Creek Drive so the pedestrians and bicyclists would have access to future signalized intersections to cross Circle Drive and access the primary bike trail in the corridor. With Century High School to the east and commercial uses, employment locations and existing trails to the west, pedestrian connections from this development to those locations is important. The final location and grade for the trail will need to be coordinated with the City Public Works Department. 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 for this property is proposed to be handled on -site. A stormwater pond is shown on the GDP that is partially on the developers property and partially within the right-of-way for CSAH 22. The County will not allow this pond to be partially within County right-of-way. The pond will either need to be moved to be entirely on the ABBCO property, or the applicant will need to obtain (purchase) this property from the County for inclusion into this development. Another option is that the County could consider dedicating this right-of-way to the City of Rochester. 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. Specific lot and block layouts are not provided on the GDP but will be reviewed at the time the property is platted. The proposed densities are consistent with the low density residential"land use designation for the property. This development provides for only one ingress and egress, which is located at East Circle Drive/CSAH 22. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) requires a second access for any development projected to generate more than 500 trips per day. A second access opening to East Circle Drive/CSAH 22 exists to the west of the one shown on the GDP, at a location shared with the abutting church property. The topography at this location may make it difficult to design a roadway meeting. Property to the south and west are already platted with single family lots, without public road right-of-way access to the Northern Heights Village property. When the property to the south was platted, an access to this property was contemplated but not approved by the J Page 7 General Development Plan May 4, 2000 Rochester Common Council. The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Modification to allow for development of this parcel, as proposed, with only one access. Summary & Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission previously tabled this application due to issues raised at the April 12, 2000 Commission meeting regarding groundwater recharge concerns and potential Wetlands. Since that time, the applicant and consultant have meet with staff on several occasions to investigate potential Wetlands and to discuss concerns with groundwater recharge. At this time, the GDP has been revised to minimize impact on the groundwater recharge areas. Additional information related to Wetlands will be available at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The consultant and LGU staff will be meeting again on Friday to inspect the property. Please see the attached memo from Terry Lee, County Environmental Services for more information regarding groundwater recharge as it relates to this site. Staff previously, and incorrectly, suggested that the applicant would need to seek a Variance to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) to permit this development to be approved with only one access. The correct method for waiving the requirements of Chapter 64 (specifically 64.127) is through a Design Modification. The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a text amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM)on April 26, 2000 to allow for a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 to be reviewed as part of a General Development Plan application and to allow for a Design Modification to be considered concurrent with other types of applications, such as a GDP. Please see the attached excerpts from the LDM which outline the Design Modification provisions and the memorandum from Richard Freese regarding this request. IF the Commission wishes to proceed with this GDP at this time, staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable criteria: 1. Stormwater management must be provided for this development. The GDP indicates stormwater detention for the proposed development via a detention pond along the south right-of-way of CSAH 22/East Circle Drive, and immediately east of the First Church of the Nazarene property. A large portion of the detention pond structure is shown within the current Olmsted County Right -of -Way Plat No. 56. Written approval from Olmsted County will be required for the pond structure to be built within the right- of-way or the applicant will need to obtain the property or relocate the pond to be outside of the right-of-way. This stormwater pond location has been identified as a site for a regional basin. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 2. Controlled access exists along CSAH 22. Additional controlled access will be required within 200 feet from the intersection of any new street with CSAH 22 at the time of platting. 3. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roads, and will also be required along the south side if CSAH 22. The developer and staff shall mutually determine the location suitable for a pedestrian facility along CSAH 22, prior to submittal of the first preliminary plat for this property. 4. Prior to submittal of the first final plat for this property, the developer shall execute a development agreement with the City for the entire GDP that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, 09 Page 8 fi��t'1/D General Development Plan May 4, 2000 traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 5. A detailed Wetland Delineation report and a replacement plan are required if the applicant intends to fill or drain Wetlands. This GDP shall be revised to identify any Wetlands that may exist on the property. 6. This development is subject to an upper trip generation limit of 1,300 trips per day, which has been noted on the GDP. Design improvements that shall be provided by the developer include: ➢ An inbound right turn lane on eastbound Circle Drive ➢ On the northbound (outbound) approach to East Circle Drive two lanes or a wide flare shall be provided to allow right turning traffic to turn at the intersection without delay from left turning vehicles ➢ An inbound left turn lane on westbound Circle Drive ➢ The applicant will be required to share the cost of installing a permanent median with the developer of the property on the north side of Circle Drive 7. Parkland dedication for this development shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land as outlined in the April 28, 2000 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. Page 9 General Development Plan May 4, 2000 Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan In approving a General Development Plan, the Council shall make each of the following findings: 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. 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. C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans 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. 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. 3. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. 4. 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. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land Page 10 ;(!O General Development Pian U11 May 4, 2000 subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. 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. 60.420 DESIGN MODIFICATIONS: It is the intent of this ordinance to recognize that in certain instances it may be in the public interest to provide an expedient method to modify the site design and public facility standards of this ordinance as applied to certain types of development. 60.421 Purpose: The purpose of the design modification is to permit relief from the strict application of ordinance standards where there is no defined hardship, the proposed modifications will not result in identifiable loss of protection to adjacent properties, or where the proposed development results in an improved design solution to a site design problem and in doing so, still meets the intent of the site design or public facility standards. Guidelines are provided for the approval authority to assess the impact of the proposed design modification. This ordinance also provides for certain types of development identified as incentive development and restricted development which, though not consistent with normal zoning district standards, will be permitted in certain instances. These developments are supported by the Land Use Plan, but may necessitate relaxation of certain design standards in order to meet site constraints. Design modifications will be considered as part of the normal review of these developments, subject to standards established in this section. 60.422 Review of Design Modifications: Design modifications will be processed through either the Type I or Type 11 review procedures, according to the guidelines established in this section. Where a design modification request accompanies a permit or certificate request that requires processing through a Type III review procedure, the request shall be considered by the Commission and Council as part of the Type III review. 60.423 Guidelines for Approval: The following paragraphs identify specific policies or standards for each type of design modification permitted by the Ordinance. The approval authority shall consider these policies or standards in making the findings to approve or deny a request for a design modification. In addition, the following standards shall apply to all requests for Type 11 Design Modifications: 1) The burden shall be upon the applicant to show the design solution will result in an improved use of land while preserving the purposes for which the original regulation was enacted. 2) Any such modification shall consider the relationship of the development to its surroundings and shall avoid creating any adverse effects due to noise, traffic circulation, building height or bulk or lack of screening. 9 Page 11 General Development Plan May 4, 2000 0 02(1 60.424 Specific Policies: The following paragraphs contain the guidelines applicable to specific types of design modifications which shall be considered by the approval authority. 9) Public Facility Standards: a) Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 may be approved as part of the review of any land subdivision permit or final plat where the applicant can show by reason of exceptional topography or any other physical condition that strict compliance with these regulations would cause undue hardship or that such relief would not be a detriment to the public welfare and would not impair the intent and purpose of the regulations. (NOTE., The Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a text amendment to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual on April 26, 2000 to allow for a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 to be reviewed as part of a General Development Plan application and to allow for a Design Modification to be considered concurrent with other types of applications, such as a GDP.) 0-1 Memorandum To: Mitzi Baker, Senior Planner CC: Charlie Reiter, Mike Nigbur From: Richard W. Freese, City Enginner Date: May 5, 2000 Re: Northern Hills Village GDP #152 I have received and reviewed a request for a design modification for the Northern Hills Village GDP #152 under section 64.127 of the City of Rochester Land Development Manual from Wade DuMond of Yaggy Colby Associates representing the applicant, Abby Tabatabai. The applicant's request suggests that the design modification could be recommended as necessary by reason of the natural features or existing development. I acknowledge that there are limitations on the applicant's ability to access adjacent existing development. I also acknowledge that the natural features of the property limit the construction of a second access to serve the property. It is may opinion that a design modification should not be issued for this development based on these reasons. However, I do believe that a design modification could be issued for the Northern Hills Village GDP #152 if such modification can be demonstrated to be consistent with adopted access management plans and principles and does not create a safety hazard or increase maintenance costs to the public. An analysis completed by the Senior Transportation Planner with the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department, Charlie Reiter, has determined that if the development density and corresponding trip generation is limited to 1,200 average daily trips, then the single access serving the Northern Hills Village GDP #152 is: 1. consistent with current access management plans and principles established by Olmsted County when they acquired right-of-way and access control for CSAH 22 (East Circle Drive), and 2. should not create a safety hazard for the users of the public roadways since the analysis indicates that there should be sufficient gaps in the CSAH 22 mainline traffic to allow turning movements into and out of the development at this level of development, and e45, 2000 the availability of an adequate number of safe gaps for traffic entering CSAH 22 would be further enhanced if in the future traffic signals are warranted and installed on CSAH 22 at the Rocky Creek Drive and Northern Valley Drive intersections with CSAH22, which have been identified as the potential locations that may have a sufficient level of approach traffic to warrant signalization. However, if in the future signals are not warranted at either of these two intersections it still appears based on the analysis done by Mr. Reiter that gaps in the mainline traffic flow on CSAH 22 should be sufficient for access to and from Northern Hills Village. Therefore, based on the traffic analysis for the Northern Hills Village GDP #152 as performed by Charlie Reiter, I would recommend, under the provisions of section 64.127 of the Land Development Manual, a design modification to allow up to 1,200 average daily trips through a single access for the Northern Hills Village GDP #152 because such modification is consistent with current access management plans and principles identified for CSAH 22 and it does not appear to create a safety hazard or increase maintenance costs to the public. A comprehensive traffic management study of the CSAH 22 corridor is currently underway and based on the findings of that study, expected to be completed in late summer of 2000, there may be further recommended actions that Olmsted County will consider to insure the safe operation of this access point in the future. A ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/5/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur REVISED 511100 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4f° Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the revised application for General Development Plan #152,on the ABBCO Company (Northern Heights Village) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Note: Comments in addition to Public Works comments dated 3130100, are indicated in bold, while deleted comments are indicated with stfikeihreugh. 1. The City Engineer has recommended a design modification pursuant to Section 64.127 of the LDM. if the development Pmeoseofor this nroeF,y 2. 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 ROW of East Circle Dr, and immediately east of the First Church of the Nazarene property. A large portion of the detention pond structure is shown within the current Olmsted County R.O.W. Plat No. 56. Written approval from Olmsted County will be required for the pond structure to be built within the R.O.W. Plat. This stormwater pond location has been identified as a site for a regional basin. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 3. There is existing controlled access along East Circle Drive with the exception of the proposed street access, and at the location of the Church's driveway access. Additional controlled access is required within 200 feet from the intersection of any new street with East Circle Drive. C:ITEMPVGDP152 Revised 5-OO.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/5/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur a15 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 4. Pedestrian facilities, constructed concurrent with the development, will be required along both sides of all new public roads, and along the south side of East Circle Drive. The developer and staff shall mutually determine the location suitable for a pedestrian facility along East Circle Drive, prior to platting the property. 5. Sanitary sewer & water service lines will be required to be extended to the adjacent property lines. 6. Easements will be required for off -site utilities, if applicable. 7. Specific routing of utility lines will be reviewed further during the platting stages. 8. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure to serve this development. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The 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. •:• J9288 'Water Tower in Northern Heights Area" @ $1,021.46 plus 7.5% interest from 5/4/98. ❖ Stormwater Management Fee @ $1983.50 per acre, for any areas of this development where on -site detention is not provided. 4• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 6 Street Name Signs 1 Street Ends Sign 1 Trucks Prohibited Signs C:ITEMPtGD13152 Revised 5-00.doc fv SROCHESTER PARK AND FSREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 28, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning FROM: Denny Stotz SUBJECT: Northern Heights Village GDP #152 * REVISED' Parkland dedication for the development is estimated to be approximately 4.88 acres. The exact dedication requirement can be calculated once the lot layout is submitted. Dedication to be a combination of land and cash in lieu of land. The dedication of the two park areas will qualify for approximately 3.0 acres of the dedication -requirement: T-he-- — final determination of how much of the land qualifies as meeting dedication standards can be calculated when the applicant files grading plans for the area. N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATIO14\NE 2895\NORTHERN HGHTS VILLAGE GDP.DOC April 6, 2000 Mitzi Baker Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mitzi: The Public Works Department has reviewed ABBCO Company (Northern Heights Village a17 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285.8231 )evelopment Plan #152 on the and has the followinq comments: • Developer should purchase land where detention pond is proposed or the County may dedicate right of way to the City of Rochester. • Pedestrian facility along CSAH 22 East will be difficult to construct due to the terrain. • Right and left turn lanes will be required from CSAH 22 East at this median opening. Sincerely, Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:ss Oengindo6pla none. doc G Rwe. Administration AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, 2000 TO: Mitzi Baker, Planning Department FR: Terry Lee, County Environmental Services RE: Northern Heights Village General Development Plan I have met twice with the developer and consultants from Yaggy Colby to review the hydrogeology of the GDP site. We reviewed the available information regarding the extent of the Decorah Shale at the site and its importance in groundwater recharge for the City of Rochester. We also reviewed the structural problems that have been encountered in other areas of the City in this same hydrogeologic setting. In response to this information the GDP was revised to better avoid the area where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock (the area where groundwater recharge occurs). The consultant and developer have also presented a proposal for reinfiltrating the groundwater as near the point of contact as is feasible through infiltration trenches. After reviewing this additional information with the applicant, I believe that they have either addressed the principal concerns regarding groundwater recharge disruption or will be able to mitigate the impact through the reinfiiltration method proposed. If you have any further questions, call me. rpm we pledge, we deliver May 2, 2000 Rochester-Ohnsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED General Development Plan #152 by ABBCO to be known as Northern Heights Village. The property is located south of East Circle Dr. NE and north of Glendale Hills. Dear Ms, LaPalm: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. This property is within both the Northeast High Level and the Intermediate Level Water System Areas. Connections will be necessary to both systems in the development of this property. The Intermediate Level service is available approximately 50' off this property near the northeast corner of the church property. The High Level system is available to this property north of Beverly Lane NE. The break between systems should be placed at the approximate elevation of 1170. 2. Preliminary water system modeling indicates that with the extension of the current intermediate system, fire flows in the entire intermediate area of this property will be below the minimum set by the Fire Prevention Bureau for this type of use. This substandard flow condition however will be eliminated with the completion of the planned Deer Haven project to the north that will complete a connection to the high level system and include the installation of a pressure reducing station. 3. The easterly private drive as shown may present a problem with fire protection depending on where the last fire hydrant is located. 4. Water main networking is critical in this area to maintain fire protection and domestic water quality, which includes cul-de-sac street looping wherever practical. 5. 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, 064A RL&I Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-290-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Sao FROM: Planning Department Transportation Division City GDP 152 Under Section 61.520 of the Land Development Manual the proposed ABBCO Co development is subject to the requirements for Traffic Impact Studies due to the fact that it is proposed to solely use direct access to an expressway (East Circle Drive) and has the potential under the R-2 zoning to concentrate more than 1500 trips through a single access point. The applicant and his consultants have worked with staff to look at feasible trip generation limits for this site given the fact that a traffic signal will not be considered as a traffic management solution at this intersection, since signals are likely will be warranted in the future at Northern Valley Drive to the west and Rocky Creek Drive to east. An upper trip generation limit of 1300 trips per day has been identified and is noted on the GDP as the proposed intensity for the site; this limit would a allow up to 130 single family detached units or 175 townhome units or some mix of residential dwelling styles between those numerical limits. At this trip generation level the intersection should operate at an acceptable level of service under current and future traffic conditions. Design improvements that will be required to support this level of development include: ➢ An inbound right turn lane should be provided on eastbound Circle Drive ➢ On the northbound (outbound) approach to East Circle Drive two lanes or a wide flare should be provided to allow right turning traffic to turn at the intersection without delay from left turning vehicles ➢ The applicant will be required to install an inbound left turn lane on westbound Circle Drive ➢ The applicant will be required to share the cost of installing a permanent median with the developer of the property on the north side of Circle Drive The GDP indicates location of a bike trail along the frontage of the property on Circle Drive. The primary trail system for this section of East Circle Drive is targeted to be constructed on the north side of the roadway; however, staff supports the proposed trail accommodations and feels these are needed to help connect this property to the intersections of Northern Valley Drive to the west and Rocky Creek Drive to the east so the pedestrians and bicyclists would have access to future signalized intersections to cross Circle Drive and access the primary bike trail in the corridor. The applicant should work with the Public Works Dept to establish the grade and final location for the trail. Staff would also recommend that the applicant consult with the Public Works Department to identify if accommodations for a bus stop should be provided. While bus service is not currently provided on this section of Circle Drive, we would expect that as further development occurs in the corridor sufficient density will be developed to support bus service in the future. We would not expect a bus to circulate within the development, however, and thus an appropriate location which may not be directly adjacent to the site should be identified. ENGINEERS A RC�JJ��11 j�CS � SURVEYORS V- March 15, 2000 Honorable Mayor and City Council c/o Mitzi Baker Rochester/Olmsted Planning 2122 SE Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Northern Heights Village GDP Trail Thoroughfare on East Circle Drive LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Dear Mayor and Council: We respectfully request that the trail thoroughfare staff has called for along the south side of East Circle Drive (as shown on the GDP being reviewed) not be required, because of unique topographical conditions. The topographic conditions along East Circle Drive adjacent to this development are quite steep in some locations. The first area that causes problems, on the east edge of the GDP and partially off the property, has a low area that East Circle Drive crosses that is almost 30 feet lower than the road elevation. Olmsted County Public Works has informed us on other projects that they do not want trails on the county right-of-way. In order to keep the trail off county right-of-way, and away from the drive lane, an approximate 200 X 100 foot area, with about 15 feet of fill in the deepest part, must be filled in order to have a moderate trail slope. This area also has existing homes, and constructing the trail through private property could be a problem A second area is north of the most easterly cul-de-sac and has a 30% slope for about 130 feet. This second area would require approximately 6 feet of cut off the top of the knob for 140 feet and fill for over 200 feet with a 10 foot depth just to maintain a 15% slope on the trail, and even this slope is too steep. It would also require fill within the county right-of-way and some modification to the roadway ditch. PLANNERS ROCHESTER OFFICI 717 Third Avenue 5 The third area is at the intersection of the proposed access road with East Circle Drive. Because Rochester, MN 5590 of the amount of fill needed to bring this access road up to the existing East Circle Drive elevation, the side slopes down to the existing drainage area will be over 30% and close to 30 feet in elevation change. 507-288-646 Clearly the slopes in this area are a barrier to building a trail along the right-of-way in these Fax 507-288-505 locations and consequently along the entire GDP. We would appreciate your consideration in eliminating the trail and the high costs placed upon a trail along the south side of East Circle Drive. If you do feel the trail is necessary, pease consider participating financially to offset the extra grading costs in these areas. Sincerely, YAGGY C.OLpBY ASSOCIATES Wade Du Mond Project Designer WCD YCA #5768 LD2 MASON CITY OFFICI 515-424-634 aaa NORTHERN HEIGHTS VILLAGE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 03/15/00 YCA #5768 LD2 Northern Heights Village is approximately 49.8 acres with East Circle Drive (County Road No. 22) to the northeast, Northern Slopes Sixth Subdivision to the west, and Glendale Hills Subdivision and Northern Heights North Second Subdivision to the south. The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan (GDP) in accordance with Appendix B E-3. a) Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of the applicant, may create potential problems in street, drainage, public utilities or building design and construction, and how these problems will be investigated further or engineered to overcome the limitations. The attached GDP shows the area under consideration. The Olmsted County Soil Survey indicates shallow bedrock on a majority of the site. The developer is familiar with the bedrock situation, given that he is constructing the townhomes in Northern Heights North under the same bedrock conditions. Steep slopes are also on the site, and we are keeping these steeper areas mostly in the back yard of lots where less or no grading will need to be performed. As indicated by the street alignments, we are avoiding these steeper areas as much as possible. Soil borings will be completed during the engineering phases to determine subsurface conditions and the bedrock depth in the areas of construction. No hydric soils are indicated in the Soil Survey. A visual survey of the property was performed in 1999, and no wetlands were observed. b) Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs. The storm drainage does not appear to cause problems that will result in the increase of normal costs imposed. c) Identification ofpotential off -site drainage problems. The applicant intends to construct a storm water facility adjacent to Olmsted County R.O.W. Plat No. 43 (East Circle Drive) to provide storage for the increase of runoff caused by this development. There should be no problems with off -site drainage created by this development. 0 • da3 Northern Heights Village General Development Plan Page 2 d) e) �i Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration. A majority of the middle cul-de-sac (nearest to Beverly Lane NE to the south) will be served by the high level water system which is accessed from the water main stubbed off of Beverly Lane NE in Glendale Hills Second Subdivision. The lower portions of the site (generally to the north, east and west) will be served by the intermediate level water system from the water main that is located on the First Church of the Nazarene site to the northwest. Sanitary sewer service for the entire site is also located on the First Church of the Nazarene site. The Deer Haven site, directly across East Circle Drive from Northern Heights Village, is in the design process to extend sewer and water along the north side of East Circle Drive. If for some reason that project does not proceed, a pressure reducing valve will be needed at the location of the connection of the high and intermediate level water mains in this development. Identification ofpossible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of the applicant. The areas of steeper slopes will be avoided where possible. A majority of these areas are shown on the GDP in the rear of lots and will be graded as minimally as possible. Where development encroaches into the steeper slopes, erosion control measures will be incorporated into the grading plan during final design. A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. The development is proposed to begin at the intersection with East Circle Drive and extend to the west to bring in the water and sanitary sewer service off of the First Church of the Nazarene site. The short cul-de-sac to the west will be developed next, and the two southern cul-de-sacs will follow. The cul-de-sac and triangular area to the east most likely will be the last phase, but it may be developed in conjunction with an earlier phase. Page Ib City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April I2, 2000 7. Staff recommends tha the applicant replace all trees removed that have a 4-inch diameter or larger, at a p 'nt 2 feet off the ground. Each tree should be replaced with two trees, once canopy fr\ane ne understory tree, as identified in the Appendix D of the Land Development The applicant will need to conduct an inventory of trees to be removed for thline construction and must submit that information along with the gradina plareplanting plan. .do Mr. Quinn moved to approve Variance suggested findings. Mr. Brede secom Findings: 1. Extraordinary conditions or circ stanc protection lands (water surfac drainages allowable buildable acreage 1.93 acres. Cendal Group, based on staff - which carried 8-0. The 2 lots contain 2.23 acres of resource ls, and steep slopes) that reduce the 2. The variance is not neces ry to permit the rea nable use of the property. It is zoned B-1 and could be ilt to other B-1 standa s and uses. 3. The variance will not detrimental to the public w fare or materially injurious to other property due t he location and design of the Tiding, underground parking, landscape area and ufferyard requirements, and avo ance of grading and construction on at/ndufferyard hillside abutting the river. T applicant is proposing an Incentive develo ent that may minimize impacts on th surrounding properties. 4. The applicant s not provided information to substantiat that the request is the minimum nec nary to provide for a reasonable economic se. The extraordinary conditions a not due to the applicant's actions but are pa of the site constraints. Mr. Suk called a break and reconvened the meeting after 10 minutes. General Development Plan #152 to be known as Northern Heights Village. The applicant. ABBCO Company. Is proposing to develop approximately 49.8 acres of land that Is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). The development proposes public roadways. including four cul-de-sacs, with one access to East Circle Drive. The development may consist of single family homes. townhomes and/or multi -family, consistent with the R-2 zoning district. The property is located along the south side of East Circle Drive, north of the n l_....1_1_ Llill.. --A U-1..66.. ..,.6.1 i..i..L -- Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated April 7, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby stated there are some issues related to this development staff feels need to be discussed further, involving the stormwater pond, the trail, and the second access, before action is taken on the GDP. He noted that if the Commission wishes to proceed with the GDP, staff recommends 7 conditions contained in the staff report. Page 17 City Planning and Zoning Conurussion Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2000 Mr. Werven asked if the Council wasn't interested in connecting to Glendale Hills when it was platted. Mr. Nigbur explained that when Glendale Hills was platted, there was a cul-de-sac that was to be a through road planned to serve both properties. The developers chose to make that into a cul-de-sac and staff recommended keeping the access point, but the Council allowed the developer to close that access point off. Mr. Werven commented that now exists what is not wanted —neighborhoods that are not connecting. dos Representing the developer, Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He handed out a letter that they sent to Mike Sheehan at the beginning of the year. Mr. Dumond explained they held a predevelopment meeting in January and drafted the letter to Mr. Sheehan regarding the pond that is part of the County road. He stated they wanted to purchase it in the beginning, but were unaware that was an option until they received the staff report. Mr. Dumond explained there have been a number of meetings where they have tried to work out staffs concems, and he addressed them: Stormwater pond — Mr. Dumond stated there is a pond that is needed for this property and some downstream problems on the Domaille property. He commented they don't mind whether they buy it or whether the City accepts it and they build a pond on that piece of property; either way, they know they have to provide the pond. Secondary access — Mr. Dumond stated the connection that had been planned through this area, which was wanted by both the owner of the property in question and staff, was decided against by the Council. He pointed out there is another small access point, which he pointed out, that is shared with the Church site. In order to get to a point to connect with that road, because of the grades, they would have to build a road to a certain point in order to meet City standards. They could increase the slope if it was a private road, but they would not recommend that grade for any road. If they do the road, they would not be able to have the pond. Mr. Dumond noted that according to Public Works, the pond is the bigger issue. He stated they would like to request a variance for the one access based on the fact that it is the only one available because the other was removed by the City Council's request. Mr. Dumond addressed the conditions, and stated they agree with conditions, and pointed out that on condition number 6, the fourth arrow, he feels it should say "median access cut," as opposed to "median." He noted that was planned for the Deerhaven development and has been approved by Charlie Reiter. Ms. Petersson asked about the trees. Mr. Dumond stated that because of the steep areas, they are limited to where they can put the streets. He explained they are staying out of the steeper side slopes so they can keep the trees. He pointed out an area where they will have to do grading on top of the knob. Ms. Petersson stated there will be a lot of erosion if they do too much grading. Mr. Werven asked if the applicant and owner asked for the access to Glendale Hills. f,(oage is (/ V City is and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2000 Mr. Dumond stated that at the time this issue was before the City Council, it was argued by staff and the property owner to keep that access. Mr. Burke asked if they bring the trail system into the subdivision and run the trail along the roadway, would it still be required to have the 10' paved path as opposed to a normal 5' sidewalk. Mr. Nigbur explained the location of the section of the roadway where they wouldn't want the trail. He pointed out a couple options, and stated they would like to keep the path behind the homes and it would be a 10' path. Mr. Quinn asked if they are asking for a variance on the second access right now. Mr. Dumond responded not at this time. The developer owns another lot that they tried to see if they could bring access through, but it would not be feasible. Mr. Burke asked if they had a four -lane access to Circle Drive, would it eliminate the stacking problem. Mr. Nigbur explained they would have a right turn movement out and a left turn movement out, with one inbound lane. Ron Brown, 1119 Glendale Hills Drive NE, addressed the Commission. He stated that when that cul-de-sac was closed, it created a problem getting to the park from Glendale. Mr. Nigbur noted that even though the roadway access was closed, there is a sidewalk access so that pedestrians from Glendale can reach the park. He pointed this out on the map. Johann Marsland, member of the Board of the Church of the Nazarene, addressed the Commission. He stated they are excited about this residential development going in near to their location. He noted they do have a couple of concerns: The watermain service will come to this development from the watermain on their property, and they would like to know exactly where that will be because they are planning to put in a large area of playground equipment and they don't want to have to dig in that area. Mr. Marsland explained they are concerned about the treeline behind their property and that if there isn't some sort of retaining wall on the new development, there may be some erosion onto their property. Mr. Suk suggested he speak to Mr. Dumond regarding these concerns. Mr. Nigbur explained that the watermain is in the right-of-way of the County roadway. He noted there may be an easement on the Church property, and he suggested Mr. Marsland call him. Mr. Marsland also expressed concerns about traffic pulling onto CR 22 in the morning that may not be seen because of the sun. Flo Sandok, 1516 13"' Avenue NE, addressed the Commission. She expressed environmental concerns that would become problems if this property were to develop as planned. Ms. Sandok spoke of a plan for this property that was prepared by architect Todd Drescher that included a cluster development with lower density and more green space. She noted the property will be more valuable if the trees remain. She also spoke of concerns with drainage, access, and the Page 19 City Planning and Zoning Co asion Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2000 • 9�0112 / fact that this is a water recharge area. Ms. Sandok commented that she would like an Environmental Impact Statement be required to give them the opportunity to see how to address the special conditions of this property. Terry Lee, Water Resources Coordinator for Olmsted County, addressed the Commission. He pointed out the recharge of the entire area and explained the routing of the water. Mr. Lee noted there will be high water table conditions on the site and there will be significant areas where the soils will be saturated at the surface. He recommended a wetland delineation be required for a portion of the property and stated that a lesser density would be beneficial for the recharge functions. Mr. Werven asked him to explain how a higher density would affect recharge. Mr. Werven explained that seeps would be disrupted by construction activity and development of infrastructure, and regrading. If they redirect it to the stormwater system or the sanitary sewer, the cost for the City would be substantial. He noted that some things, based on a study they are finishing at this time, could be done on -site such as sub -drain systems. The higher density would mean they would disrupt a lot more of the groundwater recharge flows and there would be an increase the amount of herbicides and fertilizers used on the lawns. Mr. Lee stated that he interviewed seven of the eight people in the City who do drainage systems installations and basement foundation repairs, and all of them identified sites like this as being likely to have basement water problems as, well as structural problems. Mr. Werven asked when Mr. Lee gets involved in a project like he is tonight. Mr. Lee explained that the recharge area phenomenon was identified in 1988 by the US Geological Survey and the study was completed in 1990 and for the first 5 or 6 years they focused their attention on water sampling above and below these recharge areas to try and determine if they are seeing a large amount of degregation. He noted that in the last six months to a year they have started to investigate enough to be able to address these sorts of issues. Mr. Werven asked if he routinely receives the packets for the City Planning & Zoning Commission meetings. Mr. Lee stated he does not routinely receive the packets, but he does consult with staff if they have concerns. John Harford of the Planning Staff and Floyd Whitaker of the SWCD didn't anticipate finding wetlands on the site and the consultant also noted they hadn't seen wetlands. He explained that he saw the packet and realized it was a situation where they would have the recharge setting. Mr. Lee stated they are close to completing a study that examined areas like this and they have developed two model general development plans to determine how to develop with the least impact. He noted the study will be completed in May and a presentation can be made to the Planning Commission. Mr. Burke asked if it is feasible to develop this land without jeopardizing some of the features. Mr. Lee stated the development with the proposed density would affect the recharge. Mr. Burke asked if it could be developed without major impact if changes are made. A age 20 ity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 12, 2000 Mr. Lee answered yes. He explained that development can occur in areas like this, but he would recommend less density. He gave the example of Greystone, which was developed in the same setting and at an appropriate density. With no others wishing to address the Commission, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Petersson moved to deny General Development Plan #152, to be known as Northern Heights Village, because of the environmental concerns. Mr. Werven seconded the motion. Mr. Werven stated that it may well be that the Council, in their wisdom, recognized this problem a number of years ago and that is why they closed off the access. Ms. Petersson commented that there wouldn't be nearly as many people getting in and out of this development with a lower density. Mr. Werven stated that Mr. Lee's information is overwhelming that the density proposed is not appropriate for this area. Ms. Petersson feels the project should go back to the drawing board Mr. Svenby pointed out that if the Commission denies this, it still goes on to the City Council. He noted another option is that the Commission could recommend this be continued and have the developer and consultant meet with Mr. Lee and Planning staff to work out other options for the property. Ms. Petersson asked if the Commission can request an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for this property. Mr. Svenby stated he will look into that. Ms. Petersson stated she feels strongly this should not be approved the way it is. Mr. Burke agreed. Ms. Petersson amended her motion to continue General Development Plan #152, to be known as Northern Heights Village, to the May 10, 2000 meeting. Mr. Werven seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 8-0. Mr. Slaver commented that it is dismaying thatAie,kind of information came in at the 11°i hour. Sandok 1516 13th Avenue NE - Rochester, MN 55906.r (507) 288-1.149 C�� arcd �ez.•JH v`T' ry a-K �e J 0- �. j2 w� n, FW MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER M955904 Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN, Members Present: Mr. Jim Sulk, Chair; Ms. Mary Petersson, Vice Chair; Mr. James Burke; Mr. Ardell Brede; Mr. Gerry Werven; Mr. Michael Quinn; Ms. Christine Schultze Members Absent: Ms. Diane McGowan; Mr. Randy Staver Staff Present: Ms. Suzanne LaPalm; Mr. Brent Svenby; Ms. Mitzi A. Baker; Ms. Theresa Fogarty; Mr. Greg Wise Other City Staff Present: Mr. Mike Nigbur ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS: Ms. Schultze ated that she thought a condition that in ded canopy trees for some of the isl sin the Wal-Mart lot was part oft otion for approval, and she asked to hay a minutes amZdyeat. Ms. Petersson made otion tutes of April 26, 2000 as amended above. Mr. B e sec. The minutes from April 26, 2000 were appro dunended above. Mr. Svenby explained that th licant has requested that Land Use Plan Amendment #00-05 and endm t to GDP #136 be tabled to the June 14, 2000 meeting. Ms. Schultzeaw6ved to table Land Use an Amendment #00-05 and Amendme o GDP #136 by Quinstar, LL to the June 14, 2000 meeting. Ms. Petelsson seconded the motion. The on carried 7-0. Msi Schultze made a motion to approve the age a with the above change. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. Th trhQtion carried unanimously. CONTINUED ITEMS: General Development Plan #152 to be known as Northern Heiqhts VIIIage and Desion } Modification #00-02. The applicant, ABBCO_Company, is proposing to develop r approximately 49.6 acres of land that is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). The ' development proposes public roadways, including four cul-de-sacs, access to East Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 ;�3I Circle Drive. The development may consist of single family homes, townhomes and/or multi -family, consistent with the R-2 zoning district. The applicant is also requesting approval of a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual allow for this property to be developed with only one access. The property is located along the south side of East Circle Drive, north of the Glendale Hills and Northern Heights subdivisions. Ms. Baker presented the revised staff report, dated May 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that the area containing wetlands will be the last area developed and the applicant will have their final delineation done by that time. She stated that staff feels comfortable going forward at this time and has asked for a revised GDP showing the preliminary wetland boundaries, so that they are identified on record. She noted that a memo from Terry Lee is in the packet which states he is comfortable moving forward with the GDP. Ms. Baker stated that staff is recommending approval subject to seven conditions. She pointed out that at the previous meeting she mentioned that a variance was needed to only have one access, but it should be a design modification, and the Commission will need to recommend whether they feel a design modification is appropriate for this property. Mr. Werven asked about the differences between staffs recommendation and, conditions from the report in April. Ms. Baker explained the changes in the conditions concern the ponds and the second access. She noted that approval was recommended at that time of the original staff report, also. Mr. Werven noted the wetland issue may have been missed if it wasn't for Mr. Lee and someone from the neighborhood coming forward. He asked how to ensure catching issues like this in the future. Ms. Baker pointed out that the issue regarding wetlands would have been known before the platting stage. She explained that the groundwater recharge issue is a dynamic issue that is still being studied, with new information still coming in. She stated that when the ground water recharge study is completed, recommendations can be formulated on how to identify properties with ground water recharge concerns and how to appropriately develop those properties to minimize the impact and protect the City's groundwater. Once the study is completed, there may be some additions to the GDP criteria or the City's comprehensive plan may be amended. Mr. Werven asked how the Commission can ensure awareness of these areas until that is study done. Ms. Baker stated it will be hit and miss until these areas and criteria are identified. If Mr. Lee is available and willing to review development proposals to let staff know if they are within recharge areas, that would be helpful. She pointed out that at this time, there are no specific criteria for GDPs related to protecting groundwater recharge areas. Ms. Schultze suggested the Commission make a request to Mr. Lee for a general presentation regarding the work that is being done. She also suggested that proposals covering the areas he is studying be reviewed by him. a3Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Comnilssion Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 Mr. Wise noted that the geological atlas is also a good tool to alert staff to some of these recharge areas. Mr. Burke asked for clarification between the 1200 average daily trips that Mr. Freese is recommending and the 1300 indicated by staff. Ms. Baker explained that Mr. Freese' recommendation is meant to be consistent with Mr. Reiter's, which showed that 1300 trips per day would be a comfortable limit for this property. She spoke with Mr. Freese and he did not object to having his number changed. Mr. Burke asked if there is a requirement for subdrains when there are soil conditions like this. Mr. Nigbur stated that is the builder's option. Representing the applicant, Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated they met with staff and Terry Lee a couple times. He presented a map showing the Decorah Shale and recharge areas. Mr. Dumond explained they moved one of the roads slightly to address Mr. Lee's concerns. He presented a map that shows the wetlands and pointed out an area where the wetlands are difficult to identify. He pointed out an area the Army Corps of Engineers is going to require they go back in three years to do another delineation. Mr. Dumond noted this will be the last area to be developed. He commented they will also meet with Mr. Stotz to see how much more parkland he requests. Ms. Schultze asked if the wetlands are in the recharge area. Mr. Dumond explained they are at the bottom of the recharge areas. He further explained that it is typical to have this type of soil at 1130' to 1170' elevation. The determination of this type of soil is usually made at the preliminary plat stage, and the developments then are tiled. Mr. Dumond stated they are in agreement with the conditions, and made a clarification to the 4'� arrow on number 6, adding the word "crossing" after median. He explained that the 1300 trips per day figure that Mr. Reiter presented is 30% below the number that warrants a traffic signal. Mr. Dumond made himself available for questions. Ms. Schultze asked how the tiling of developments with similar soils has worked. Mr. Dumond explained that when the tile is correctly installed, there usually are no problems. He reviewed the areas that would have subdrains With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Petersson moved to approve General Development Plan #152, to be known as Northern Heights Village, along with Design Modification #00-02, with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Conditions: 1. Stormwater management must be provided for this development. The GDP indicates stormwater detention for the proposed development via a detention pond along the south right-of-way of CSAfi 22/East Circle Drive, and immediately east of the First Church of the Nazarene property. A large portion of the detention pond structure is shown within the current Olmsted County Right -of -Way Plat No. 56. Written approval Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 a35 from Olmsted County will be required for the pond structure to be built within the right-of-way or the applicant will need to obtain the property or relocate the pond to be outside of the right-of-way. This stormwafer pond location has been identified as a site for a regional basin. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 2. Controlled access exists along CSAH 22. Additional controlled access will be required within 200 feet from the intersection of any new street with CSAH 22 at the time of platting. 3. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roads, and will also be required along the south side if CSAH 22. The developer and staff shall mutually determine the location suitable for a pedestrian facility along CSAH 22, prior to submittal of the first preliminary plat for this property. 4. Prior to submittal of the first final plat for this property, the developer shall execute a development agreement with the City for the entire GDP that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwafer management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 5. A detailed Wetland Delineation report and a replacement plan are required if the applicant intends to fill or drain Wetlands. This GDP shalt be revised to identify any Wetlands that may exist on the property. 6. This development is subject to an upper trip generation limit of 1,300 trips per day, which has been noted on the GDP. Design improvements that shall be provided by the developer include: ➢ An inbound right turn lane on eastbound Circle Drive ➢ On the northbound (outbound) approach to East Circle Drive two lanes or a wide flare shall be provided to allow right turning traffic to turn at the intersection without delay from left turning vehicles ➢ An inbound left turn lane on westbound Circle Drive ➢ The applicant will be required to share the cost of installing a permanent median crossing with the developer of the property on the north side of Circle Drive 7. Parkland dedication for this development shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land as outlined in the April 28, 2000 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a.35' DATE: 06-05-00 AGENDA SECTION: -- —ILIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING PLANNING t i tM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00.14 by Quinstar LLP to be known as Pinewood Meadows 3rtl Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 30.25 acres of land into four outlots and 23 single family lots and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for new public roadways. The property is located east of 11'h Avenue SE and Southport Subdivision No. 3 and south of 281' Street SE and includes the extension of 20 Avenue SE. May30,2000 y� G� 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: M^ REPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty, Planner The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 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 Plat shall be revised to: • Change the designation of 03e Street SE' to •29O Street SEW and confirm that the roadway is in alignment with proposed roadway extension to the west, as identified on the GDP. • Provide a 10' utility easement along the right-of-way frontage of Outlots A and B; or label Outlots A and B as having Drainage and Utility Easements over the entire lots. • Locate hydrants per the attached memo from the Rochester Fire Department, dated April 30, 2000. • The easement located between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 needs to be a minimum 20' wide and must be labeled as both a Drainage and Utility easement. + The 20' easement located along the north side of Lot 1, Block 1, shall be labeled as both a Drainage and Utility easement 2. A drainage easement shall be provided from the pond outlet to the south property line and the developer needs to clarify what impacts, if any, to the existing surface waterway (over a portion of Outlot D, Block 3 & 4) will result from site grading for this development. Dedication of additional drainage easements may be required. The proposed pond site may need to be enlarged to accommodate regional storm water flows, the applicant will need to provide additional details regarding the pond designlsize relating to the for shape proposed for Block 2. 3. Outlot A and Outlot B shall be dedicated to the City. 4. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of the entire frontage of all public roads, including the frontages of Outlot A and B, on 201 Avenue SE. 5. The Applicant shall meet the Parkland Dedication requirements via deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at such time as the park is accessed via street or the Park Department wishes to begin development of land. Additional dedication will be required as lots are platted in Outlot D and Outlot C. 6. Construction access shalt be limited to 11m Avenue SE, and not through the existing South Park Subdivision. COUNCIL ACTION: Mation Second by: Page 2 n� RCA G( May 30, 2000 B. Prior to recording the Final Plat documents (Mylars), the applicant shall execute easements fro and subsequen construct a temporary turn around at the southerly end of 20'" Avenue SE. 9. This plat does not include the dedication of right-of-way consistent with the approved General Development Plan (i.e. within Outlots C and D). The Applicant shall re -plat Outiots C and Din the future to dedicate R-O-W for these roads upon formal request by the City, whichever is first. Mr. Geoff Griffen, GGG Engineering, representing the applicant, stated they agree with all the conditions. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Preliminary Plat 00-14, to be known as Pinewood Meadows 3rd Subdivision, with the staff -suggested conditions. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Department Recommendation: 1. See attached staff report, dated May 4, 2000. Council Action Needed: The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the fifteen findings for denial in paragraph 61.225 can be made. Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated May 4,2000. 2. Minutes of the May 10, 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 p.m. on Monday, June 5, 2000, in the Council Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center. 7, GGG Engineering I Z --�c22,, i � J �ya��j 3 .; rl fit. { Gp��>.1�: � 6 k-k ■ 6gF y�� Aca ao � =.a os�o =� 7@�mfalull €k.:3�=14 rid > ei�l S E Lf' 1 iy! SOUMPARK T'a'0 i UNPLATCiD i•�3 a3 4�"g; C]� CSfit}lC hl Fii..ta a 1 / aramtaart' .• toonm'�r _. _ .pg3'-, ii ti ti Ir as co Sol CQ S t• k p � I! �� `��%"—if],—'� see90 sOF ]se.fa �••\' ry � I A r ! I � ,.,,'I /e� chi "• fa r t / SlRS13TM lomm TOTAL LOTS - 147 APPROXIMATE ROAD = 12,941 TOTAL TOWNHOMES = 100 COMMERCIAL = 11.2 ACRES TOTAL WETLAND = 12.1 ACRES BEWETLAND AREA Brent From: Rocwent@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 3:53 PM To: svenby.brent@co.olmsted.mn.us; apavlish@millcomm.com; JMidler@aol.com Subject: Council meeting, June 5/Pinewood Meadows 3rd Subdivision To: Brent Svenby, Planner, Rochester Olmsted Planning Department Re: Quinstar LLP/Rinewood Meadows 3rd Subdivision/Common Council Meeting June 5, 2000 I would like to voice the following concerns in regard to the hearing on the above proposed site of 30.25 acres. 1. Change in the original design of outlot water drainage to the east/west-all to the southern end of the existing houses and property. As there is already a drainage problem how can diverting water from the natural flow to the North and bringing it to the southern end not create more problems? Please address this issue. 2. Allowing 3-4 feet of fill on the proposed development. This would put the existing houses in a "hole." If drainage problems are already a problem this can only make it worse for Southport. Thank you for your time. I would appreciate it if this information would be included in the information sent to the Council Hearing. Virginia Wentzel 3016 19th Ave. SE Rochester, MN. 55904 3oPlfkllr: e-mail rocwent@aol.com i • ROCHESTER Minnesota 515100 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur REVISED 515100 aqr DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 0' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX - 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Preliminary Plat #00- 14 on the Pinewood Meadows 3 d Subdivision (P!O Quinstar GDP#136) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Stormwater management needs to be provided for this development. The proposed pond site may need to be enlarged to accommodate regional stormwater flows. 2. Approval of Grading & Drainage plans are required prior to final plat approval. 3. A City 1 Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 4. The applicant shall execute 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 5. A drainage easement shall be provided from the pond outlet to the south property line. 6. Pedestrian facilities are required along both side of the entire frontage of all public roads within this development, including the frontages of Outlot A & Outlot B, on 20th Ave SE. 7. Outlot A, and Outlot B should be dedicated to the City. 8. A temporary turn -around is needed at the southerly end of 201h Ave SE 9. 10. The lot shape proposed for Block 2 may limit the pond design/size. Additional detail drainage information is needed prior to final plat submittal. C:\TEMP\PP#00-14 Revised 5-"O.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/5/00 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 11. The developer needs to clarify what impacts, if any, to the existing surface waterway (over a portion of Outlot D, Block 3 & 4) will result from site grading for this development. Dedication of additional drainage easements may be required. 12. Construction access shall be limited to 111" Ave SE, and not through the existing South Park Subdivision. 13. The easement on Lot 1, Block 2 must be a minimum of 20 feet wide and must be identified as a "Drainage & Utility" easement. 14. The easement on Lot 1, Block 1 must be identified as a "Drainage & Utility" easement. 15. The platting and construction of 30" St SE to 191" Ave SE should occur as part of this plat. 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 Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. C:ITEMP%PP#00-14 Revised 5-5-00.doc s AM ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner—l-�' WELUSEPTIC FAX DATE: May 4, 2000 RE: Type III, Phase 11, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-14 by Quinstar LLP to be known as Pinewood Meadows 3rtl Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 30.25 acres of land into four outlots and 23 single family lots and also proposed to dedicate right-of-way for new public roadways. The property is located east of 11t11 Avenue SE and Southport Subdivision No. 3 and south of 28's Street SE and includes the extension of 201h Avenue SE. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Quinstar LLP Bernadine Stevens, CEO 1652 Greenview Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: 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 Harford, Wetlands Representative Planning Department - Addressing Staff MN Soil & Water Conservation District GGG Engineering, Surveying & Planning Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments ( 9 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Quinstar Approved General Development Plan 507/285-8232 5071285-8224 507/285-8213 507/285-8345 507/287-2275 i AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITWAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Preliminary Plat 00-14 Pinewood Meadows Third May 4, 2000 Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located east of 111" Avenue SE and Southport Subdivision No. 3 and south of 28" Street SE. Zoning: The proposed property 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 30.25 acres of land to be subdivided into 23 lots for single family detached housing and four outlots and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for new public roadways. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three roadways. The first roadway labeled as "20" Avenue SE", is a continuation of the 201" Avenue SE from the north. This roadway is classified as a "local" street and is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The second roadway labeled as "301 Street SE", is classified as a "local" street and is designed with a 60' right-of-way. According to the General Development Plan, this roadway is proposed to be extended to the west, intersecting into 191" Avenue SE. 30" Street SE has the incorrect designation and should be changed to 291" Street SE. The third roadway labeled "Powell Drive SE", is classified as a "local" street and is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The roadways located in Outlot "C" and Outlot "D" will be platted and dedicated to the City either when the lots are developed or when the City formally requests dedication of the streets, whichever comes first. Pedestrian Facilities: In accordance with current City policy, pedestrian facilities shall be constructed along both sides of the entire frontage of all public roadways within this development, including the frontages of Outlot A and Outlot B, on 201" Avenue SE. Page 3 . • Preliminary Plat 00-14 Pinewood Meadows Third May 4, 2000 Drainage: The topography is slightly rolling with 1086' in the NE direction and 1030' in the SW 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 is on file with the Planning Department and a No -loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted. The preliminary plat as designed conforms to the exemption application filed by the applicant and approved in 1998. The grading on site shall avoid wetlands, as proposed in the wetland exemption application. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. The water main on 30'" Street must be extended to the west plat limits. 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. Additional fire hydrants are needed along 201 Avenue near Lots 7 & 8 of Block 6. A 10' utility easement shall be included along the right- of-way frontages along Outlots A and B or define Outlots A and B as drainage and utility easements over the entire Outlots. 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 28 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. 69K- Page 4 Preliminary Plat 00-14 Pinewood Meadows Third May 5, 2000 Parkland Dedication: The Park & Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at such time as the park is accessed via street or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the land. Additional dedication will be required as lots are platted in Outlot D and Outlot C. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Quinstar General Development Plan, approved in 1999. This Plat does not dedicate ROW consistent with the approved GDP. The applicant intends to re -plat Outlot C and D in the future to dedicate additional ROW and plat single family lots 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. 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 I modifications: The Plat shall be revised to: • Change the designation of "30" Street SE" to "29" Street SE" and confirm that the roadway is in alignment with proposed roadway extension to the west, as identified on the GDP. • Provide a 10' utility easement along the right-of-way frontage of outlots A and B; or label Outlots A and B as having Drainage and Utility Easements over the entire lots. • Locate hydrants per the attached memo from the Rochester Fire Department, dated April 13, 2000. • The easement located between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 needs to be a minimum of 20' wide and must be labeled as both a Drainage and Utility easement. • The 20' easement located along the north side of Lot 1, Block 1, shall be labeled as both a Drainage and Utility easement. el Page 5 is q} Preliminary Plat 00-14 �jL,/ Pinewood Meadows Third May 4, 2000 2. A drainage easement shall be provided from the pond outlet to the south property line and the developer needs to clarify what impacts, if any, to the existing surface waterway (over a portion of Outlet D, Block 3 & 4) will result from site grading for this development. Dedication of additional drainage easements may be required. The proposed pond site may need to be enlarged to accommodate regional stormwater flows, the applicant will need to provide additional details regarding the pond design/size relating to the lot shape proposed for Block 2. 3. Outlet A and Outlot B shall be dedicated to the City. 4. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of the entire frontage of all public roads, including the frontages of Outlot A & B, on 201" Avenue SE. 5. The Applicant shall meet the Parkland Dedication requirements via deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at such time as the park is accessed via street or the Park Department wishes to begin development of land. Additional dedication will be required as lots are platted in Outlot D and Outlot C. 6. Construction access shall he limited to 111" Avenue SE, and not through the existing South Park Subdivision. 7. Prior to recording the Final Plat Documents (Mylars) the applicant shall execute easements for and subsequently construct a temporary turn around at the southerly and of 20" Avenue SE. 8. This plat does not include the dedication of right-of-way consistent with the approved General Development Plan (i.e. within Outlots C and D). The applicant shall re -plat Outlots C and D in the future to dedicate R-O-W consistent with the approved GDP; or shall dedicate the R-O-W for these roads upon formal request by the City, whichever is first. Reminder to Applicant: Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City 1 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. The Development Agreement shall 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. The Development Agreement shall also outline the developers responsibility for design, engineering and construction of the temporary turn -around required at southerly and of 201" Avenue SE. j Page 6 (yl� Preliminary Plat 00-14 Pinewood Meadows Third May 4, 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 l Page 7 Preliminary Plat 00-14 Pinewood Meadows Third May 4, 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 l ROC ESTER•OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER, MN 55904 FAX (5071 287.2275 Date: March 30, 2000 To: Agencies Indicated Below From: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department Subject: Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-14 by Quinstar LLP to be known as Pinewood Meadows 3 ° Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 30.25 acres of land into four outlats and 23 single family lots and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for new public roadways. The property is located east of I I"' Ave. SE and Southport Subdivision No. 3 and south of 28u` St. SE and includes the extension of 20' Ave. SE. This application is scheduled for considerate in by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on April 26, 2000, in the CouneillBoard Chambers of the Govemment Center, 151 4h Street SE. In order for the Planning Department to prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by April 14, 200D. You may also appear at the meeting ti you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. If you have comments, in addition to forwarding them to the Planning Oepantrient please send a copy to: Quinstar OGG Engineering 1662 Greenview Drive SW 141il Hwy 52 SE Rochester MN 55902 Chatfield MN 55923 266.8399 867-1666 City Agencies I. Public Works Richard Freese 2. Fire Department Lyle Felsch 3. Crime Prevention Robert Miller, Gov.Center 4. RPU Operations Division Mike Engle 5. RPU Water Division Donn Richardson 6. ' Park 8 Recreation Denny Slat? 7. Building Safety Don Wees 8. City Attorney Dave Goatee 9. Downtown Dev. Dist Doug Knott 10. City Administration Terry Spaeth 11. Jerry Dooley Neighborhood Organizer 12. Transportation Planner 13. John Harford, Planning Dept. County Agencies 14. Health Department Rich Peter Other Agencies 17. School Board Farlene Wickre 15. Public Works 18. Peoples Natural Gas 16. GIS Division Paul Curry 19. Us Wlqst OeBn�rtlmann 20. Bresnan ` Communications r� 21. 'MN DOT 22. Dale Maul Post Office Supervisor 23. MN DNR Jim Cooper 24. SWCO 25. Peoples Coop Ride Wellik NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF THE STREET IDENTIFICATION IS CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED 13 A PLAT. rpu we pCed�e, we deliver April 4, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-14 by Quinstar LLP to be known as Pinewood Meadows Yd 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. This area is within the Main Level Water System Area. Static pressures will be in the mid 50's PSI range, which is adequate for residential use. Preliminary computer water system modeling indicates flows for fire protection will be below the minimum required by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The planned future networking of the water system either within the Quinstar development to the east or within the Southport area to the west would provide the required flows to this area. 3. The water main on 30d' Street must be extended to the west plat limits. Other minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the applicant's engineering Finn with these comments. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, "ma R - Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, 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 ROCHESTER PARK AND I ',REATION DEPARTMENT / 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHETER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 2, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Pinewood Meadows 3rd Preliminary Plat # 00-14 **REVISED** Acreage of plat.......................................................... 30.25 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 23 units* Dwelling unit density....................................................76 units/a Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .56 acres* Fair market value of land ............................................. 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. *additional dedication will be required as lots are platted in Outlot D and Outlot C Applicant: Quinstar 1652 Greenview Dr SW C:\TEMP\PINEWOOD MEADOWS 3RD.DOC D COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPI irATin■le Application Number: 5 �, ��,,,,, f P��)#DD-14 A'Obs & . Gh.cn 4A 190�umrl A Eadjo,' No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. From John Hayford Wetlands LGU Representative 4R5q 1 GGG Engineering Surveying chi Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Phone: 507-867-1666 Fax:507-867-1665 April 27, 2000 Mitzi Baker Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Future streets through Pinewood Meadows Third Addition Dear Mitzi: The plat of Pinewood Meadows Third Addition does not depict proposed streets which were shown on the Quinstar General Development Plan. These streets are located in Outlots "C" and "D" of Pinewood Meadows Third Addition. The developer's intention is to plat and dedicate the proposed streets (as depicted on the GDP) to the City of Rochester when they are ready to develop lots along the proposed streets, or when the City formally requests dedication of the streets, whichever comes first. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at any time. Mark Welch RdJ^ C4 Design Engineer *****'***rt'*********** Bemie Stevens — o� nfelders Southstar Inc. ate Page g City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 asp . 5. If the development of this property occurs prior to the reconstruction of 40t° St. SW, grading of this property must be compatible with the street profile and cross- tions being proposed for the 401h St. SW reconstruction in the Street Layout Plan. The ate roadway connections to public streets must meet City intersection st line Stan s. 6. The applicant ag to dedicate a total of 50 feet of right-of-way fr centerline of 40tb St. SW. Th edication must be provided with t plat of this development or when the notifies the owner that a ro ntprovement project is programmed, which ever co first. �j 7. The applicant agrees to meet the requirement for this development in the form of cash in I' . The development has a parkland dedication requirement of appro� eJy 1.76 ac ased on a maximum density of 6 units/acres. ss�� 8. A revised GD all be filed with the Planning Department r 'ng all required Ms. §jjpffstated she was glad to hear there was some conversation regarding gallPMing through it overtime. Ms. Fogarty presented the staff report, dated May 4, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Fogarty stated that staff is recommending approval with eight conditions. Ms. Schultze asked if the note of May 5, 2000 from Mr. Nigbur affects anything. Ms. Fogarty stated they are not recommending number 15 on his memo. Mr. Nigbur explained that is not in the City limits and they cannot plat something in the Township. Ms. Fogarty mentioned that one of the conditions addresses the alignment and the applicants are proposing to shift that to line up with the subdivision to the west. Mr. Nigbur stated they had a conversation with the consultant today and there are some limitations on where the proposed right-of-way through the township road will go and how it lines up across the street. They will work with the applicants on how to better accommodate the road system. Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes �✓ Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 Representing the applicant, Geoff Griffin, GGG Engineering, addressed the Commission. He stated they agree with all the conditions and he made himself available for questions. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Preliminary Plat #00-14, to be known as Pinewood Meadows P Subdivision, with staff -suggested conditions. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. Mr. Werven expressed concerns about the Fire Department's comments that the. property is two minutes outside the four -minute response time. The motion carried 7-0. Conditions: 1. The Plat shall be revised to: • Change the designation of -30'h Street SO to "29' Street SE" and confirm that the roadway is in alignment with proposed roadway extension to the west, as identified on the GDP. Z • Provide a 10' utility easement along the right-of-way frontage of Outlots A and B; or label Outlots A and B as having Drainage and Utility Easements over the entire lots. • Locate hydrants per the attached memo from the Rochester Fire Department, dated April 13, 2000. • The easement located between Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 needs to be a minimum of 20' wide and must be labeled as both a Drainage and Utility easement. • The 20' easement located along the north side of Lot 1, Block 1, shall be labeled as both a Drainage and Utility easement. 2. A drainage easement shall be provided from the pond outlet to the south property line and the developer needs to clarify what impacts, if any, to the existing surface waterway (over a portion of Outlot D, Block 3 & 4) will result from site grading for this development. Dedication of additional drainage easements may be required. The proposed pond site may need to be enlarged to accommodate regional stormwater flows, the applicant will need to provide additional details regarding the pond design/size relating to the lot shape proposed for Block 2. 3. Outlot A and Outlot B shall be dedicated to the City. 4. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of the entire frontage of all public roads, including the frontages of Outlot A & B, on 20'" Avenue SE. Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 5. The Applicant shall meet the Parkland Dedication requirements via deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at such time as the park is accessed via street or the Park Department wishes to begin development of land. Additional dedication will be required as lots are platted in Outlot D and Outlot C. 6. Construction access shall be limited to 11tn Avenue SE, and not through the existing South Park Subdivision. 7. Prior to recording the Final Plat Documents (Mylars) the applicant shall execute easements for and subsequently construct a temporary turn around at the southerly end of 20" Avenue SE. 8. This plat does not include the dedication of right-of-way consistent with the approved General Development Plan (i.e. within Outlots C and D). The applicant shall re -plat Outlots C and D in the future to dedicate R-O-W consistent with the approved GDP; or shall dedicate the R-O-W for these roads upon formal request by the City, whichever is first. Ms. Fogarty presenlkthe staff report, dated May 3, 2 o the Commission. The staff report is on file at the hester-Olmsted Planning ment. With no others wishing peak, Mr. Sulk cl the public hearing. Mr. Werven moved to approv onmg ct Amendment #00-07, by the City of Rochester. Ms. Schultze seoo d t. otion, which carried 7-0. Findings: 1. The area has not transiti^PIan trial uses as anticipated when the Rochester Urban Service Area Las adoptedin 1979. 2. The existing use properties ar ingle family detached dwellings, which are appropriate and atlble with the ad ent properties and the neighborhood. 3. The proposedWoning would not REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 6-5-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING / ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-22 to be known as Loncolnshire North PREPARED BY: Third Sven] Brent Svenby, June 1, 2000 Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated June 1, 2000. 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 roadway names "36th Street and 36th Lane" be changed to a named "place", consistent with the LDM Roadway Naming Standards. In addition, the roadway labeled '48rH Street NW; northwesterly from its intersection with "36h St. NW" be changed to a roadway designation based on the mostly likely future roadway connection. The applicant or consultant must coordinate with the Addressing Staff to determine appropriate roadway names. 2. Outiots A and B be dedicated to the City of Rochester. 3. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that the deferred dedication of cash ($10,140) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. Payment of parkland dedication fee will be applied to the Park Department costs for the extension of storm water piping in the park and park street frontage. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording Statement 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 1 7. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat ILt Attachment., 1. Staff Report dated June 1, 2000. Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Planning Department —GIS 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. Yaggy Colby Associates COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 06/02/00 08:59 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH OLM PLANNING DEPT. , CTY ADMIN. R 002 To: Mayor and Common Council From: Brent Svenby, Rochester -Olmsted Planning Dept. Date: 06/02/00 Re: Final Plat #99-22 Lincolnshire North P Subdivision Staff recommended a condition on the final plat that the roadway names be changed to be consistent with the LDM Roadway Naming Standards. The applicant's consultant, on be half of the applicant, has agreed to change the roadway names on the plat. The roadway labeled as "361h Street and Lane NW" will be changed to "Commons Place NW" and "48`h Street NW", northwesterly of its intersection with "36`I' Street NW" will be changed to "Nottingham Drive NW". Recommended condition number one can be dropped if the applicant/consultant is agreeable to changing the roadway names as stated. ► INNER KO Final Plat #99-22 Lincolnshire North 500' Notification D Ward 3 (McConne 05/23/00 A3AGO- m N Milli 11 . . . . . .... ♦ j / F R rc gqcjjl LaS S.S'x ggBB B8 8& 898888a ia• x.xx axaa # ^aix as allCrf$. 40)i� �a o 0 W) ui pr Z� TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: June 1, 2000 aamsjQpnij 1 .. ON, paw 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 507/285-8213 WELJSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Final Plat #99-22 to be known as Lincolnshire North Third Subdivision. Planninq Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Mike Younge Development 1765 SW Greenview Drive Rochester, MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Park and Recreation Department 2. Planning Department - Wetland LGU 3. Planning Department —Addressing 4. RPU Operations Division 5. RPU Water Division 6. Rochester Public works Department 7. Rochester Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Arboretum General Development Plan 4. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: This plat is located west of Lincolnshire North First and Second, east of the Douglas Trail and south of Northwest Plaza Shopping Center. Zoning: The property is part of the Arboretum Special District (SD-1). Proposed Development: This development consists of 7.75 acres to be subdivided into 18 lots for single family residential AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Lincolnshire North Third June 1, 2000 Streets: development. The plat dedicates right-of-way for three (3) roadways. The first is a 360' extension of 481h St. NW. This road is designated a Collector with a 66' right-of-way and a 36' roadway. This road will need to be re -named to meet the roadway naming standards The second roadway is an extension of Dorset St. NW approximately 110' in length. This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way and 32' roadway. The third roadway is labeled "361h St. NW with a segment labeled 36th Lane NW (a cul-de-sac). This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way and 32' roadway. This road will need to be re -named to meet the roadway naming standards The Planning Department Addressing Staff has indicated the following addressing issues: The first issue is the designation of 36"' street and lane. The roadway does not comply with the definition for street and should not use a number to name a roadway. The Addressing Staff recommends designating the roadway as a named "place". The second addressing issue is the designation of the roadway labeled "48`h Street NW". According the Arboretum General Development Plan, the roadway labeled "481h St. NW" will eventually connect to West Circle Drive. Where this future connection with West Circle Drive is, is approximately the 51 S1 address grid line. The City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual define a "Street" designation as a roadway aligned in an east -west direction, conforming to the appropriate address grid line. The Addressing Staff recommends that the designation for 48"' Street end at the intersection of the roadway labeled "36"h St. NW' and the remaining segment be labeled a roadway type based on the most likely future connection type. 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: This property is relatively flat. Elevations on the property range from approximately 1042' on the south end to 1018' on the north end of the Plat. The property generally drains to the northwest. Page 3 (�p Lincolnshire North Third June 1, 2000 Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. A previously approved Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan for this property identifies Wetlands within this Plat. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends in 481h St. and Dorset St. to serve the lots within the Plat. Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this development would be 21 parking spaces. The proposed roadways should be adequate to accommodate the required spillover spaces. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plat. The Park & Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be satisfied by deferred cash in lieu of land in the amount of $10,140 with the cash applied to costs for the extension of storm water piping in the park (located north of 480' St.) and park street frontage. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Arboretum General Development Plan which was most recently amended in 1997. The roadway alignments and lots are generally consistent with the approved GDP. Preliminary Plat. A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on June 21, 19990 with the following conditions: 1. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant must obtain approval from the LGU to disturb Wetlands within this Plat or the Plat must be revised to avoid disturbance of the Wetlands. 2. The roadway names "38th Street and 361h Lane" be changed to a named roadway, consistent with the LDM Roadway Naming Standards. In addition, the applicant or consultant shall coordinate with Staff to determine if the roadway name for 48th St. NW should be changed. 3. The applicant shall enter into a agreement with the City that will guarantee a pedestrian connection will be provided on the property to the west to permit access from Lincolnshire 4th-71h as well as Traltridge and the Bishop properties to the proposed 23 aces park to be located north of 481h Street NW and the applicant will submit a revised General Development Plan showing the pedestrian connection to the Planning Department. Page 4 /tj Lincolnshire North Third June 1. 2000 Planninq Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and finds that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The developer has entered into a Development Agreement with the City for this property. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following conditions: The roadway names "36t" Street and 368 Lane" be changed to a named "place", consistent with the LDM Roadway Naming Standards. In addition, the roadway labeled 148TH Street NW", northwesterly from its intersection with "36t6 St. NW" be changed to a roadway designation based on the mostly likely future roadway connection. The applicant or consultant must coordinate with the Addressing Staff to determine appropriate roadway names. 2. Outiots A and B be dedicated to the City of Rochester. 3. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that the deterred dedication of cash ($10,140) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. Payment of parkland dedication fee will be applied to the Park Department costs for the extension of storm water piping in the park and park street frontage. 49 ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/25/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #9922 on the Lincolnshire North 3rd Subdivision property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Grading & Drainage Plans have been approved for this subdivision. 2. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 3. Outlot 'A' should be dedicated to the City. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: ❖ Subject to the terms specified in the executed Development Agreement. ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 4 Street Name Signs 2 No Parking Signs C:\TEMP\FP#99-22.doc Park and Recreation Department City of Rochester 201 Fourth Street 5E • Room 150 • Rochester, MN 55904 (507) 281.6160 • FAX (507) 281-6165 To: Suzanne LaPalm Consolidated Planning From: Rochester Park and Recreation RE: Lincolnshire North 3rd Final Plat #99-22 Acreage............................................ May 24, 2000 ................ 7.75 acres Number of Dwelling Units ........................ :................... Dwelling Unit Density ................................................... Density Factor ........................................ Dedication Requirement .............................................. Fair Market Value of Land .......................................... 18 units 2.32 units/acre .10 78 acres $13,000 The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirement for the plat be satisfied by: Deferred cash in lieu of land in the amount of $10,140 (78 acres X $13,000/acre) with the cash applied to Park Department costs for the extension of storm water piping in the park and park street frontage. Applicant Mike Younge Development 1765 Greenview Drive SW 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' DATE 6-5-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E .8 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-03 to be known as Emerald Hills Second PREPARED BY: Subdivision Brent Svenbylanner June 1, 2000 Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated June 1, 2000. The developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for the Emerald Hills Development. The Council will act on the Development Agreement on June 5, 2000. If the Development Agreement is approved on June 5, 2000, staff would then recommend approval subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant agrees to meet parkland dedication requirements via a reduction in existing dedication credits (2.63 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High School Site was purchased. Council Action Needed. 1. 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: n „�,1 1. Staff Report dated June 1, 2000. �- Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Planning Department —GIS 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. Yaggy Colby Associates COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: }} IWIk fiODl a 73 I F 4z qvg agA g a NV]d 1N3WdOl3n3C7 ]V213NTD 's 9 E6c ?. b10S3NNIW'N3lS3HDOb ;a 3 E a ; SITH GIVb 13M Z 0 s C%1 Ll.] IS J J Z QU-i C)e a- w :2 Cie ail FT. N d 100HOS H91H .t2lf11N30 N 3I d Z O , I M CJ�:RaNb-R � Q I e A 3N LZ3M35 N33M _ _ Q N _�VN .A N N „ t. U i N s ai A a p W p IC/i t / f 2 m .iM W 1 I N rl yap n .toLu Le) Nftl LU s \ TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: June 1, 2000 �'ilia�rt�grri4� �!!e/au��tua1la� /wyaiiiiiluiii! 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 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Final Plat #00-03 to be known as Emerald Hills Second Subdivision. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Fred Schmidt 3200 SE 60" Ave. Rochester, MN 55904 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. 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 8. Rochester Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Approved GDP 4. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: This plat is located north of Century High School, east of East Circle Drive. Zoning: This property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City of Rochester. • Proposed Development: This development consists of 15.45 acres to be subdivided into 42 lots for single family residential AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Emerald Hills 2nd June 1. 2000 development and one Outlot. Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for three roadways. The first roadway is the continuation of Colleen Street NE. This roadway is designed with a 36' wide surface on 66' right-of-way. The second roadway is Darcy Drive NE, This roadway is designed with a 36' wide surface on 66' right-of-way. This street connects with Darcy Drive platted in Emerald Hills First Subdivision. The third roadway, Kathleen Lane NE, is a cul-de-sac extending east from Darcy Drive NE. The roadway is designed with a 26' wide surface on 50' right-of-way. The proposed streets meet the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all roadways. A 10' wide pedestrian trail will be located within Outlot A connecting this development with Century High School. Drainage: The elevations range from 1,234' in the southeastern portion of the Plat to 1,170' in the northwest corner of the Plat. The property generally drains to the northwest. Storm sewer is proposed within this plat to capture runoff. Two outlets are proposed at the western boundary of the Plat. The adjacent property to the west is also part of the Emerald Hills GDP and will be platted for single family development in the future. A stormwater pond located north and west of this plat for stomwater detention which will handle the drainage from this plat. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. There do not appear to be hydric soils within this plat. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends within Emerald Hills Subdivision and the School property. This development will be served by a private lift station, which was installed with Emerald Hills Subdivision. Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this development would be approximately 50 parking spaces. The proposed roadways should be adequate to accommodate the required spillover spaces. Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication for this plat should be met through a reduction of existing dedication credits from Page 3 Emerald Hills 2nd June 1. 2000 General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat. the 1996 dedication of 5 acres when the Century High School site was purchased. This property is included within the Emerald Hills General Development Plan which was originally approved in 1996 and amended in 1999. A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on March 20, 2000 with the following conditions: 1. Outlot A shall be revised to be a minimum of 30 feet in width and shall include a trail or sidewalk to be constructed by the applicant. 2. Any necessary easements outside of the Plat that maybe needed for utilities, drainage or temporary turn -around be provided prior to or concurrent with final plat recording. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, infrastructure improvements and contributions for public infrastructure. 4. The cul-de-sac on "Kathleen Lane NE" shall be signed "No Parking —Fire Lane" since the diameter is not sufficient to provide the needed turn -around radius with parking or the cul-de-sac radius shall be increased to allow for both parking an the needed turn- around radius. 5. Additional hydrant(s) be provided as required by the Fire Department and RPU Water division. 6. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a reduction in existing dedication credits (2.63 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High School Site was purchased. Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and finds that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for the Emerald Hills Development. The Council will act on the Development Agreement on June 5, 2000. If the Development Agreement is approved on June 5, 2000, staff would then recommend approval subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant agrees to meet parkland dedication requirements via a reduction in existing dedication credits (2.63 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century Nigh School Site was purchased. a7? /11 p ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/31/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Pat 00-03 on Emerald Hills Second Subdivision (Fred Schmidt) property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A grading plan for this phase of Emerald Hills has been approved. 2. A City / Owner Contract has been executed, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 3. A Development Agreement has been executed for this subdivision. Charges & fees for the following are applicable for the development of this property: ❖ Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per acre ❖ J9288 "High Level Water Tower in Northern Heights Area" @ $1,021.46 per acre, plus 7.5% interest from 5/4/98 ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. 4 Street Name Signs 1 Street Ends Sign CaTEMP1FP#00-03.doc ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTN, 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHETER MINNESOTA 65904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Emerald Hills 2od Final Plat #00-03 Number of dwelling units ............................................. 42 units Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.02 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. NA The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Reduction in existing dedication credits (2.63 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High School site was purchased. Applicant: Fred Schmidt 3200 60 Ave SE Rochester Mn 55904 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9'�, DATE 6-5-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-04 to be known as Orchard Hills North Subdivision PREPARED' BY: Mitzi A. Baker, June 1, 2000 The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. A temporary turn -a -round shall be provided at the easterly extend of the proposed Fox Chase Rd. SW, OR the owner shall provide dedication of a roadway easement that connects Fox Chase Rod. SW to Gates Dr. SW, until the road is extended as shown on the GDP, and Gates Dr. SW is vacated. %'L 2. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu of land in the amount of $5,000. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, a resolution approving this plat should be adopted. Attachment: 1. Copy of Plat 2. Staff Report Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 5, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. Yaggy Colby Associates COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: N 1111OP1111111 oil "Nis HIM I Z O CD V) F- w 0 z to J TJ Q 2 ce O 1, r U311VldNn u 09TO .LI.DOALL PAr TO: FROM DATE: RE: Rochester Common Council Mitzi A. Baker, Planner June 1, 2000 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 #00-04 to be known as Orchard Hills North Subdivision Planninq Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Plat Data: Location of Property: Zoning: Mike Younge Development 1765 SW Greenview Drive Rochester, MN 55902 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 1. Rochester Park and Recreation (see attached) 2. Rochester Public Works (see attached) 3. Rochester Fire Department (see attached) 1. Referral Comments (3 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat This plat is located north of Foxcroft North Second subdivision, west of 23r° Ave. SW and east of the Rochester Golf and Country Club. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. Proposed Development: This development consists of 12.42 acres to be subdivided into 8 lots for single family residential development. There is an existing home located on Lot 3, Block 1. Streets: The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right-of- way for one public roadway, which is an extension of Fox Chase Road SW. IIII ,�,�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYlAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 June 1, 2000 Drainage: Elevations on the property range from approximately 1180' in the northeast to 1120' in the southwest portion of the Plat. The property generally drains to the southwest. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. There do not appear to be hydric soils within this plat. Public Utilities: Utilities are in place to serve this property. Spillover Parking: Spillover parking required for this development is nine (9) spaces. The adjacent right-of-way should be sufficient to accommodate the spillover parking. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plat. The Park & Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be satisfied by cash in lieu of land. General Development Plan: This property is included within a General Development Plan that was approved in 1995. The roadway alignments and lots are generally consistent with the approved GDP. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat for this property was approved by the Rochester Common Council in March 2000 subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The storm sewer outlet at the west property line will need to be reviewed further along with detailed grading and drainage plans. 2. The Plat shall be revised change the roadway name to "Fox Chase Road Sw'. 3. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu of land consistent with the attached memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department dated February 1, 2000. 4. The preliminary plat profile sheets do not include sidewalk. Consistent with adopted codes and policies, sidewalk will be required along both sides of Fox Chase Road SE. 5. A temporary turn around shall be provided at the easterly end of Fox Chase Dr. SIN, until the road is extended as shown on the GDP, and Gates Drive SIN is vacated. 6. Fire hydrants shall be relocated to be within the right-of-way, as specified by the Rochester Fire Department. 7. Relocation of any existing utilities shall be done at the developers expense. ms;- / Page 3 �(! June 1, 2000 Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. A temporary turn -a -round shall be provided at the easterly extend of the proposed Fox Chase Rd. SW, OR the owner shall provide dedication of a roadway easement that connects Fox Chase Rod. SW to Gates Dr. SW, until the road is extended as shown on the GDP, and Gates Dr. SW is vacated. 2. Parkland dedication requirements for this Plat shall be met via cash payment in lieu of land in the amount of $5,000. Reminder to the applicant: Payment of parkland dedication fees and execution of easements for off site utilities, turn -a -rounds or right-of-way is required prior to recording the final plat documents. L] ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/25/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4t' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #00-04 on the Orchard Hills North Subdivision (Michael Younae) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this Subdivision. 2. A temporary turnaround is needed at the easterly extent of the proposed Fox Chase Rd SW, OR, the owner shall provide Dedication of a roadway easement that connects Fox Chase Rd SW to Gates Dr SW, until the road is extended as shown on the GDP, and Gates Dr SW is vacated. Charges & fees for the following are applicable for the development of this property: ❖ Subject to the terms of the executed Development Agreement. •:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 2 Street Name Signs CATEMPTP#0e-04.doc III ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 607-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 24, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Orchard Hills North Final Plat #00-04 Number of dwelling units ............................................. Density factor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 8 units .0244 .20 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 $5,000 (.20 acres x $25,000/acre) to be paid prior to recordation of the plat. Applicant: Mike Younge 1 765 Greenview Drive SW N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\ORCHARD HILLS NORTH.DOC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING pt DATE: 06-05-009 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 3LIC HEARINGS PLANNING 6i � ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #99-47 to be known as Eagle Ridge Fourth ]BY: PREPARESubdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 15.68 acres of land into 19 lots Theresa Ffor single family development and one outlot. The Plat will also dedicate the right-of-way Planfor three roadways. The property is located west of Highland Court SW, south of Country Club Road and south of Eagle Lane SW. I—J May 31, 2000 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated May 31, 2000, with the following recommended conditions or modifications: 1. No construction access will be allowed from the east, via 23' Avenue SW and 4th Street SW. 2. Utility easements must be provided extending utilities from off site to the site, prior to recording the final plat. 3. The applicant shall agree to plat the remaining portion of the property (included in the Preliminary Plat but not the Final Plat) consistent with the approved General Development Plan and Preliminary Plat in the future or at a request of the City. If amendments to the General Development Plan and Preliminary Plat are approved in the future, said property shall be platted consistent with the approved amended General Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. 3ouncii Action Needed. 9. 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 Of 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, June 5, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester 1 Olmsted County Government Center. 7. Yacay Colby Associates IUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: NVId-- ' J3WdOl3A3a ]V2ON3D V v1OS3NNIW 'S31S3HDO" (]Id 311N3dOl3A33�V3�� Ia sa ! ! u LLl LQ Z U3 i | � \ |iT I | � ;!■ §ll!§ iagniiII{|§§; ;;'!�|!||! §Q]m§mJRg�2® QR§w@m§§ate A� |...................... .. RI � 3? 3 €sie i v1053NN1W'N3153H�ON 11 a o 1 '3 .eel�i4e Hlbf103 3JQIb 310\ �1 _a e a i i 41 11 L ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 DATE: May 31, 2000 RE: Type III, Phase 1, Final Plat #99-47 to be known as Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 15.68 acres of land into 19 lots for single family development and one outlot. The Plat will also dedicate the right- of-way for three roadways. The property is located west of Highland Court SW, south of Country Club Road and south of Eagle Lane SW. Planniny Department Review: Applicant/Owner; Young Development 214 4th Street SW Rochester. MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 3" Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Addressing Staff Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 letters) 2. Copy of Preliminary Plat 3. Copy of Final Plat 4. Copy of Eagle Ridge General Development Plan Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located west of Highland Court SW, south of Country Club Road and south of Eagle Lane SW. mg AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 01qPage 2 Eagle Ridge 4th May 31, 2000 Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 15.68 acres of land to be subdivided into 19 lots for single family development and one outlot for a Public Park. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three roadways. The first would be a easterly extension of 4" Street SW to the eastern border of this development. This roadway is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The second is a cul-de-sac, currently named Eagle Nest Lane SW, intersecting 41h Street SW and Aspen Lane SW. This roadway is designed with a 50' right-of- way and a 52' cul-de-sac radius. The third roadway is a northerly extension of Aspen Place SW. This roadway is designed with a 50' right-of-way. Please note: Once this plat is recorded, a Request for Council Action will be submitted to change a roadway in "The Aspens" plat from "Aspen Lane SW to "Aspen Place SW". The proposed roadways meets the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. No construction access will be allowed from the east, via 231 Avenue SW and 4' Street SW. Sidewalks: A Development Agreement, which includes pedestrian facilities, has been executed for this development. Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,150' in the southeast corner to 1,060' in the northwest portion of the plat. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved prior to the submittal of the final plat. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this property. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. Utility easements must be provided extending utilities from off site to the site prior to recording the final plat. Page 3 Eagle Ridge 4th May 31, 2000 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 23 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. Parkland Dedication: The applicant has 1.84 acres of parkland dedication credits established via the 1997 dedication of the 6.04 acre park site. Dedication requirements for this plat to be met via reduction in the credits. General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: The 6.04 acre park site was deeded to the City in April, 1997. The Planning Department permitted the recording of the deed with the stipulation that the park was to be platted as an outlot. This property is included within the Eagle Ridge General Development Plan. The Eagle Ridge General Development Plan was amended and approved in August of 1997 revising the Plan by extending the Eagle Lane cul-de-sac and removing a second cul-de-sac on the southeast portion of the site. This plat is consistent with the approved General Development Plan. A preliminary plat for this area was approved by the Council on January 3, 2000. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to 1. Storm water management must be approved for this site. Storm water management will need to address the impacts on the downstream residents. Any new ponds serving less than 50 developable acres are considered private and will need ownership and maintenance agreements. 2. Drainage easements and conveyance methods must be provided for stormwater runoff from the abutting property. 3. Revise the roadway name "Aspen Lane SW" to "Aspen Place SW" (also requiring existing Aspen Lane SW be changed in the future) and name the platted cul-de-sac which will include "Lane" and "SW". 4. Re -alignment of watermains must be done at the developers cost per the attached memo from Rochester Public Utilities, dated November 29, 1999. S. The parkland must be labeled as an Outlot on the plat. Page 4 ,VYvyF � Eagle Ridge 4th May 31, 2000 B. The section of 4" Street SW, between the east line of this plat and Highland Court (approximately 320 feet) is a substandard street width. Connection of this plat to Fourth Street SW, in its existing condition will create an unsafe condition due to the narrow roadway widths. The development will be required to make a contribution to the City of cover a portion of the cost to widen Fourth Street SW, from the east line of the plat to Highland Court. Staff Review and Recommendation. This Final Plat has been revised from the approved Preliminary Plat and does not include the platting of two lots and the right-of-way for 41" Street SW, east of Aspen Place SW. 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 conditions or modifications: 1. No construction access will be allowed from the east, via 23r4 Avenue SW and 4" Street SW. 2, Utility easements must be provided extending utilities from off site to the site prior to recording the final plat. 3. The applicant shall agree to plat the remaining portion of the property (included in the Preliminary Plat but not the Final Plat) consistent with the approved General Development Plan and Preliminary Plat in the future or at a request of the City. If amendments to the General Development Plan and Preliminary Plat are approved in the future, said property shall be platted consistent with the approved amended General Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. REMINDER TO APPLICANT. • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the public infrastructure and utilities to serve this plat. 0 0 .11 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769� TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 24, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Eagle Ridge 4`h Final Plat #99-47 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 9.64 a' Number of dwelling units ............................................. 19 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 1.97 units/a Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .46 acres ' Does not include City owned property (Outlot A) The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: The applicant has 1.84 acres of parkland dedication credits established via the 1997 dedication of the 6.04 acre park site. Dedication requirements for this plat to be met via reduction in the credits. Applicant: Younge Development 214 4 Street SW \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\EAGLE RIDGE 9TH.DOC no L ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/25/00 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 507-287-7600 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested an application for Final Plat #99-47 on Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision fYounge Development property). The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 2. Easements needed to extend utilities from off site to the site, must be provided to the City prior to recording the final plat. 3. No construction access will be allowed from the east, via 23rd Ave SW &4"'StSW. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: ❖ Subject to the terms specified in the Development Agreement. ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 2 Street Name Signs C:1TE M P\FP#99-47. doe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �q ! DATE: 06-05-00 I AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 3LICHEARINGS PLANNING e -/I ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00-07Initiated by the City of PREPARED BY: Rochester Common Council to amend the zoning district on .33 acres of land from the M-1 (Mixed Theresa Fogarty, Commercial -Industrial) to the R-I (Mixed Single Family) district. The property addresses are 128 SE 18" Street and 1805 SE 2nd Avenue. Planner May 17, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2000, to consider the City Council initiated zone change request to zone .33 acres to the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Mr. Werven moved to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-07 by the City of Rochester based upon staff - suggested findings. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 3, 2000. I Council Action Needed. 1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the staff report. if the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 3, 2000 2. Minutes of the May 10, 2000 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department - GIS COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ago Z(TNING MIP $ 1 Ml I Ml 1 01 15 ST SE M Location of 1".1, H 21 ST SW a Rl DOTTED PATTERN / INDICATES LOTS USED FOR RESIDENCES N 204 s+ a • Location y of 00, Properties r=. .... ,1 "'o Q LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® COMMERCIAL F--'Q MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® MEDICAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ® INDUSTRIAL RECREATIONAL 9 OPEN SPACE - ® PUBLIC FACILITIES FLOOD PRONE AREA ♦ HISTORIC AREA MEADOW PARK NEIGHBORHOOD FUTURE LAND USE MAP--iv- 35 zf�NO lw SCAI CONVA.G41ED R'.ANNIN DEPARTMENT �� TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission iVEmma", ilr, ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIs/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING ./ HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner J BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: May 3, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00-07 inititated by the City of Rochester Common Council to amend the zoning district on .33 acres of land from the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) to the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. The property addresses are 128 18" Street SE and 1805 2nd Avenue SE. Consolidated Planning Department Review: Initiation of Action: On April 17, 2000, the Rochester Common Council initiated this rezoning. Location of Property: The East 124 feet of Lot 4, Block 17, Golden Hill Addition. One lot is 128 181 Street SE, the West 74 feet of the East 124 feet of Lot 4, Block 17, Golden Hill Addition. The other lot is 1805 2"d Avenue SE, the east 50 feet of Lot 4, Block 17, Golden Hill Addition. Reason for Proposal: The Rochester Common Council initiated the zoning amendment from M-1 to R-1 to meet the existing use of the properties, as single family detached dwellings. Land Use Plan: The Future Land Use Map indicates this property for industrial uses. According to the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area, adopted in 1979, the area generally between 1211 Street SE and 2016 Street SE is primarily designated for industrial use and includes land presently used for single family residential purposes. This designation indicates a transition to industrial uses during the next twenty to twenty-five years. The implementation of the Plan will occur through the rezoning of property for industrial use. This property was rezoned from R-1 to M-1 in 1976. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 • . Zone Change 00-07 May 4, 2000 Referral Comments: All agencies responding had either no objections or no comments on the proposed rezoning. Report Attachments: 1. Proposed Zoning District Map 2. Land Use Plan Map Analysis: Under the provisions of Paragraph 62.736, Transitional Area Development, in the Rochester Land Development Manual, the ordinance recognizes that the Land Use Plan designation for certain areas of the City may not coincide with the current zoning designation of the property. This may occur where the City, in adopting the plan, has acknowledged those first transitional uses to invade an area and has determined that the future pattern should be to encourage the continued succession of the existing uses with this new pattern of development. Often, however, the initial developments are of such scattered or infrequent nature so as not to justify the rezoning of an area in accord with the Plan while the majority of the existing uses live out their useful economic life. As indicated in the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area, the area has not fully transitioned to industrial uses, during the anticipated twenty to twenty-five years period, but the majority has remained single family residential uses. Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 in the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission recommendation and final determinations of the Council shall be to approve a request for a zoning map amendment, if the amendment satisfies one of the following criteria: a) whether 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. In addition, a zoning amendment must also satisfy both of the following: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with the adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. 3d3 " Page • • ✓ 1 Zone Change 00-07 May 4, 2000 Staff Recommendation: The staff finds that 1) the area has not transitioned to industrial uses as anticipated when the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan was adopted in 1979; 2) the existing uses of the properties are single family detached dwellings, which are appropriate and compatible with the adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and 3) the proposed rezoning would not constitute spot zoning, The staff recommends approval of the rezoning, as initiated. Planning Commission Action Required: The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval or denial of this request. The Planning Commission must also make findings to support this recommendation. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council and heard at a later public hearing. Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 3as' The Applicant shall meet the Parkland Dedication requirements _vj&&Werred land edication. Land to be dedicated at such time as the park i essed via street or th rk Department wishes to begin development of l Additional dedication will be req ' ed as lots are platted in Outlof D and Ou 10 6. Construction ess shall be limited to South Park Sub n. 7. Prior to recording the Final ocum easements for and sub ently st end of 20'h Avenue SE, and not through the existing (Mylars) the applicant shall execute a temporary turn around at the southerly B. This plat d not include the dedication of t-of-way consistent with the approve eneral Development Plan (i.e. within O s C and D). The applicant shall re-pl utlots C and D in the future to dedicate R-O- sistenf with the approved G ; or shall dedicate the R-O-W for these roads upon for uest by the City, hichever is first. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Type III Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00-07 initiated by the City of Rochester �j Common Council to amend the zoning district on 33 acres of land from the M-1 (Mixed Commercial Industrial) to the R-1 Mixed Single Family) district. The property addresse Ms. Fogarty presented the staff report, dated May 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Mr. Werven moved to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-07, by the City of Rochester. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Findings: 1. The area has not transitioned to industrial uses as anticipated when the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan was adopted in 1979. 2. The existing uses of the properties are single family detached dwellings, which are appropriate and compatible with the adjacent properties and the neighborhood. 3. The would not constitute REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3�)1,:� DATE: 06-05-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 3LIC HEARINGS PLANNING t on — ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust to PREPARED BY: annex approximately 40.17 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, west of Theresa Fogarty, West Circle Drive, in Section 20, Cascade Township. Planner May 18, 2000 The City Council previously acted on this annexation petition at their February 23, 2000 City Council meeting. Following the second reading of the Ordinance, the annexation request and adopted Ordinance No. 3322 was then transmitted to the Minnesota Planning / Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning for approval. The Minnesota Planning Office returned the annexation petition due to the adjacent 195.47 acres (Annexation #00-01) needing to be approved by them first. The Annexation Petition 00-02 was not contiguous to the city limits until the MN Planning Office approved Annexation 00-01, April 14, 2000. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated May 30, 2000. Property Taxes: Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township. For the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and 10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township axes on this property for 1999 is $96.22. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN Planning / Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. Staff is recommending re - dating adopted Ordinance #3322 and the Council suspend the rules and allow the ordinance its second reading. Attachments: 1. Staff reported, dated May 30, 2000, Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. T. Yaggy Colby Associates COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: n>r.Q TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission %Iii►t+1�,,T��l�l�� 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 wELVSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: May 30, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Annexation Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust to annex approximately 40.17 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NE, west of West Circle Drive, in Section 20, Cascade Township. Planning Department Review: Applicants/Owners: Verna Badger Trust Richard E. Badger, Power of Attorney 4410 Valleyhigh Road NW Rochester, MN 55901 Location of Property: The property is located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, and west of West Circle Drive NW. Existing Land Use: This property is currently farmland with suspended agricultural production activities. There exists one single family dwelling and approximately 20 agricultural outbuildings. Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately 40.17 acres of unplatted land. Existing Zoning: The property was previously zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) District on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. Future Zoning: The Council previously approved a Zoning District Amendment to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Land Use Plan: The Council previously approved a Land Use Amendment to Medium Density Residential. Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its east Limits: boundary. „n„>� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Annexation #00-02 May 17, 2000 Sewer & Water: Fire Protection: Thoroughfare Plan: Townboard Review: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Staff Recommendation: The Northwest High Level Water System service is available to this property. Municipal sewer and water will need to be extended to serve this area. The entire area is outside of the six minute response area of the Rochester Fire Department thereby making fire protection issues in this area of critical concern. The Fire Department has no objection, however, city water services must be in place prior to occupancy of residential homes. A traffic impact study is being prepared to address future traffic services issues associated with development of the site The Townboard reviewed this annexation along with annexation request 00-01 and adopted a Resolution 001- 2000, approving the annexation. RPU Operations Division, RPU Water Division, Rochester Public Works, Rochester Fire Department, Planning Staff - Transportation Division 1. Annexation Map 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comments (5 letters) 4. Township Resolution 001-2000 �b9 This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary sewer and water lines from their present ends. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3). go: v awm£;3A3 eIYNo Awtv � o/v !! „ ;/APP o32») rpu �« pledge, rve deliver 507/280-1579 January 18, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust to annex approximately 40.17 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, west of West Circle Drive, in Section 20, Cascade Township. RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this annexation petition and has no objection as it is outside our service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future. Sincerely, %l�r Michael J. Engle ks c: W. Lorber T. Adkins, City Attorney Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Rood NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 v u we pledge, we deliver January 21, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-02 by Verna Badger Trust to annex 40.17 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW and west of West Circle Drive NW in Section 20, Cascade Township. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. Northwest High Level Water System water service is available approximately %4 mile to the east of this property. 3. We will work with the applicant's engineering fine 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,• DaI "'JA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Yaggy Colby Associates Verna Badger Trust Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER Minnesota 1 /21 /00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur 3<3 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904.3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for ANNX00-02 on the Verna Badger Trust property (40.17 acres). The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Municipal sewer and water is available to serve this area. Q%TEMPW NNEX00-02.dcc Ly s e4R P d P CR-S<ZA-o A. Ce-c .v i Y ©C, M i f-0, .r t . j � e�45 T► ,¢.��r�,�ca-'-to,�J Z33 �ce�s S�c.<<e � �� Afe . 4e), 1 U41 -r, a 8e t a!J Err, t q /'tjr i �1Cf�wri a t ^�% Tub .�oGc��►f...JTS cap 1rF�,rK � $E.:,J 1V9aJ, 1 e�Fs,2� $rr- tr i; �4RO pF CA5GA#_ �o�S � .vT APP4tn1A-e— -tom '��f���JEXa-��m.. i � T�F-�- 2.3 3'!' �G2,�s �.�3 S�cr, �..�s lg ►�-�o ;;i 20� CA SCALD a Aj Pj i�� o ;I � lJr4rTc.Jlo �.g�o-� Y of- alaaur�eY 2ocsa. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 36— r DATE: 06-5-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. BLIC HEARINGS PLANNING 1E,-13 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-09 by Christ Our Rock Lutheran PREPARED BY: Church to annex .28 acres of land located along the northteast side of East Circle Drive, Theresa Fogarty, across from Rocky Creek Drive NE. Planner May 30, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on May 24, 2000. The Commission found that this property is adjacent to the city limits and the applicant has an agreement with the City for the installation and use of a holding tank until the property can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary sewer. The Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of this request. Motion by Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve Annexation Petition #00-09 by Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church. Seconded by Mr. Burke. The motion, which carried 8-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated May 17, 2000. Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township. For the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and 10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township Taxes on the property for 1999 are $.26. Council Action Needed., 1. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. Attachments: 1. Minutes from the May 24, 2000 CP&ZC meeting. 2. Staff report dated May 17, 2000. n Distribution: P >� 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. Yaggy Colby Associates COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: is 'a ny -+o � Ar.,►4set 111111■11 y����n� nuuuuu� 4 Iq CeNTtAxY fh4H SCHUCI RC CERTIFICATE 00-'RVEY PART OF THE N 1/2 SW 1/4 SECTION 19, T 107 N, R 13 W OLMSTED COUNTY,.MINNESOTA BEARING Bearings are Minnesota State Plane Grid Azimuths measured MONUMENTS to the right from. Grid North. All monuments set have a plastic 0 SET 3/4" IRON PIPES cap stomped L.S. 22422. • FOUND MONUMENTS (PIPE, ROD, ETC...) —a—a— CONTROLLED ACCESS 413.58 "�1 O rl� Qr 0 100 200 400 mm=%=10� SCALE IN FEET ,A11 %d S\N °° 5 0 °ss <I W N ,s ;a o_ PROJECT NUMBER 6208 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY DATE OF SURVEY 01/07/99 REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SURVEYED BY CHRIS MUNN SURVEYED FOR MAYO CLINIC DATE NUMBER 'Rok Et W' SEC, SHEET 1 OF 2 ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS -PLANNERS 4V LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 717 3RD AVENUE SE ROCHESTER, 28 -64 5a7 YA G G Y MN SS46464 MASON CITY, IOWA C O L g Y 515-474-a351 ACCnrIATCC 0 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: May 17, 2000 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 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-6345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Annexation Petition #00-09 by Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church to annex .28 acres of land located along the north/east side of East Circle Drive, across from Rocky Creek Drive. Planning Department Review: Applicants/Owners: Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church Kermit Oldre, President 942 9" Avenue NE Rochester, MN 55906 Location of Property: The property is located along the north/east side of East Circle Drive, across from Rocky Creek Drive. Existing Land Use: This property is currently undeveloped land. Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately .28 acres of unplatted land. The petition is to annex the westerly 40' of the future public roadway. Existing Zoning: The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) District on the Olmsted County zoning map. Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning map. Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. ,�,�„P AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Annexation #99-26 May 17, 2000 Adjacency to the Municipal Limits: The property is adjacent to the city limits along its eastern boundary. 319 Sewer & Water: Municipal water is available to serve this area. The Applicant has an agreement with the City to install and use a holding tank until city sewer services are available to the property. It is anticipated that city sewer services will be available to this property within the next 2-5 years. Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric utility service may change if the land is annexed to the municipality. Townboard Review: Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public hearing on this item on June 5, 2000. The City Clerk will send the certified notice 30 days prior to that date. Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Staff Recommendation: No comments were received from any of the referrals agencies. 1. Annexation Map 2. Location Map This property is adjacent to the City limits and the applicant has an agreement with the City for the installation and use of a holding tank until the property can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary sewer. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3). s ANNEXATION: Annexation petition #00-09 by Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church to annex .28 acres of land located along the northleast side of East Circle Drive, across from Rocky Creek Drive. Ms. Baker asked if the Commission would like staff to present the staff report. Mr. Suk replied that it would not be necessary. Ms. Petersson moved to approve Annexation Petition #00-09 by Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church seconded by Mr. Burke. The motion carried 8-0. M,� 2.4, 2000 1�xhey{cr � nriuu, t Zon,,4 Commitixbn ntiinuE5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETINGr l DATE: 6-5-00 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM NO.,I . i ITEM DESCRIPTION: City Initiated Text Amendment #00-02 to amend Sections 60.420 (9) PREPARED BY: and 61.300 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) to Mitzi A. Balser, allow for Design Modifications to Chapter 64 if the LDM to be considered concurrent with a Senior Planner General Development Plan Application and to allow Design Modifications to be reviewed concurrent with other types of applications. May 30, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On May 24, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed zoning text amendment. The Planning & Zoning Commission found that the proposed amendment meets the criteria outlined in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Land Development Manual and recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Petersson made a motion to recommend approval with staff suggested findings. Seconded by Werven. The motion carried 8- 0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 19, 2000. Council Action Needed: 1 y 7t am"MMl 1. If the Council wishes to proceed with thetas petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (see attached staff report). Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: 4. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: '.) 09:�- DATE: May 19, 2000 TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner fe■..-aaf,.-.��f yraiiiii'�iiiii�� _ ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIVADDRESSINGJ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/2B5.8213 wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/2B7-2275 RE: Text Amendment #00-02, Initiated by the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) includes requirements for the design of developments (GDP's, Plats, etc.). Section 60.420(9) allows for Design Modifications (waivers) to requirements of Chapter 64 to be reviewed as part of the review of a preliminary or final plat. This section needs to be amended to allow this type of Design Modification to be reviewed concurrent with a General Development Plan as well. Since a GDP is a precursor to a land subdivision, and the GDP criteria require compliance with Chapter 64 a request for a Design Modification should be reviewed concurrent with a GDP. Section 61.300 Concurrent Review allows for the concurrent review of more than one application. This section does not address review of a Design Modification concurrent with other applications. Staff suggests that this Section be amended to add Design Modification to the list of applications that may be reviewed concurrently, to allow for this type of application to be reviewed with a GDP or Plat. Text Amendment: Section 60.420 (9) to allow for the review of a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 as part of a General Development Plan application; and Section 61.300 to allow fora Design Modification to be considered concurrent with other applications (i.e. GDP and Plat). The changes are shown as underlined text in the following paragraphs. 60.420 DESIGN MODIFICATIONS: It is the intent of this ordinance to recognize that in certain instances it may be in the public interest to provide an expedient method to modify the site design and public facility standards of this ordinance as applied to certain types of development. �� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 9 • 30." 60.424 Specific Policies: The following paragraphs contain the guidelines applicable to specific types of design modifications which shall be considered by the approval authority. 9) Public Facility Standards: a) Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 may be approved as part of the review of any general development Plan, land subdivision permit or final plat where the applicant can show by reason of exceptional topography or any other physical condition that strict compliance with these regulations would cause undue hardship or that such relief would not be a detriment to the public welfare and would not impair the intent and purpose of the regulations. 61.300 CONCURRENT REVIEW: Two or more applications may be reviewed concurrently. the concurrent review of various types of permits or certificates shall be subject to the same criteria and findings listed elsewhere in the ordinance that apply to each matter individually. Each application requires a separate action by the designated hearing body. 61.301 Procedure for Concurrent Review; 1) The following matters may be reviewed concurrently: a) Review of proposed provisional or permanent zoning districts; b) General development plans; c) Questions of Land Use Plan conformance that are to be decided by the Council after review; d) Review and approval of a land subdivision permit; e) Conditional Use Permit; f) Variance; g) Design Modification 2) Concurrent review of the following matters shall be under the Type III review procedure with a Phase I hearing process. The Commission is the designated hearing body. a) Any Type II or Type III Conditional Use permit and; b) A request for a variance. c) A request for a Design Modification 61.302 Notification Requirements: Notification for a public hearing shall be sent as provided in Section 60.630. 61.303 Submission Criteria: To determine the applicable submission criteria refer to those sections of the ordinance which deal specifically with component parts of each application under consideration. 5�v FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION: A decision must be supported by finding based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 60.338 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: a) whether there is a public need for the amendment; b) whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City of Rochester; c) whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful. Staff suggests that there is a public need for this amendment to provide for clarification and efficiency in considering multiple applications concurrently. The amendment will provide clarification of regulations and procedures for waiving public facility standards and this amendment will be lawful. Staff recommends approval of this text amendment. Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated May 19, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that the text amendment would allow the Planning Commission and Council to consider design modifications to certain public facility standards concurrent with the general development plan. Currently, the ordinance only allows for it to be considered with the preliminary or final plat. Mr. Suk asked if anyone wished to be heard on this issue. No one came forward. Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Petersson moved to approve City Initiated Text Amendment #00-02, with staffs suggested findings. Mr. Werven seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. j?oche5�k�' f�'a.�niri� t Z(jnt� l'VI YN,t'S S i 0ry /U.t.l'tu.�KS IVI,j 24, ZOW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Q1? DATE: c/6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works e —/5 M DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from Kutzky Addition Neighborhood PREPARED BY: D. Rossman� This is a Public Hearing to establish Permit Parking on eight blocks of this neighborhood to control all day parking on their street. The petition is for "Residential Permit Parking on the following listed streets between the hours of 7:00am to 5:00pm. Monday thru Friday: 1. West Center Street on both sides of the street from 9th Avenue toll" Avenue 2. 2"d Street NW on both sides of the street from 6" Avenue to 7�h Avenue. 3. 3" Street NW on both sides of the street from 6th Avenue to 8th Avenue 4. 4" Street NW on both sides of the street from 61h Avenue to 71h Avenue. 5. 7'h Avenue NW on both sides of the street from 2nd Street to 4th Street The area is shown on the attached map. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. #138. This review is shown on page 2 of the RCA. All conditions are met, therefore staff would recommend in favor of the petition. • COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to the Comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution Book: A) adding paragraphs (3 thru 8) to Zone #8 (Kutzky Addition) of section L "Residential Permit Parking to be effective from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday thru Friday" (3) 2nd Street NW / 600 & 700 blocks, on both sides of the street. (4) 3'd Street NW / 600 & 700 blocks, on the north side of the street. (5) 4' Street NW / 600 block, on both sides of the street. (6) West Center Street / 900 & 1000 blocks on both sides of the street. (7) 7°i Avenue NW 200 block on the east side of the street. (8) 7°i Avenue NW 300 block on both sides of the street. B) amend paragraphs (19.0) (19.5) (49.5) and (50.5) of section B "No Parking Zones" to read: (19.0) West Center Street / 700, 800 and 100 blocks, on the north side of the street, from 7:00 pm Monday to 3:00 pm Tuesday. (19.5) West Street / 700, 800 and 1100 blocks , on the south side of the street except from 3 pm Monday to 7 pm Tuesday. (49.5) 2"d Street NW / 800 block, on the north side of the street, except from 3 pm Monday to 7 pm Tuesday. (50.5) 2"d Street NW / 800 block, on the south side of the street, from 7:00 pm Monday to 3:00 pm Tuesday COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: Z� 12 RCA June 5, 2000 Page 2 Staff review of a petition to install "Residential Permit Parkine on the following listed streets, between the hours of 7:00am to 5:00pm, Monday thru Friday: 1. West Center Street on both sides of the street from 9th Avenue to l lth Avenue 2 2"d Street NW on both sides of the street from 6th Avenue to 71h Avenue. 3. 3`d Street NW on both sides of the street from 61h Avenue to Sth Avenue 4. 0' Street NW on both sides of the street from 6th Avenue to 7`h Avenue. 5. 7th Avenue NW on both sides of the street from 2nd Street to 4th Street The petition has been analyzed in the following 4 areas: 1) Is this area residential in nature? Yes 2) Is the zone requested at least 32 dwelling unit in size? Yes, this is part on the Kutzky zone, which is bounded by 6` Avenue on the east, First Street SW on the south, I Vh Avenue on the west, and Cascade Creek on the north. Three other streets in the zone presently have Permit Parking. 3) Is the street congested with parking from an outside source? Yes, the street is congested with cars parking on both sides of the streets on weekdays, and is mainly students from Lourdes High School and employees from the medical center. 4) Is the petition signed by 60% of the residents or landowners? Yes. 54 of 79 residents (68%). There are various parking restrictions inplace. The notes in the chart below explain what is recommended for each of these existing restrictions. The petition has signed by the following percentage of abutting property owners or residents: Block street/row width # of signers # of buildings % signing Notes W. Center St/ 900 block 30/75 7 8 87 % (1) W. Center St/ 1000 block 30/75 5 11 45 % (1) Subtotal 12 19 63 % 2"d Street / 600 block 35/75 5 5 100 % (1) 3rd Street / 600 block 27/66 4 9 44 % (2) 3'd Street / 700 block 27/66 11 13 84 % (2) 41h Street / 600 block 36/66 10 13 76 % 7th Avenue / 200 block 27/66 4 10 40 % (2) 7th Avenue / 300 block 36/66 8 10 80 % Grand Total 54 79 68 % The following notes are on the existing restrictions. (1) Replace existing alternating restriction with a one -day restriction on each side for street maintenance. (2) No Parking Restriction is inplace on one side due to the street width. This is to remain. The petition has been discussed with the City Police Department. Their recommendation is to proceed. All conditions are met, therefore staff would recommend in favor of the petition. Stobaugh, Walter S. City Council members Object; E-15 Permit parking This item is related to parking at 904 West Center in the front yard. While this permit parking will help the landlord meet his responsibility, there are other rental property where front yard parking continues to be problematic impacting negatively on the neighborhood. Does the Council want to allow front yard parking? Below is a note from my constituent which reflects concerns of many others. We need this ordinance enforced by Planning and Zoning! It may be a hard decision, but none of us wants this in our neighborhood. Perhaps a Committee of the Whole on this issue is necessary or just enforcement of the ordinance by Planning and Zoning. Thanks.... Walter Walter S. Stobaugh Rochester City Council Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:49 AM To: Stobaugh, Walter S. Subject: front yard parking! Hi Walter, I won't be able to attend tonight but I wanted to let you know how I feel about front yard parking in Kutzky Park. I am AGAINST it! Big surprise! Seriously, it makes the neighborhood look awful, and the city should enforce the rules so that our neighborhood doesn't go down the tubes! What sort of impression does front yard parking give everyone who drive to work, or drives how from work? They all think that Kutzky Park is a dump and is a dangerous place to live. Of all things the city of Rochester doesn't need that. Also, it is dangerous. How many children watch out for cars while riding their bicycles on the sidewalk? Some might when they see driveways but I am sure that no children watch for cars while riding past a yard. Wouldn't it be tragic if some tenant backed out and while they were watching in their rear view mirror for the curb they ran over some young person? The city needs to keep ticketing these people, and they should fine the landlord! When he bought this place he knew there was no parking. He also should be required to have grass, not gravel, in his front yard. Money talks and he will finally take notice when this starts to cost him! thanks for your trouble and your support, J — 1 1 J _ ,• i ` T—r — Il T. . EA ENEN 71"J, 3LJi_L I 1J—L�1 V ACATE0 1P NOV. 1 42 I �' �<•/ - 4 k AY69 "11 I _- —___�_; i I 1 •��\J/ wACATEO." r" _ ,1 A. I —_._ •, ; I 1' I � �� I � �� I •Z ---- w- i Q i IW — 4 - 332ro 2 ST. N. W.• I I "i ST.- N. W. ,. v : u s i CITY OF ROCHESTER,MN. PERMIT PARKING ZONE I °f 3A•a"k SLJ 2' LGtar�tS� a . S�ko� ti• .: CITY OF ROCHESTER , MN. PERMIT PARKING ZONE #--------- 8 Ku+zky NQ�9lbo�l,aod REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 33l � DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works Avenue NW PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur The City is pursuing a project to construct a new roadway on the 16" Avenue NW alignment linking Civic Center Drive and 7' Street NW. This roadway is an important connection to help distribute traffic on roads within the area. This roadway will also provide adequate access to allow greater flexibility of development on the abutting properties. The purpose for the Official Map is to designate the permanent the right of way needs for the 16' Avenue NW Project. This Map also provides guidance to the Owners in the area and the City as to where setbacks and what development standards should be applied for structures that will be located on the lots affected by the project if development occurs prior to roadway construction. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution approving the Official Street Map for 16" Avenue NW between Civic Center Drive and 71" Street NW. twUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3?3 DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works Ci-(q ITEM DESCRIPTION: Project Hearing for: "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from PREPARED BY: R. Kelm". tF Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway" (J9609) This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project Number 6215-4-00, (J9609) Project Name "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway". Estimated Project Costs Grading & Paving, Curb.& Gutter $110,000 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 10,000 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 36,000 Total $156,000 Prolect Cost Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage .............. $ 31,603.05 Special Assessments — Sidewalk .............. $ 8,608.11 City Share ................................................... $115,788.84 Total........................................................... $156,000.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. 1 `'i COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made. Attach: Map, Feasibility Report COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 3� Concrete Curb & Gutter in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway Project No. 6215-4-00 J9609 Report On Feasibility Of 13357r Proposed Local Improvement Project Project No. 6215-4-00 J. 9609 Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway Date: March 20, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing certain petition requesting "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway" was referred to the Public Works Department January 19, 2000 for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report. Engineer's Reoort We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1958 and is due for resurfacing. We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective, cost-effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at this time for this street, which has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 68, is rehabilitation. Work ludes resurfacing of the street, the addition of concrete curb and gutter and appropriate storm water inage structures. The property owners direct contribution for rehabilitation is $15.00 per assessable foot (Residential), and $22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial) frontage. The estimated costs for the street rehabilitation, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $110,000 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 10,000 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 36,000 Total $156,000 A sessment Basis for Rehabilitation The'cost of rehabilitation as established by City Council Policy is: $15.00 per assessable foot (Residential) $22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial) Estimated assessable Residential frontage (902.82') x $15.00 per foot $13 542.30 Estimated assessable Commercial frontage (802.70') x $22.50 per foot $18 060.75 Total frontage assessments $31 603.05 Assessment Basis for Sidewalk Replacement Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates: 4" Sidewalk (residential) $5.00 per square foot 5" Sidewalk (commercial) $5.75 per square foot 6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches) $6.50 per square foot 7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) $7.00 per square foot Estimated assessable 4" Sidewalk = 111.38 x $5.00 er s uare foot $556.90 Estimated assessable 5' Sidewalk = 768.00 x $5.75 per square foot $4,416.00 Estimated assessable 6" Sidewalk = 53.82 x $6.50 per square foot $349.83 Estimated assessable 7" Sidewalk = 469.34 x $7,00 per square foot $3,285.38 Total Sidewalk assessments $8 608.11 Assessment Basis for Drive Approach — Extra Widths All drive approaches will be replaced (at the existing width) with a concrete drive approach meeting current design standards. Additional width is assessed by the square yard and is assessed directly to the property owner at the following rates: 6" Concrete Drive Approach (Residential) $31.68 per square yard 7" Concrete Drive Approach (Commercial) $34.96 per square yard Since the extra width of the drive approach upgrade is entirely at the property owner's request, only the rates are given. Total Estimated Funding Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage Special Assessments — Sidewalk City Share Total ussel�E Design Engineer .. . , .. Z - $31,603.05 $8, 608.11 $115,788.84 $156,000.00 Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3307 / DATE: J /5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works F, -18 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment Hearing for: PREPARED BY:,,, "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from R. Kelm Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway" (J9609) This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement project: Project Number 6215-4-00, (J9609) Project Name "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway". Estimated Project Costs Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $110,000 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 10,000 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 36,000 Total $156,000 Project Cost Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage .............. $ 31,603.05 Special Assessments — Sidewalk .............. $ 8,608.11 City Share ................................................... $115,788.84 Total........................................................... $156,000.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. 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. �el COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING J/� DATE: 6/5/ 0 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works —�9 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Hearing Sewer and Watermain to Serve 3010 Valleyhigh Drive PREPARED BY: N.W., J9595 J. Loehr This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project No. 9918, J9595 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve 3010 Valleyhigh Drive N.W." The estimated project costs and expense of this project are as follows: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 87,441 Service Connections $ 5,769 Engineering/Interest/Contingencies $ 2T963 Total Estimated Project Cost $121,173 The project is proposed to be funded from Utility Connection Agreements, Sales Tax Revenue appropriated for the Water Quality Protection Program, Water Utility share for watermain crossing of Valleyhigh Drive NW, and Sewer Availability Charges for sewer crossing of Valleyhigh Drive NW. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since the project was petitioned by 20% of the owners of property affected by the project, a 6/7ths vote of the City Council is required for adoption. Attach: Map Petition Feasibility Report COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN TO SERVE 3010 VALLEYHIGH DRIVE N.W. April 25, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve 3010 Valleyhigh Drive N.W. was forwarded by the City Council at their April 19, 1999 meeting to the Public Works Department for the preparation of a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was signed by 1 of the 5 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling, a multi -family dwelling, or a commercial or industrial development. This represents 20 percent of the lots within proposed project area that are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999. Feasibility Reoort We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of this project is within an area of 2 lots that contain single-family residential dwellings, 1 lot that contains a multi -family residential dwelling and 2 lots that contains a commercial development that currently lack public sanitary sewer and watermain. The petitioner for the project owns the property containing the multi -family residential dwelling. The Fire Department has instructed the petitioner to install a fire sprinkler system within the dwelling or the property cannot be used for multi -family housing any longer. In addition the petitioner's property has a septic system that is inadequate and the owner is currently relying on a holding tank to provide for the dwellings sewage needs. The holding tank requires frequent pumping as the septic system (drain field) does not provide adequate service for the dwelling. The septic systems and wells within the Area were constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are less than 1-1/2 acres in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow the five property owners to connect their property to public sanitary sewer and water systems rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection charges (Utility Connection Agreements), from Sales Tax Revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program, and from the Water Utility (Valleyhigh Drive NW watermain crossing).. The proposed project consists of the installation of approximately 850 feet of 8-inch sanitary sewer and 110 feet of 8-inch watermain. Public sanitary sewer is currently available at the south end of the project limits and watermain is located within the Valleyhigh Drive ROW. Therefore, an extension of a trunkline sanitary sewer main or trunk watermain is not required to serve the project area. SSA( The estimated construction costs and expenses for the project made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $113,673 Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs $750 per service x 3 services $ 3,750 Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 3 services $ 3,750 Estimated Cost of the Project $121 173 The estimated proiect costs are proposed to be funded as follows: Utility Connection Agreements $ 60,814 Water Utility (water crossing of Valleyhigh Drive NW) $ 17,836 Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) (sewer crossing of Valleyhigh Drive NW) $ 7,785 Sales Tax Revenue (see below) $ 34,738 Estimated Project Costs $121,173 Amount of sales tax revenue required for the project construction Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 27,238 Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) $ 3,750 Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances) $ 3,750 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $ 34,738 Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property The 5 - lots within the project area contain commercial or multi -family development. These lots are eligible for Allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows: Sewer Service Lateral 5 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 5,000 Water Service Lateral 5 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 5,000 Well Closure 5 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 5,000 Septic Closure 5 lots x $ 500 per lot $ 2,500 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 17,500 For Work on Private Property Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Project and Allowances Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of Project $ 34,738 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 17,500 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of Project $ 52,238 Allowances for Work on Private Property, and SAC & WAC We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service connections in the Valleyhigh Drive NW Area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection Program. Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the benefits contained therein, are required to: 3ya- 1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the City initiates the project. 2. Connect the existing single family residential dwelling to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project initiation. SubmItt2d for your consideration: Jame44. ehr, Project Manager Wa4 Qua 'ty Protection Program Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering ;Y3 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: 9918 Date (Orig.) 03/15/2000 J No: 9595 Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve 3010 Vallevhigh Drive NW Construction Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Service Connections Enaineerina/I nterest/Co ntingencv Total Construction & Expense Cost Distribution Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements Water Utility Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) Utility Connection Agreements Sales Tax Funding TOTAL Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund Project Contract Final Budget Cost Cost $ 87,441 5,769 27,963 $ 121,173 17,836 7,785 $ 121,173 \- w f INSTRUMENT DRIVE NW Y i � � _o O as M j J =N as 00 _ v ll�mm aR nd a �4m a w m � O eor AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Hearing: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve Marion Township, J9601 This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: MEETING DATE: 6/5100 ITEM^NO. l y r� PREPARED BY: JJffJ. Loehr Project No. M004. J9601 "Sanitary Sewer to Serve Nelson's & Christopher Courts Subdivisions and the South Side of Marion Road SE; and Sewer and Water to Serve 20' Street SE from Marion Road SE to 200 Feet East of 37'^ Avenue SE & Samelians Subdivision". The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows: Sanitary Sewer and watermain $ 745,904 Service Connections 109,038 Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 256,483 Total Estimated Project Cost $1,111,425 The project is proposed to be funded from the following sources: 1. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges included in future Utility Connection Agreements. 2. Sales Tax revenue appropriated for the Water Quality Protection Program. 3. Water Utility for oversize watermain costs. An Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City of Rochester and Marion Township is finalized. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since the project was petitioned by greater than 60% of the owners of property affected by the project, a simple majority vote of the City Council is required for adoption. Attach: Map Petition Feasibility Report COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second i REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SANITARY SEWER TO SERVE NELSON'S& CHRISTOPHER COURTS SUBD AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARION ROAD SE; AND SEWER AND WATER TO SERVE 20T" STREET SE FROM MARION ROAD SE TO 200 FEET EAST OF 37T11 AVENUE SE & SAMELIANS SUBDIVISION April 26, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota Petition for the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the project area were forwarded by the City Council at their meeting of April 5, 1999, May 3, 1999 and July 7, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the preparation of Feasibility Reports. The petitions were checked and found to be in proper form and were signed by 89 of 140 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling or a developed commercial property. This represents 63.4 percent of the developed lots within project area that are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998. Feasibility Report We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of this project is within an area of existing single family residential and commercial development that is currently served by public watermain, but lacks public sanitary sewer. A majority of the septic systems within project area were constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under '/2 acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow property owners of lots containing an existing single-family residential dwelling or a commercial building to connect to public sanitary sewer and watermain rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges (Utility Connection Agreements) and from Sales Tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program, and the water Utility for oversize watermain costs. The proposed project consists of the extension of the following public sanitary sewer and watermain: 8" sanitary sewer in Nelson's Subdivision 32 properties 8" sanitary sewer connecting Christopher Courts Subdivision to 20th St. sub-trunkline 48 properties 8" sanitary sewer & 12" watermain on the south side of Marion Road SE 11 properties 12" watermain in 20th Street SE 16 properties 10" sanitary sewer and 8" watermain in Samelians Subdivision10" sanitary and 8" watermain in Samelians Subdivision 33properties Number of properties being served by this project 140 properties Related projects required to serve this project area are as follows: 1. Trunkline sanitary sewer to serve this area (project J9598) is under construction in 2000. 2. Water tower (project J9603 is scheduled for construction in 2000-2001. 3. Portions of trunk watermain to serve this area (project J9604) are scheduled for construction in 2000. The estimated construction costs and expenses for the project made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $ 969,675 Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs $750 per service x 140 services $ 105,000 Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 49 services $ 36,750 Estimated Cost of Project $ 1111 425 The estimated project costs for the project are proposed to be funded as follows: Utility Connection Agreements $ 641,214 Water Utility (oversize watermain costs) $ 39,429 Sales Tax Revenue (see below) $ 430,782 Estimated Project Costs $1 111 425 Amount of sales tax revenue required for construction of Project Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 289,032 Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) $ 105,000 Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances) $ 36,750 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $ 430,782 Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on Private property The 140 developed lots within the project area are eligible for Allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows: Sewer Service Lateral 140 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 140,000 Water Service Lateral 49 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 49,000 Well Closure 49 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 49,000 Septic Closure 140 lots x $ 500 per lot 70 000 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 308,000 For Work on Private Property Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Project and Allowances Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of Project $ 430,782 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 308,000 Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of Project and $ 738,782 Allowances for Work on Private Property 3qg We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service connections in the project area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection Program. Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the benefits contained therein, are required to: 1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the City initiates the project. 2. Connect the existing single family residential dwelling to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project initiation. 3. Consent to annexation of their property no sooner than five (5) years from the date sanitary sewer and watermain is available to serve their property. Submitted for your consideration: /V Ja es N4 Loehr, Project Manager Water Qhality Protection Program Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: M004 Date (Orig.) 4/26/2000 J No: 9601 Description: Sanitary Sewer to Serve Nelson's Subdivision, Christopher Courts Subdivision and Samelians Subdivision. Project Contract Final Budget Cost Cost Construction Sanitary Sewer & Watermain $ 745,904 Service Connections Enoineedno/I nterest/Conti ngency Total Construction & Expense Cost Distribution Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements Sales Tax Funding Water Utility Share (oversize watermain) TOTAL Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund 109,038 256,483 $1,111,425 $ 641,214 430,782 39,429 $1,111,425 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 35r --- DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works e—a.( ITEM DESCRIPTION: Project Hearing for: "Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 16 1/2 Street SE PREPARED BY: . R. Kelm�� to 19th St SE" (J9639) This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project Number 6310-2-00, (J9639) Protect Name "Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 16 t/2 Street SE to 19" St SE". Estimated Project Costs Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $103,000 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 32,000 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 40,500 Total $175,500 Project Cost Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage .............. $ 20,414.10 Special Assessments — Sidewalk .............. $ 0.00 City Share ................................................... $155,085.90 Total........................................................... $175,500.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made. Attach: Map, Feasibility Report COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: s Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10`h Avenue SE from 161/2Street SE to 19 Street SE Project No. 6310-2-00 J9639 P:TR OJE(-.TSU-11RON9639Tcsig n\Docslrca-map. Joe m Report On Feasibility Of ��� Proposed Local Improvement Project Project No. 6310-2-00 J. 9639 Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 161/2 Street SE to 191h Street SE Date: March 20. 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing certain petition requesting "Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 16 Ya Street SE to 19u' Street SE" was referred to the Public Works Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report. Engineer's Report We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction. Sections of the existing street were constructed with bituminous curbing in 1968 and additions were made in 1969 and 1976. The entire length is due for resurfacing We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective, cost-effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at his time for this street, which has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of mid 40's, is rehabilitation. Work icludes resurfacing of the street, the addition of concrete curb and gutter and appropriate storm water drainage structures. The property owners direct contribution for rehabilitation is $15.00 per assessable foot (Residential), and $22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial) frontage. The estimated costs for the street rehabilitation, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $103,000 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 32,000 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 40,500 Total $175,500 MS essment Basis for Rehabilitation The -cost of rehabilitation as established by City Council Policy is: $15.00 per assessable foot (Residential) $22.50 per assessable foot (Commercial) Estimated assessable Residential frontage 1,360.94' x $15.00 per foot $20,414.10 Estimated assessable Commercial frontage M x $22.50 per foot $0.00 Total frontage assessments $20,414.10 Assessment Basis for Sidewalk Replacement Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates: 4" Sidewalk (residential) $5.00 per square foot 5" Sidewalk (commercial) $5.75 per square foot 6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches) $6.50 per square foot 7' Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) $7.00 per square foot Estimated assessable 4" Sidewalk = 0 x $5.00 per s uare foot $0.00 Estimated assessable 5" Sidewalk = 0 x $5.75 per square foot $0.00 Estimated assessable 6" Sidewalk = 0 x $6.50 per square foot $0.00 Estimated assessable 7" Sidewalk = 0 x $7.00 per square foot $0.00 Total Sidewalk assessments $OAO Assessment Basis for Drive Approach — Extra Widths All drive approaches will be replaced (at the existing width) with a concrete drive approach meeting current design standards. Additional width is assessed by the square yard and is assessed directly to the property owner at the following rates: 6" Concrete Drive Approach (Residential) $31.68 per square yard 7" Concrete Drive Approach (Commercial) $34.95 per square yard Since the extra width of the drive approach upgrade is entirely at the property owner's request, only the rates are given. Total Estimated Funding Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage Special Assessments — Sidewalk City Share Total " i LI Russell Kelm, PE Design Engineer $20,414.10 $0.00 $155,085.90 $175,500.00 Doug Nelson, PE Manager of Engineering REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 355' DATE: 6/5/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works E�o2� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Assessment Hearing for: PREPARED By: "Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 16'/2 Street SE R. Kelm to 19th St SE" (J9639) This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement project: Project Number 6310-2-00, (J9639) Project Name "Concrete Curb & Gutter on 10th Avenue SE from 16 Y2 Street SE to 11h St SE". Estimated Project Costs Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $103,000 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $ 32,000 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 40,500 Total $175,500 Project Cost Distribution Special Assessments — Frontage .............. $ 20,414.10 Special Assessments — Sidewalk .............. $ 0.00 City Share ................................................... $155,085.90 Total........................................................... $175,500.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. 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 by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AurNUA OrL, 11UN: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as 4l Street General Development Plan. The Plan proposes to develop approximately 16.40 acres of land with low -density residential dwellings. The property is located along the south side of 40th Street SW, east of 11t" Avenue SW. June 1, 2000 MEETING DATE: 6-5-60 ITEM NO. E -a3 %EPARED BY: Brent Svenby, Planner r� NOTE: Staff would recommend that the Council add the following condition to the GDP: That the private roadway running parallel to 40th Street SW be relocated on the GDP outside of the proposed street profile and cross sections for 40th Street SW as indicated on the preliminary plans prepared for 40th Street SW as reflected in the street plan of the City of Rochester's current 6-year Capital Improvement Program. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this GDP on March 22nd, April 26" and May 10, 2000 See the minutes of the Commission meetings for a summary of the issues discussed at the meetings. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manuai, Mr. Brede made a motion to approve General Development Plan #151, to be known as 40t° Street, with staff - suggested findings and conditions per Mr. Svenby's memo of May 10, 2000. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. "ie motion carried 7-0. .,onditions: 1. The GDP be revised to include the following: • 50 feet of right-of-way shown as being dedicated for 40t" St. SW and 11", Ave. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, • Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 11t" Ave. SW and the south side of 40t° St. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, • The site details (haul roads, stockpiles, proposed excavated ponds) of the approved conditional use permits covering this property and the adjacent properties, Z Storm water management must be provided for this development. 3. Controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 40t° Street SW, with exception of the private street access that is shown across from Willow Heights Drive SW, and along I1'h Avenue SW, with the exception of the private roadway shown in the southwest corner of the GDP. The existing access immediately east of Willow Court SW must be closed upon construction of the private roadway. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, SAC and WAC fees, contributions for public infrastructure improvements, contributions for future reconstruction of 40t" St. SE. Current City policy for substandard street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage for residential developments. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area that may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. COUNCILACTION: Motlonby: second by: to; Page 2 RCA June 1, POO i 5. If the development of this property occurs prior to the reconstruction of 40`h St. SW, grading of this property must be compatible with the street profile and cross -sections being proposed for the 40,h St. SW reconstruction in the Street Layout Plan. The private roadway connections to public streets must meet City intersection sight line standards. 6. The applicant agrees to dedicate a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of 40`h St. SW This dedication must be provided with the first plat of this development or when the City notifies the owner that a roadway improvement project is programmed, which ever comes first. 7. The applicant agrees to meet the parkland dedication requirement for this development in the form of cash in lieu of land. The development has a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 1.76 acres based on a maximum density of 6 units/acres. 8. A revised GDP shall be riled with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications. Planning Staff Recommendation: • See attached staff report dated April 20, 2000. • Staff would also recommend one additional condition. See note on first page. %,ounCll Action Neegea: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Counc ist make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated April 20, 2000 2. Minutes of March 22nd, April 26" and May 10, 2000 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department GIS Division 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m, on Monday, June 5, 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. zz 6141" ob 1m11l �1 moll �2 5 owl. _ =1in R- Ix a-4 M-1 I R-1 M-1 M r UAJOIJ, MA I got R=WTO Wi _ �� To: Brent Svenby CC: Mike Nigbur, Charlie Reiter From: Richard W. Freese !/ Date: May 10, 2000 Re: General Development Plan GDP #00-151 The Planning Commission has heard testimony during its last two meetings regarding the right-of-way dedication requirements for 40th Street SW that abuts the entire north side of the General Development Plan #00- IS 1. 1 received a letter from Mr. John Arnold representing Mr. Kottschade on May 1, 2000 requesting that I provide information on six items related to the 40th Street right-of-way, roadway geometdcs, construction easements, project schedule and wetland replacement. The information that Mr. Arnold requested was presented to him and Bill Toiton on May 9. Mr. Arnold and Mr. Tointon were given copies of all the information that was requested by Mr. Arnold. The two issues that were not resolved at the May 9th Meeting with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Tointon were the amount (41feet proposed by the applicant verses 50 feet recommended by the Public Works staff) of right-of-way dedication along 40th Street and the condition requiring the applicant to grade the property in a manner compatible with the proposed profile and cross -sections of 40th Street SW. I offer the following information to the Planning Commission regarding the Public Works staff recommendations regarding the width of right-of-way dedication. The ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan indicates that it was updated to "allow for a greater degree of flexibility in roadway design". It further states that the standards "are designed to minimize safety hazards, traffic congestion and other negative impacts which can result when land use development is not carefully coordinated with the street and roadway system". Under Section 3.4, Collector, of the Thoroughfare Plan it states that "in large scale developments In which the average daily traffic on the collector becomes excessively high, It may be necessary to construct the road to a higher design standard than that of a collector". The design year projected traffic for the section of 40th Street SW abutting GDP #00-151 is 9,150 vehicles per day and in the Thoroughfare Plan the ADT (average daily traffic) Range for a High Density Collector is 1,000-7,000 ADT. The Thoroughfare Plan is a guide to be used to establish minimum standards for right-of-way width and "MAY-10-2000 17:48 PANAFRK 0 0 55072816216 P.01i01 VA roadway width. It is not intended to be the sole basis for determining right-of-way and roadway design standards. May 10, 2000 The City land Development Manual (LDM) at Section 64230, Determination of Right -of - Way Widths, provides a formula to be used to identify additional right-of-way needs for public and private roadways. The formula is W = M+T+A+S+B+F where: W = Right -of -Way width M = Median Width (needed for left tam lanes, traffic separation, and future widening) T= Width of Through Lanes A = Width of Auxiliary Lanes (includes such items as parking ]ones, additional width for bus stop bays, additional width for curb and gutter) S = Sidewalk Width B - Boulevard Width F = Future Needs (includes anticipated or planned widening, and frontage roads) Applying this formula to urban roadway section proposed for the 40th Street SW corridor from l lth Avenue SW easterly to Willow Ridge Drive SW would result in a right-of-way width W =127 feet or 63.5 feet each side of the centerline of the existing right-of-way. The right-of-way width was calculated as follows: M = 20 feet (12 foot wide left turn lanes at Willow Court and at 1 Im Avenue, with a 4 foot wide median and 2 foot gutter section on each side of the median) T = 52 feet (2 lanes at 12 feet wide per lane and 2 Janes at 14 feet wide which include the gutter section) A = 24 feet (12 foot wide right turn lanes for westbound traffic at Willow Ridge Drive, Willow Heights Drive and Willow Court, and for eastbound traffic at the entranceto GDP #151) S = 15 feet (10 foot wide bituminous path on one side of road and 5 foot wide sidewalk on the other side of the road) B = 16 feet (8 foot wide boulevard on each side of the road) F = 0 feet (Future needs addressed in M and A above) IGtllbGlb r.✓Z/OZ> *VIALO / Under the provisions of Section 64.231 the City could have requested a right -of --way dedication of 63.5 feet for the General Development Pian 400-151: instead the Public Works Department limited the right-of-way impact in this section of the 40th Street SW corridor to 50 feet. The recommended dedication of 50 feet of right-of-way is consistent with the right-of-way dedication required of other development projects along collector roadways in Rochester. The Planning Commission and City Council have required at least 50 feet for right-of-way dedication for the following development.projects abutting roadways designated collectors on the Thoroughfare Plan: Kingsbury Subdivision along 55th Street NW Wedgewood Subdivision along 55th Street NW Golf View Estates Subdivision along 50th Avenue NW Bandel North First Subdivision along Bandel Road NW East Wood Hills Subdivision along Eastwood Road and 40th Avenue SE Southern hills Subdivision along I Ith Avenue SW Mayowood Commons Subdivision along Mayowood Road SW Bomber Ridge Subdivision along 18th Avenue SW Meadow Park South Subdivision along 20th Street SE The Public Works staff could have recommended that the 40th Street SW be reconstructed as a rural section roadway (paved shoulders and open stormwater drainage ditches verses curb and gutter with storm sewer). Using the formula prescribed in Section 64.231 the required rural section right-of-way width W e 144 feet. The Boulevard Width, B, increases from 16 feet to at least 30 feet to accommodate the open stormwater drainage ditch and the Auxiliary Lanes, A, increases from 24 feet to 36 feet for paved shoulders and Through Lanes decreases from 52 feet to 48 feet as the curb and gutter is dropped in place of paved shoulders. The section of 40th Street SW abutting the Cote GDP #151 is projected have an average daily traffic volume of over 4,000 vehicles in the design year 2025. This project of traffic is the result of the extensive computer assisted traffic simulations conducted by a consultant under contract to MnDOT, the County and the City to prepare an Environmental Assessment and, Layout Plan for the construction of interchanges on TH 63 South at 40th And 48th Streets and the intersecting city and county roads. The traffic projections are based on designated land use and the projected development intensity of property in the study area and the resulting trip generation form each traffic analysis zone. The City has provided the applicant sufficient information to prepare a Site Grading Plan and Final Plat that is compatible with the fill slopes and profile ofthe proposed 40th Street and I 1 th Avenue SW reconstruction scheduled for 2003. The requirement to grade the GDP # 00-151 in a manner compatible does not mean that the applicant needs to construct the fill slopes for the road projects, but rather the applicant needs to grade the property to match the proposed street profile and cross -sections at the south right-of-way line of 40th Street SW and along the cast right-of-way line of 1 Ith Avenue SW. The amount of right- of-way that will need to be acquired by the City, in addition to the dedication requirements, �Hr-Ln-�nnn Lc:tee FHNHrHX 95072816216 P.04i05 may 10, 1000 will be determined during the Development Agreement negotiations and incorporated into the Final Plat for the property included in GDP #00-15 i. McGhie F l Betts, Inc.' Consulting Engineers , 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 April 28, 2000 Mr. Franklin P. Kottschade North American Realty 3800 Hwy. 52 North Rochester, NIN 55901 Re: General Development Plan and Zone Change for the Cote property (City of Rochester identification numbers GDP #151 and Zoning Amendment #00-04) Dear Mr. Kottschade: This letter is to confirm our verbal communication relative to the proposed 40th Street SW & 11th Avenue SW roadway reconstruction project adjacent to your property, which fronts both of these roadways On April 6, 2000, I contacted Mr. Dan Schiefert, design engineer with Yaggy/Colby Associates of Rochester, who are the consultant for the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the 40th Street & I lth Avenue reconstruction project, to seek information on several issues related to this project. During the conversation with Mr. Schiefert, I asked him why you (Mr. Kottschade) had not been contacted regarding the reconstruction project. as it appears that it would affect your property and most, if not all, of the other adjoining affected property owners had been contacted by the City or the Consultant to discuss the project. Mr. Schiefert replied that he was specifically instructed by the staff of the Minnesota Department of Transportation not to discuss this project in any fashion with you (Mr. Kottschade) until the fore, I was not able to obtain any specific information pending lawsuit with the State was settled. There that may have assisted us in the determination of the extent of the affect this reconstruction project may have on your proposed project. Obviously, I could not adequately respond to the issues of concern raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rochester since the March 22, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission bearing on your project. If you have any additional questions, please contact me. Yours very truly, M)c/Ghie & Setts, Inc. 'Wi.U..r William E. Tointon PC: Mr. John Arnold K. M. McGhie, PE, LS. 19041975 William E. Tointon, CET, President James E. Swanson. LS. Vice President David L. Morrill, PE, Vice President Douglas N. Betts, PE, I.S. Vice President Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA Lam/ J. Shannon, LS Michael E. Gowin. PE, LS Mark E. Severtson, LS Daniel J. Zemke, PE Gregory P. Bond, PE An Equal G000rtunitv EMDlOVer TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: April 20, 2000 - Revised IF a Wm-•+1 ♦�pn71�l0w : ROCHESTER-OLMSTE❑ 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 WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: General Development Plan #151 to be known as 40th Street GDP Planning Department Review: Applicant: Franklin Kottschade 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Consultants: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55901 Size and Location: The area includes approximately 16.44 acres of land located along the south side of 4& Street SW, east of 111h Ave. SW. The applicant owns additional property to the east and south that is not included in this application. Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped. The applicant does have an approved Conditional Use Permit that covers this area. The CUP is for mining and excavation activities. In the 1998 the applicant submitted a GDP which covered 106 acres of land, which included the land in this current proposed GDP. The applicant requested that it be tabled indefinitely until he initiates a request to bring it back to the Commission. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to develop the area with townhomes at a density of 5.5 to 6 units/acre. Land Use Plan: This property is identified for "Low Density Residential' uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. The applicant has filed a zoning AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 of 8 GDP #151 �J April 20, 2000 district amendment to rezone the property R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. The area shown as Phase 11 is located in Olmsted County and is zoned A- 4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. Streets: The plan proposes one 28 foot wide private roadway with an access point to 40" Street across from Willow Heights Drive SW. This private roadway extends westerl� parallel with 40" Street SW and intersects with 11 Avenue SW approximately 500 feet south of 401" Street SW. The existing public streets adjacent to the site (40" St. SW and 11" Ave. SW) are both classified "collector' streets but presently constructed to minimal "local" street standards. According to the City's Capital Improvement Program, 40" Street SW is scheduled to be reconstructed in the year 2002. 111" Ave. SW, presently a County Road, has only a gravel surface. Sidewalks: The plan provides no pedestrian facilities along the adjacent public roads. The ROCOG Long Range Bicycle Plan shows a future bicycle path along 401" Street SW and 11`" Avenue SW. Drainage: No stormwater detention is shown for this site. The City has identified a possible regional stormwater pond in this area. Stormwater management is required for this site. A grading plan has been approved for this site. The grading plan was approved by the Public Works Department and was issued in error by the Planning Department. The grading plan should not have been issued until a conditional use permit was approved for the grading and fill work in the flood prone district. The council will hold a public hearing on the conditional use permit on May 1, 2000. Wetlands: A 1.71 acre wetland has been delineated on the site. The City Council approved the delineation and replacement plan on July 19, 1999. Public Utilities: Watermains are in place along 401" Street SW and the property will be subject to water and sewer availability charges, connection fees or assessments. Parkland Dedication: The development proposes no parkland on site. The park and recreation department recommends that the parkland dedication requirements for this development be met through the dedication of cash in lieu of land. Based on a maximum density of 6 units/acre, the approximate parkland dedication is 1.76 acres. Payment of the cash dedication will be required prior to the recording of a final plat. n, Page 3 of 8 • GDP #151 April 20, 2000 Floodplain Zoning: The floodway of Willow Creek lies adjacent to the southern boundary of the GDP. Portions of this site lie in the 100-year floodfringe and are also subject to the additional standards of the "floodprone" overlay where the maintenance of the same amount of flood storage area is required after development. All residential dwellings must be at an elevation of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation. Any land filling or development in the "floodprone" area requires the issuance of a separate conditional use permit. The shoreland regulations are applicable to any Shoreland Regulations: portion of this property which lies within 300 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level of Willow Creek. If the proposed lake is created (as shown in GDP #130) with Willow Creek flowing into it, the "shoreland" regulations would apply basically to the entire site. The shoreland setbacks on this section of Willow Creek are 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark and a density of 4 units per acre. Development will have to conform to the lot width and density standards of Section 62.1004. Rochester Public Works Department, Planning Dept. Referral Comments: - Wetlands LGU, Planning Department — Addressing, RPU Water Division, Park and Recreation Department, Fire Department, RPU Operations Division, US West, Olmsted County Public Works Department MnDOT Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of General Development Plan Map 3. Referral Comments 4. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative 5. Minutes of the March 22, 2000 CPZC Meeting 6. Letter to Mr. Kottschade from Mr. Freese dated March 8, 2000. Summary: This GDP includes approximately 16.44 acres of land and proposes to be developed as a townhome development consisting of a density of approximately 5.5 to 6 units per acre. The applicant has filed a zoning district amendment for this property. The applicant is proposing to rezone this property to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. General development plan number 130, filed in 1998 and requested to be tabled indefinitely by the applicant, also covers the property. If this GDP is approved, GDP #130 will need to be revised to remove this land from it. The applicant does have approved conditional use permits (CUP #97-23 and #97-29) that apply to this property. According to the approved plans, there are stockpiles and haul roads located on this property. The plans also show the area north of Willow Creek, within the floodway, being Page 4 of 8 . • GDP #151 April 20, 2000 excavated to create ponds. The approved locations of the ponds, stockpiles and haul roads should be shown on this GDP. The CUPS were approved for an 18-year period. South and east of Willow creek, there are approved conditional use permits (#97-17 & 98-5) for mining and excavation activities. The proposed plan shows access to 40" Street SW and 11'" Avenue SW. Both of these roadways are classified "collector" streets on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan but presently are constructed to minimal "local" street standards. According to the City's Capital Improvement Program, 401" Street SW is scheduled to be reconstructed in the year 2002. The interchange at T.H. 63 South and 40" Street SW is scheduled for bid lettl in November 2002. A total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of 40`" Street SW and 11 Ave. SW will need to be dedicated to the City at the time of platting. The GDP will need to be revised to show the future ROW dedication of 50 feet. No pedestrian facilities are shown along the adjacent public roadways. Pedestrian facilities are shown adjacent to 401" Street SW and 11"' Avenue SW on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan. The GDP will also need to be revised to show these pedestrian facilities. The applicant did submit a grading and drainage plan for this property. It appears that the GDP and the grading plan are not consistent. The grading plan shows 3 sedimentation basins which are not shown on the GDP. The private roadway running parallel to 401" Street SW also appears to be inconsistent with the grading plan. The GDP needs to be revised to be consistent with the grading plan. The floodway boundary for Willow Creek lies adjacent to the southern boundary of the GDP. The entire site basically lies in the 100-year floodfringe and is subject to the additional standards of the "floodprone" overlay district. Any land filling or development in the "floodprone" area requires the issuance of a separate conditional use permit. The property is also subject to the shoreland regulations of the LDM. If the applicant is successful in combining the excavation ponds with Willow Creek, this property will be subject to the shoreland regulations. Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15. 1999). Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. This GDP proposes a low density residential development, which is consistent with the land use designation on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The applicant is also proposing to zone this property R-2 (Low Density Residential), which would be consistent the low density residential land use designation, however, the R-iX (Mixed Single Family Extra) district may suit the proposed density better. The R-iX district allows townhome developments up to a density of 5.5 units per acre as a type i use with densities between 5.5 — 8.71 as a type it use. The zoning ordinance and land development manual does allow increases above the type i density up to the maximum type 11 density by the inclusion of certain design features in the development plan which qualities the applicant to increase the density. 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. 310 Page 5 8 GDP #151 April 20, 2000 The proposed development is not compatible with existing use of the property and the adjacent property. Currently conditional use permits number 97-23 and 97-29 affect the property. These conditional use permits allow the property to be used for activities associated with mining and excavation activities. The approved plans for these permits show stockpiles and haul roads being located on this property. The permits are approved for an 18-year period. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The development density is consistent with the low density residential land use designation of the Land Use Plan and is generally consistent with the Housing Plan. 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 is proposed from 4dh Street SW and 11'h Avenue SW. The adopted Thoroughfare Plan designates 4e St. SIN and t 1'h Ave. SW as collector roadways. According the City's current 6-year Capital Improvement Program, 4dh St. SW is scheduled to be upgraded to a collector standard in the year 2002. The required right-of-way for a collector roadway (50' from centerline) needs to be dedicated for this reconstruction of 40'h St. SW. and eventually i 1'h Ave. SW. A contribution will be required for the future reconstruction of 40h St. SW to a collector standard. Current City policy for substandard street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area, which may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. improvements to 4dh St. SW are scheduled for the year 2002, which will upgrade in the roadway to a collector standard. The private roadway connections to public streets will need to meet the City intersection sight line standards. The applicant will need to enter into a Develop Agreement with the City that will outline the developer's responsibility for improvements. 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 Page 6 of 8 • • �^ GDP #151 •1 April 20, 2000 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. This area is within the Main Level Service Area, which is available for connection in 41f Street S W. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. The GDP does not proposed any storm water detention ponds on the property, however, the grading plan submitted shows 3 sedimentation ponds on the property. The City has identified a possible Regional Stormwater Pond in this area. The owner and the City should jointly participate in the proposed City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan by sizing and constructing the detention pond to serve as a regional facility. The adopted ROCOG Pedestrian Facility Plan identifies pedestrian facilities along 11fh Ave. SW and 40th St. SW Since 40'h St. SW is planned for reconstruction in the near future, a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement between the City and the owner will be required. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. The applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan for this property. The plans submitted are inconsistent with the proposed GDP layout. The grading and drainage plan identifies 3 sedimentation basins, while the GDP identifies zero. The entire site basically lies in the 100-year Roodfringe and is subject to the additional standards of the "floodprone" overlay district. Any land filling or development in the "floodprone" area requires the issuance of a separate conditional use permit. 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 City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. When the property is developed, the private roadway connections to public streets will need to meet City intersection sight line standards and a Performance Residential Development plan will be required to develop the townhomes. IN Page 7 of 8 GDP #151 April 20, 2000 Recommendation: The GDP was tabled at March 22, 2000 CPZC meeting to allow the applicant time to revise the GDP to address the issues raised by staff. The applicant has met with the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. The Park and Recreation Department now recommends that the parkland dedication requirements be in the form of cash in lieu of land. The applicant has not submitted a revised GDP addressing the other issues raised by staff. Staff would recommend the following conditions/modifications in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 1. The GDP be revised to include the following: • 50 feet of right-of-way shown as being dedicated for 40'h St. SW and 11'" Ave. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, • Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 111b Ave. SW and the south side of 40'" St. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, • The site details (haul roads, stockpiles, proposed excavated ponds) of the approved conditional use permits covering this property and the adjacent properties, • Stormwater management facilities as shown on the grading plan. 2. Storm water management must be provided for this development. The City has identified a possible regional stormwater pond in this area. The owner and the City should jointly participate in the City's proposed Regional Stormwater Management Plan by sizing and constructing the detention pond to serve as a regional facility. 3. Controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 40'" Street SW, with exception of the private street access that is shown across from Willow Heights Drive SW, and along 11'" Avenue SW, with the exception of the private roadway shown in the southwest corner of the GDP. The existing access immediately east of Willow Court SW must be closed upon construction of the private roadway. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of- way dedication, SAC and WAC fees and contributions for public infrastructure improvements. 5. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 40'h St. SE. Current City policy for substandard street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage for residential developments. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area that may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. 6. if the development of this property occurs prior to the reconstruction of 40"' St. SW, grading of this property must be compatible with the street profile and cross - sections being proposed for the 40'" St. SW reconstruction in the Street Layout Plan. The private roadway connections to public streets must meet City intersection sight line standards. 7. The applicant agrees to dedicate a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of 40t8 St. SW. This dedication must be provided with the first plat of this development or when the City notifies the owner that a roadway improvement project is programmed, which ever comes first. Page 8 of 8 i GDP #151 April 20, 2000 B. The owner enters into a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City to address the future construction of pedestrian facilities to serve this property. 9. The applicant agrees to meet the parkland dedication requirement for this development in the form of cash in lieu of land. The development has a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 1.76 acres based on a maximum density of 6 units/acres. 10. This GDP is contingent upon the applicant receiving a conditional use permit for the proposed grading and fill work being done in the floodprone district. 11. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications. 314 ROCHESTEt Minnesota 3/14/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for General Development Plan #151,on the Frank Kottschade ("40`h Street") property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Storm Water Management is required for this development. A possible regional stormwater pond has been identified by the City in this area. The owner and the City should jointly 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 40th St SW, with the exception of the private street access that is shown across from Willow Heights Dr SW. the existing access to 40'h St SW, immediately east of Willow Court shall be closed upon construction of the proposed private road to serve this development. Additional controlled access will be required along the entire frontage of 111h Ave SW, with the exception of the private road access shown at the southwest corner of the GDP property. 3. Additional ROW dedication will be required to facilitate the future reconstruction of 40'h St SW as a collector street. An additional 17 feet of ROW shall be dedicated. Dedication of the 40'h St SW right-of-way shall be provided with the first plat of this development or when the City notifies the owner that a roadway improvement project is programmed, which ever comes first. Additional ROW requirements will vary. 4. Pedestrian facilities will be required along the entire frontage of 40'h St SW & 11'h Ave SW. The pedestrian facilities should be shown on the GDP plan. Since 40"' St SW is planned for reconstruction in the near future, the Owner will be required to enter into a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement to address the future construction of pedestrian facilities to serve this property. C:VTEMP\GDP151.doC R*OCHESTEt Minnesota 3/14/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur ?�5- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4'h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 5. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 401h St SW. Current City policy for substandard streets requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage for reconstruction of City streets. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area that may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. 6. Sanitary sewer & water service lines must be extended to the adjacent property lines. 7. Easements will be required for off -site utilities, if applicable. 8. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure needed to serve this property. 9. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure improvements. 10. If development of this property is to occur prior to the reconstruction of 40"' St SW, grading of this site should be required to be compatible with the street profile and cross -sections being proposed for the 40'h St SW reconstruction in the Street Layout Plan, and provisions should be made for the planned Capital Improvement. 11. The private roadway connections to public streets shall meet City intersection sight line standards. C:VTEMPIGDP151.doc I1t)CHESTEt Minnesota 3/ 14/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281.6216 The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): 5 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre Willow Creek Water Tower J8868 @ $1,022.1812 per developable acre, plus 7.5% interest from 2/22/89 (10 year max.) = $1,788.81509er developable acre. Willow Creek J8868 Watermain Connection Charge in 40 St SW @ $30 per foot of frontage, plus 7.5% interest from 2/22189 (10 year maximum) = $52.50 per foot of frontage on 40'h St SW. Substandard Street Contribution for future reconstruction of 401h St SW @ $30.00 per foot of frontage plus Capacity Component as applicable. :• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 2 Stop Signs 4 Street Name Signs 2 Trucks Prohibited Signs C:%TEMPVGDP151.doc DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: % % 3qq ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM April 4, 2000 Suzanne LaPalm Planning Denny Stotz General Development Plan # 151 40th Street SW `"REVISED"' The development will have an approximate parkland dedication of 1.76 acres. This estimate is based on a maximum density of 6.0 unitslacre. Dedication should be in the form of cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to recording of the final plat. Trails along 4dh Street and 11 Avenue should be shown on the plan. \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARY.\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\40TH STREET SW GDP.DOC 31a 4 R06HESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER, MN 55904 FAX (507)287.2275 Date: February 24, 2000 To: Agencies indicated Below From: Suzanne t.aPalm, Planning Department Subject: General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as the "40" Street' General Development Plan. The Plan proposes to develop approximately 16.44 acres of land with low density residential dwellings. The property Is located along the south side of 40t° St. SW, east of 11ei Ave. SW. This application is scheduled for consideration by the City Planning and Zoning Commission on March 22, 2000, In the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4� Street SE. In order for the Planning Department to prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by March 10, 2000. You may also appear at the meeting If you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. Nyou have comments, In addition to forwarding them to the Planning Department, please send a copy to: Franklin P. Kottschade McGhie & Betts, Inc. 3800 Hwy 52 North 1648 3r" Avenue SE Rochester MN 55901 Rochester MN 55904 287-0909 City Agencies 1. Public Works Richard Freese 2. Fire Department Lyle Faison 3. Crime Prevention Robert Miller, Gov.Centor 4. RPU Operations Division Mike Engle S. RPU Water Division Donn Richardson 6. Park 8 Recreation Denny Stoltz 7. Building Safety Don Wees 8. City Attorney Dave Goslee 9. Downtown Dev. Dist. Doug Knott 10. City Administration Terry Spaeth 11. Jerry Dooley Neighborhood Organizer 12. Transportation Planner 13. John Harford, Planning Dept. County Aaencles 14. Health Department Rich Peter 15. Public Works 16. GIS Division Other Aaencles 17. School Board Eadene Wickre 18. Peoples Natural Gas Paul Curry 19. US West Dean Erdman 20. Bresnan Communications U i r t 21. MN DOT Dale Maul r Post Office � Supervisor 23. MN DNR Jim Cooper 25. Peoples Coop Rick Wellik NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF THE STREET IDENTIFICATION IS CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED 13 A PLAT. Pq pEeaye, rve deliver 507/280-1579 February 28, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as the "401h Street" General Development Plan. The plan proposes to develop approximately 16.44 acres of land with low density residential dwellings. The property is located along the southside of 40`h Street SW, east of 11`h Avenue SW. RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this general development plan and has no objection as it is partially outside our service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future. Sincerely, `-� 4a42a-- 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 6 March 8, 2000 Suzanne LaPalm Planning Department Dear Suzanne: L� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMEW 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 The Public Works Department has reviewed General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as the 'AT' Street" General Development Plan and has the following comments: Interchange at T.H. 63 South and 400 Street SW is scheduled forbid letting in November 2002. This segment of Wh Street SW is included with the project. Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:ss Attachment ktengindodplanzone.doc �W Administration AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Building Maintenance - Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste • ♦ 081 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In approving a General Development Plan, the Commission and Council will review the plan for compliance with the criteria for approval listed in Section 61.215 which became effective May 15, 1999. The seven (7) criteria are listed below and are followed by our responses as to compliance: Criteria 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. Response: This GDP submittal is being processed simultaneously with a rezoning request. We are requesting a zone change from R-1 to R-2. The proposed residential usage on this property will comply with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan. 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. Response: The proposed street pattern is appropriate to serve the property under consideration and will not restrict development of adjoining lands. Criteria 3: The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. Response: The development is proposing a residential density of 5.5 to 6.0 units per acre. The density and style of housing is consistent with the Land Use and Housing Plans. EW t I ,I� 3p-' Criteria 4: of 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. Response: The City of Rochester's current Capital Improvement Program and Currently Held Thoroughfare Plan have outlined an improvement along 40t". However, the details of the improvement are not known at this time. 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. Response: Utilities are now available and can by extended to serve the area. 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. Response: Drainage, erosion problems and construction of this property can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices. 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. Response: The lot, block and street layout for this property is consistent with the land subdivision design principle contained in article 64. 100. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS: 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; Response: The topographic and soil issues have been addressed in the Grading Plan (submitted to Public Works), the approved conditional use permit to mine, and the demonstrated compliance with Section 62.860 of the Zoning Ordinance. (See letter/report from the Polaris Group) B. Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs; Response: An approved conditional use permit provides for mining of ponds which will be used to treat storm water drainage from the site. This is a normal practice in the City of Rochester. C. Identification of potential off -site drainage problems; Response: The on site grading and construction of the ponds will accommodate on -site drainage and perimeter drainage that crosses tke site. D. Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration; Response: Utilities are available to serve the site. E. Identification of possible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of the applicant; Response: Refer to the erosion control measures as noted on the grading plan. F. A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. Response: There are two phases outlined in the General Development Plan. Phase I is within the City boundaries and will move forward as approvals within the City allow. Phase It represents that portion of the GDP that is within the Township of Rochester. This property will need to be annexed by the City and then rezoned before any development can occur. Page 2 w City Planning and Zoning \20 n Minutes Hearing Date: MA44 Mr. Slaver moved to continue mi East Commercial Park, ind ite u Werven seconded the ion, whic PUBLIC HEARINGS: ry Plat #00-01, to be known as Northern Heights I the applicant submits a request to proceed. Mr. tried 7-0. Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade to re zone General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as the "401h Street" Mr. Svenby presented the staff reports, dated March 17, 2000, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby pointed out the location and explained the request is to rezone 14.40 acres from R- 1 to R-2. He reviewed the conditional use permits the applicant has in the area. Mr. Svenby noted that according to the GDP, the applicant is proposing to develop the property with townhomes at a density of 5.5 to 6 units per acre. He pointed out that at one time townhomes were permitted in the R-1 zoning district, but were discontinued as an allowable use in that district when the R-1x district was created. He reviewed the zoning of adjacent properties. Mr. Svenby stated that two acres of the property shown on the GDP are in the County, and zoned A-4. He referred to the criteria listed in Section 60.338 of the Land Development Manual and noted that the staff -suggested findings conclude that rezoning to the R-2 district may be over -zoning. He pointed out that townhomes are allowed in the R-1x district, up to a density of 5.5 units per acre, through the Type I, staff -approved process. He further explained that a density of up to 8171 units per acre would be allowed in the R-1 x district through a Type II process, which would come before the Planning Commission for approval; and up to 15 units per acre would be allowed through a Type III process that would come before the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Svenby presented a map of the GDP and pointed out the phases. He noted the applicant has an approved conditional use permit for mining and excavation on this property. In 1998, the applicant submitted a GDP for 106 acres, which showed townhomes and a private roadway, and was tabled indefinitely after a request from the applicant. Mr. Svenby explained that the current GDP includes only 16 acres, and will include one private roadway. The existing public streets adjacent to the site include 1 Vh Avenue and 401h Street SW, which are designated as collector roadways, but are currently only constructed to local standards. He noted that 401h Street is scheduled to be reconstructed in 2002. He pointed out the plan does not show any pedestrian facilities, but the adopted Thoroughfare Plan does, so the GDP will need to be revised to indicate those facilities. Mr. Svenby pointed out the GDP doesn't show three sedimentation basins that were shown on their grading plan, and the two need to be consistent. He stated the applicant has also submitted a conditional use permit request for the property because the land is in the overlay district for the Flood Prone Zone. The conditional use permit Page 3 3�j Ciry Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes V Hearing Date: FobfwaWp , 2000 will come before the Commission at the April 12 meeting. Mr. Svenby explained that the property contains a 1.7 acre wetland, for which the Council approved a delineation and replacement plan in July of 1999. He commented that the Park Department recommends a parkland dedication of 2.41 acres and also recommends the GDP be revised to show the parkland. Mr. Svenby pointed out that when the property is developed, all residential dwellings must be elevated to 1' above the 100' flood elevation. He commented that the applicant did submit a copy of the GDP late this afternoon showing the shoreland boundary from the ordinary high level water mark of Willow Creek. He pointed out this line on the plan, and noted that any development within that line would have to meet the standards of Section 62.1004 of the Land Development Manual Mr. Svenby explained that the approved conditional use permits on the property were to permit extraction and mining of materials and to create some ponds in the area. He pointed out these permits were approved for an 18-year period. Mr. Svenby presented a map showing the conditional use permits and the haul roads and stock piles that aren't shown on the GDP. He referred to Section 61.215 of the LDM, which lists criteria for approval of a GDP, and stated that the staff suggested findings are listed on pages B-14-16. Based on the criteria, staff recommends the GDP be tabled until the 7 issues raised (and listed on page B-17) are addressed and revised documents are presented for consideration. He commented that if the Commission agrees to table the GDP, staff suggests the zone change request also be tabled. Mr. Werven asked why staff includes conditions to include for going forward with this, when they have already recommended tabling the item. Mr. Svenby explained that it is important for the Commission to see the revised and corrected plans, but if the Commission feels it should move forward at this time, staff wants conditions listed to ensure the required issues are addressed. Mr. Burke asked if choosing the R-2 zoning district isn't simply the prerogative of the developer. He stated it seems like everyone is requesting the R-2 district for townhomes. Mr. Svenby explained that the R-2 district allows a higher density, and some applications the Commission has seen lately include some single family lots, which are permitted to be smaller in the R-2 district. Ms. Baker noted that the GDP proposes a density that can be accommodated in the R-1x district. Mr. Burke asked if there are any restrictions in the R-tx district that don't exist in the R-2, other than density. Ms. Baker explained that the R-2 district allows a performance residential density of up to 9 units per acre through a staff review. She pointed out that the R-1x district does not allow 3 and 4 plexes, but the R-2 district does. Ms. Baker commented that when the application was submitted by Mr. Kottschade, the question was raised as to why they weren't asking for R-1 x zoning, and she got the impression that Mr. Kottschade felt that with the R-1x district there was more potential for controversy because that zoning may be associated with manufactured homes. She noted that manufactured homes are allowed in both the R-1 x and R-2 zoning districts. Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: {wbaaa 31 2000 MgRc l 2 L NI Mr. Slaver asked if the R-2 district would allow more flexibility in case the density increases by the time of final platting. Ms. Baker explained that if the GDP is approved with a density that shows 5.5 to 6 units per acre, and the applicant wants additional flexibility to coincide with the R-2 district, she suggested the GDP be revised to reflect a density consistent with the R-2 zoning district. Mr. Werven asked if it is the request for a zone change that required the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Svenby answered yes, and noted the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on March 9. Mr. Burke stated that the wetland delineation indicates 401h Street being rebuilt and the right-of- way being deeded to the City. He asked if the City is required to have wetland delineation in the rebuilding of the roadway, as well. Mr. Svenby responded that the City would have to go through a wetland delineation if they were disturbing wetlands. He pointed out that the delineation has already been approved for this property. Ms. Baker explained that,. in general, on public road projects, all of the projects have to comply with the adopted State and Federal rules for wetlands. She noted there are some cases where road improvement projects are exempt from wetlands regulations or the replacement projects, but there would be rules with which they would have to comply. Representing Mr. Kottschade, John Arnold of Dunlap & Seeger, addressed the Commission. He questioned whether staff is saying their application is incomplete or if they are simply asking for revisions. Mr. Svenby quoted from Section 61.214 of the Land Development Manual citing information required for submittal. Mr. Arnold noted staff has to notify them in writing within 10 days of an incomplete application. Ms. Baker pointed out that staff is required to notify the applicant with in 10 days if they are not going to accept the application. She commented that an argument could be made that the application is not complete, but the period in which the letter could be sent has passed. Mr. Arnold stated he feels staff is saying the application is complete and they are asking for revisions based on their interpretation of the Subdivision Ordinance. He stated the applicant is requesting the R-2 zoning because they want flexibility. He conceded it is a slight upzoning, but stressed that it is only slight. Mr. Arnold pointed out that R-2 zoning also provides the applicant the option of doing a conventional development with conventional lots, which hasn't yet been decided. He noted that is not inconsistent with the Land Use Plan and is not inconsistent with what the code allows. He referenced Avalon Cove and South Park, which were similar. Mr. Arnold addressed the staff recommended revisions shown on page B-17 of the staff report: • 50 feet of right-of-way shown as being dedicated for 40'h Street SW and i 1 th Avenue SW. Page 5 Jam(` f XU City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: 2000 M��z Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 4dh Avenue SIN and the south side of 4dh Street SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Arnold stated that the application was made with the best information available regarding the thoroughfare plan. He later found out from the Township what is actually planned for 401h Street (he presented on the overhead the plan he received from the Township). He noted the total right-of-way shown is 41' and the sidewalk is contained within that. Mr. Arnold pointed out that this plan shows no bike path on the south side of 401h street. He stated they are prepared to dedicate 41' of right-of-way, with the sidewalk within that, so the sidewalk doesn't need to be shown on their plans. Mr. Arnold commented that when they raised the inquiry about these streets, Public Works said it was a complicated matter and the design wouldn't be set for a while. He read a portion of a letter from Richard Freese, dated March 8, 2000, which basically said they could not yet identify costs because there were too many uncertainties with the roadway. Ms. Baker asked for a copy of that letter to be submitted for the record Mr. Arnold stated that it doesn't appear there will be pedestrian facilities on 11'h Avenue, and that the right-of-way appears to be 33 feet, so they are being asked to dedicate more than what is needed. Mr. Arnold noted they are willing to amend the GDP to show a 41' right-of-way. He feels the pedestrian facilities do not need to be shown on their plans as they are included in the City's road right-of-way plans, and the bike path is shown to be on the north side of 401h Street, which is not on their property. The site details (haul roads, stockpiles, proposed excavated ponds) of the approved conditional use permits covering this property and the adjacent properties. Mr. Arnold referred to a map that shows the conditional use permits. He stated those are on file with the City and there is no reason to overlay them on the GDP. He commented that the haul roads are preparatory to the work to be done on this, and they will be gone when the GDP is begun. Mr. Arnold noted there is currently an application that has been submitted to the Planning Department requesting to move a stock pile out of the area of the GDP so that it no longer impacts it. He doesn't see the necessity of having the conditional use permit site detail on the GDP when it is already on file with the Planning Department. Ms. Petersson asked if he is saying the haul roads will no long be used to haul. Mr. Arnold clarified that the haul roads will be used for hauling during the excavation process, and upon completion of the excavation, the haul roads will be removed. Ms. Petersson asked if they will be developing the property while they continue to excavate Mr. Arnold explained that part of it will be developed to the point they get the grading done and the pads in place, and at that time, it will be a marketing decision whether they can sell any lots with the haul roads still there. He stated they are simply questioning why they have to show any roads other than the permanent roads when staff knows the haul roads are there and they've known for several years. Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes ell Hearing Date: Febece+y-22, 2000 0'" W a Public parkland within the GDP boundary that is consistent with the Park Department requirement. Mr. Arnold asked why they are being required to dedicate 2.41 acres of parkland and have not been given the opportunity to provide a cash payment in lieu of land, noting that most other developers are given that opportunity. He presented a Park & Recreation Department map showing parkland acquisition, and noted there is no park shown in the area in question, which is why they did not show it on the GDP. Mr. Arnold commented that taking 2.41 acres out of a 16 acre development puts an economic crimp on it. He referred to their GDP application of 1998, which is tabled, and stated that the Park Department didn't want parkland in this area, but wanted a 10 acre neighborhood park south and east of the creek. He pointed out the current GDP is north and east of the creek. Mr. Arnold stated he feels they should be given the opportunity to provide cash in lieu of land. Mr. Svenby asked what the zoning is of the area to the south of Willow Creek. Mr. Arnold stated it is M-1. Mr. Svenby stated it was R-1 when that GDP came forward, so the Park Department would have felt it would be developed residentially, which is why they requested the park in that area. In April of 1998, the applicant petitioned to rezone that property to the M-1 zoning district, so the opportunity for parkland in that location was lost because of the rezoning. Mr. Quinn pointed out that the GDP from 1998 covered a much larger area than the one currently proposed and the standards for parkland the Park Department used at that time probably aren't applicable on this property. Mr. Arnold noted that every time they have requested a conditional use permit for a mining operation, he has been personally told by the Commission and Council that there is a major safety issue with the ponds. He questioned where the safety issue is with the neighborhood park, which would be along a four -lane road. He stressed that the rational thing would be to allow the cash in lieu of parkland. Ms. Petersson pointed out that amount of parkland required isn't regulated by the Planning Commission. Mr. Arnold noted the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation and they could recommend that the applicant be allowed to provide cash in lieu of parkland. Ms. Schultze pointed out there are many cases where the Park Department recommends land be dedicated rather than cash in lieu of land. Without a Park Department representative here and, given the complexities of rezoning, the Commission doesn't have enough data to know why they recommended what they did. Mr. Arnold suggested the recommendation be made that the City Council decide the Parkland issue. Ms. Petersson asked staff if it is correct that the Commission usually upholds the recommendation of the Park Department. Page 7 OCity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: tebrn— i-', 2000 MARcN Z Mr. Svenby answered that the Commission usually has gone along with the recommendations of the Park Department. Stormwater management facilities. Mr. Arnold stated that the applicant has provided a grading permit which shows stormwater sedimentation ponds. In addition, they have provided the two ponds, which have sufficient capacity to facilitate the use the property. They are in agreement that those should be used as the stormwater ponds. Mr. Quinn noted those are outside of the GDP. Mr. Arnold stated they are willing to say they are for the use of this GDP, but they are not willing to have this be turned into a regional stormwater development with the City. He stressed they do not want to dedicate this to the City. . Shoreland regulations be shown on the GDP Mr. Arnold noted that a revised plan was submitted to the Planning Department this afternoon showing where the shoreland regulations apply. Mr. Arnold summarized that they feel the GDP should be approved subject to a 41' right-of-way, subject to their agreeing to the stormwater management facilities as they relate to this individual applicant only, that there be no recommendation made concerning parkland, and that they have complied with the Shoreland regulations. Mr. Arnold made himself available for questions and asked for the opportunity to respond to any questions or points raised by staff. Ms. Baker stated that recently a plan was submitted showing a haul road connection to the low - flow crossing that is between the property in question and the one to the south. She noted that staff has not responded to that yet, other than to ask for clarification as to whether the intent of the haul road is to be able to use that in the future to transport materials from the south side of the creek to the north side in order to access to 40'" Street and 11 1h Avenue. She has not received a response at this time, but from what she thinks Mr. Arnold stated earlier, the haul roads would be gone. Mr. Arnold stated it is his understanding, subject to the clarification of the applicant and the engineer, that the gravel will go the other way —from north to south to reach the M-1 zoned area and the processing facility. Ms. Baker asked whether a roadway would be maintained to transport materials from the south side of the creek to the north side to remove materials from the stockpile south of Willow Creek. She stressed that this question is important because access from the stockpiles and mining operation south of Willow Creek have some limitations because the access to 401" Street is temporary, until June or July of this year, and the access to Hwy. 63 hasn't yet been approved by Mn/DOT; so there is some question about the ability to utilize access off the site elsewhere, which should be addressed since it is relevant to the GDP. Page 8 r(`7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: yam, 2000 mg4c t+ iZ Mr. Arnold stated there is currently an approved access for Keystone Management on 40'h Street, which is west of the creek, and if they remove the one that is east, they would utilize the one on the west and runs through the GDP. Ms. Baker asked if that also means the materials from the south side of Willow Creek could be transported via haul roads to that access that is on the Keystone property. Mr. Arnold stated he couldn't answer that. Mr. Quinn asked if he is saying they won't put the haul roads on the GDP, so the question becomes, if you don't put them on the GDP, will they go away. Mr. Arnold noted they are temporary roads that could last one year, or could last 18 years. Ms. Schultze left the meeting at this time. Mr. Arnold pointed out that they have to have the lake developed before they can sell the property. Ms. Petersson asked if the lake would be a public waterway. Ms. Baker explained that the proposal is not to combine the creek and the ponds, and as long as they are separate, they will not become public waters. Mr. Arnold pointed out the other GDP was premised to connect Willow Creek with the ponds. One of the reasons they tabled it, was to discover if that was possible, but they have abandoned that idea because they have been told they can't do it. Mr. Werven referred to the notes from the neighborhood meeting, and pointed out that three of the four questions posed by the neighbors couldn't be answered. He asked when and how this information will get to the neighborhood. Bill Tointon, McGhie & Betts, addressed the Commission. He stated he has been working on all these applications since the beginning of Cote property project. He explained they learned more about the proposed road system from the people at the neighborhood meeting because they had been individually called in to the City offices to have it explained to them, but the applicants were not, and still have not. Carl Evers, 1035 40'h Street SW, addressed the Commission. He has no problem with the townhomes because they would be better than the mining. His concern is that when they fill the wetlands, the water will cross 401h Street and his property will be in a low spot after the road is reconstructed, leaving his property vulnerable to the water. Mr. Evers stated that from the meetings he has attended, the road will be raised 18' and 100' of his property will be taken, so he questioned why only 41' feet of Mr. Kottschade's property would be taken, Sandy Miller, 3960 Willow Ct. SW, addressed the Commission. She commented that there aren't many neighbors from the area here because they have given up hope that the Council will listen to them. She stated that in the late 1980's when homes were built on the hill, neighbors came to these meetings and were told there wouldn't be drainage problems, but 3q�age 9 • • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: -F�3, 2000 hgRctl 2l there have been. Ms. Miller noted that Mr. Arnold stated they were willing to dedicate 41' of right-of-way, but some neighbors were told they will have to give up their homes. She commented they would welcome new neighbors, but they ask that this be planned carefully so that new homes and the existing homes won't be threatened by floods. She would like the land to be given for 401h Street instead of the existing homes be taken for 40'h Street. Ms. Petersson asked for clarification on the amount of land being taken from neighbors' properties. Mr. Svenby explained that he spoke with Charlie Reiter of the Transportation Division and he told him that for a collector roadway designed to rural standards, the right-of-way dedication is 100' (50' feet from the centerline); if it is designed as an urban collector, it would be an 80' right- of-way. The issue of the amount of land taken from property owners could be addressed with the Public Works Department who is in charge of the design of the roadway. Ms. Petersson asked about ditches and the amount the road will be raised Mr. Tointon stated that his firm is not a part of the 401h Street design. He noted that with the grading plan that Dave Morrill prepared, he has accommodated drainage from the north side of 401h Street, but if the road bed itself changes, they cannot address it because they do know exactly what will be done. He pointed that they submitted a letter from the Polaris Group with this application, that addressed the issues of flood storage. Mr. Tointon explained that the letter states that after the townhome project is filled to the required elevations, after the townhomes are built, and after the basins are excavated to the extent they are approved on the conditional use permit, it will provide an additional 86 acre feet of flood storage over what exists now. He stressed that this is a significant increase in flood storage on the site. Mr. Tointon pointed out that he cannot address the City's work on the roadway because it isn't completely designed and they haven't been called in to discuss this with the City. Mr. Quinn asked if their designs are taking into account all the new issues they have discovered with the roadways. Mr. Tointon noted that the extra 86 acre feet of storage should be adequate. Mr. Burke pointed out that in a normal right-of-way, the side slopes would have to be within the 41' right-of-way. Mr. Tointon explained that it appears the roadway will be designed with curb and gutter and 41' from the center line of 40'h Street in each direction. It appears there will be some sloping of the boulevard areas to mask some grades on both sides of the road. Mr. Burke asked if they take the same amount of right-of-way on either side of the road. Mr. Tointon explained that is the preferred way in this part of the country. He doesn't believe they are planning to off -set the alignment of the roadway. Ms. Petersson asked for clarification of the portion of the hill that would be cut down. Mr. Tointon explained this on the map. Page 10 . , 343 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes l! Hearing Date: 2000 Mr. Werven asked where this map came from. Mr. Tointon explained the map was presented by the City of Rochester to the Rochester Township Board for their review at a Townboard Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Werven asked if they requested this map from the City. Mr. Tointon stated that Mr. Kottschade had written a letter to the City requesting some information on 401h Street. He got a letter of reply, but not a map. Brad Nelson, 1105 40"' Street SW, addressed the Commission. His is one of the homes to be removed. Mr. Nelson stated he thinks this is a nice project. He commented that it would be nice if the ponds had a park, and it would be too bad if the neighborhood put up with the construction of the ponds and couldn't take advantage of them. He noted the lower density would be more appealing to the neighbors. Sandy Miller, 3960 Willow Court SW, readdressed the Commission. When she looks at the road that is being proposed, she feels there needs to be more creative planning. She asked that the existing homes be considered. Ms. Baker clarified that this isn't a discussion on the design of 401h Street, but there will be a hearing in the future on that roadway before the improvements begin. She encourage Ms. Miller to attend and voice her concerns. With no others wishing to speak, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke made a motion to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-04. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. Ms. Petersson stated she feels they should address the GDP first because if they continue it, they may also chose to continue the rezoning. Mr. Burke retracted his motion. Mr. Burke moved to approve General Development Plan #151, to be known as 40th Street, as proposed. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Staver moved to table General Development Plan #151, to be known as 40th Street, until such time that the issues raised by staff can be resolved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. Mr. Staver stated he is inclined to agree with staff, and noted that for this type of review process to work, the GDP needs to be as reflective as it can be. He commented that he is hearing too many questions about issues such as roadway design, density, parkland, shoreland, and drainage and storm water retention, so he is not feeling comfortable enough to act on it at this time. FA 3q� Page 11 • • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: fcberwey-S, 2000 mAVO LL. Mr. Quinn agreed with Mr. Staver's comments. He stated they have an applicant who is not willing to go along with some of the recommendations, so he doesn't feel they can move forward. Mr. Brede explained that he would like to see the issues resolved, including the parkland issue. He pointed out this will have a major impact on people who are already living in this area, and he isn't comfortable moving forward at this point. He commented that he isn't ready to deny the application, but he needs further answers. Mr. Werven stated he thinks it is unfair for the Council to ask the Commission to look at this without the appropriate City staff being present to answer some of these questions. It's also not fair to the applicant and Planning staff. He commented that if the Council wants the Commission to do a good job, they should provide City staff at these meetings. Mr. Werven noted it makes the City look bad and slows the process down. Mr. Burke stated that all developments should be a cooperative effort, and he senses a lack of cooperation. He feels the applicant has made very effort to provide information, but it seems like the applicant has to receive their information through the back door. He feels like the applicant has done more than his part to make it work. Ms. Petersson noted she is uncomfortable with all the questions raised. She would like to see the Planning Commission be able to do some planning, but they can't do that without having information ahead of time. Mr. Svenby pointed out that if this is tabled to a specific date, re -publishing wouldn't be necessary. Ms. Baker suggested that if the applicant can accommodate providing the revisions in time, it could be tabled to the second meeting in April. Ms. Petersson asked applicant if they want it tabled to the second meeting in April. Mr. Arnold stated he cannot make the Planning Commission's decision on whether to table this issue. Ms. Baker pointed out that the second meeting in April is the 26'". She stated that after the question is called, she will ask the Commission if there is certain information that should be compiled from other staff and other departments. Mr. Staver amended his motion to table General Development Plan #151, to be known as 40`" Street, to the April 26, 2000 meeting. Mr. Quinn seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Burke voting nay. Ms. Petersson stated she would like there to be a representative from Public Works and from the Park & Recreation Department at the meeting on April 26. Ms. Baker noted that if there aren't staff representatives available, the information can be provided in writing. Page 12 IDCity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes f Hearing Date: 1%ebruar3, 2000 MARCH ?L Mr. Burke requested the applicant work with great fervor with all of the City Departments, and if there is a sense of opposition, the Commission would like to be aware of that up front, and they will address it. Mr. Arnold stated he submitted, for the record, a copy of the Richard Freese' letter of March 8. Mr. Staver moved to table Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade to the April 26, 2000 meeting, so it can be heard concurrently with GDP #151. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Burke voting nay. Ms. Petersson noted there is � request meeting. applicant to table this item to the April 12, 2000 Mr. Stover moved to table Con tons se Permit #00-03 by Mathy Construction to the Aoril 12. 2000 meeting. Mr. Quin s onded the motion, which carried 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Baker announced that there 41 be a nefit auction and dance on Saturday, April 1 at the American Legion in Millville for D4,n Living n, who is the son of Ron Livingston, Planning Supervisor. ADJOURN: Motion made by . Brede to adjourn, sec ded by Mr. Quinn. Ms. Petersson, Vice Chair, adjou ed the meeting at 8:45 P Respectfully Philip H. Wheeler, sml Mr. CharlesYames Suk, Chair Page 2 • • 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes He ng Date: April 26, 2000 Ms. Pe sson moved to approve Annexation Petition #00-0,7,K Schoenfelders Southstar.'I%c. The motion was seconded by Mr. BredeA6d carried 5-0. Mr. Svenby presented the s report, dat pril 18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the R ester -Olmsted Plan,Department. He stated that staff recommends appro Ms. Peters moved to approve Annexation Petition # 8 by Larry Goodman. Mr. Burke s onded the motion, which carried 5-0. CONTINUED ITEMS: Type III Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade to re -zone aA An of [nrA frnn, 0-1 lMivarl Sinnla FarnIIV) to R-2 fLow Densitv Residential). Th General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as the "40th Street" General Development Plan The Plan proposes to develop approximately 16.44 acres of Mr. Svenby presented the staff reports, dated March 17, 2000, and April 20, 2000, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Schultze entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Svenby reviewed the items staff asked to have revised, and commented that staff still would like to see those revisions in order to ensure compliance. Representing Frank Kottschade, John Arnold, attorney with Dunlap & Seeger, addressed the Commission. He stated they discussed issues with the Park Department and they have agreed to allow provision of cash in lieu of land for parkland dedication. Mr. Arnold commented that the rest of the issues raised by staff largely would be addressed by the recommended development agreement that would outline the obligations relevant to stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, SAC and WAC fees, and other contributions for public infrastructure improvements. He feels the issues contained in conditions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 should be negotiated through the development agreement with the City, but the actual terms of the agreement should not be dictated at this time. Mr. Arnold stated the have not received any additional information regarding the actual parameters of what the 40 Street reconstruction will be, but they are agreeable to dedicate enough land on the south side to provide a 41' right-of-way, which would encompass the pedestrian walkway. He explained they are agreeable to provide stormwater management l Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 facilities, but they are not agreeable to provide that as a regional stormwater pond area without negotiating those issues with the City to determine what the trade-offs would be, and he doesn't think this should be a condition of approval. Mr. Arnold indicated they are willing to provide controlled access along the entire length of 40'h Street and 11`h Avenue SW, as long as it is limited to this application for a general development plan. He noted they are not in agreement with the contribution for the future reconstruction of 401h Street SW at $30/foot, and feel this should be negotiated in the development agreement. Mr. Arnold stated they are not in agreement with condition number 6 because they have not received finalized plans for 40'h Street, but they will negotiate those issues in a development agreement. He commented that they are not in agreement with the pedestrian facilities because the plans they have show the pedestrian facilities to be within the right-of-way of 401h Street. He pointed out there are no plans for a pedestrian walkway on 11 Avenue SW. Mr. Arnold expressed agreement with condition number 10 regarding the conditional use permit. He made himself available for questions, and noted that the project engineer and the property owner are also in attendance. Ms. Schultze asked if they have discussed the issue of not wanting a regional stormwater pond with Public Works. Mr. Arnold explained that when they initially obtained the conditional use permit for mining, there was the question of whether they could connect Willow Creek with the ponds. After finding out that State agencies were not in favor of that, they backed off the regional concept. If a regional facility is desired, the City should be the party who negotiates with the other agencies, not the applicant. He pointed out that they are not in agreement with a regional facility for the purposes of this general development plan. Ms. Petersson asked about their opposition to the pedestrian facilities on 11 1h Avenue SW. Mr. Arnold stated that the proposed map for 40`h Street and 11'h Avenue showed the pedestrian facility within the road right-of-way, so they shouldn't have to dedicate additional right-of-way for the pedestrian facility. If the plans change and the roadway is narrowed, they will still be willing to dedicate 41 feet of right-of-way. He commented that the details should be worked out in the development agreement after the City has enough information on what the road will look like. Ms. Petersson stated that a plan needs to be in place now and 50' isn't an unreasonable recommendation. Ms. Schultze pointed out that the development agreement may occur before the decisions on 401h Street are made. Mr. Arnold stated that if that is the case, the applicant will be asked to wait an indefinite period to develop their property. He noted that this property has had development proposed on it in one form or the other for 8 years and they have barely been able to get a mining operation off the ground, let alone any type of development. He asked the Commission to make a decision tonight so they can move on, and noted they do not want to wait due to excuses about plans that aren't valid. Ms. Schultze pointed out that the City is trying to plan ahead for the roadway requirements based on their predictions for that area. She stated that in her opinion, the City is looking out for their best interests and Mr. Arnold is looking out for the best interests of his client, therefore, there must be respect on both parts as far as predictions for what is required. Page 4 • • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Heating Date: April 26, 2000 Mr. Arnold noted it is their opinion that only a 41' right-of-way is needed, with the pedestrian facilities within that ROW. Mr. Suk referred to staffs suggestion that the proposed development is more consistent with the R-1x zoning district. Mr. Arnold explained they would like to have the slight upzoning to the R-2 to allow the developer some flexibility, and they would be able to develop the property with conventional lots, if they decide to do so, without rezoning. Mr. Burke asked about the discrepancy between 41' and 50'. Mr. Svenby referred to a letter from Richard Freese on page A-46 of the packet, and noted that the fourth paragraph classifies 40th Street as a Collector roadway and states that the needed right-of-way on the south side of the roadway is 50'. and the first paragraph on page A-47 states additional right-of-way needed would be acquired pursuant to MnlDOT right-of-way acquisition policies and procedures. Mr. Svenby stated that the ultimate overall ROW requirement will likely be greater than 50'. Mr. Nigbur explained that from the day that Mr. Kottschade's original GDP application was submitted several years ago, they talked about a 50' right-of-way dedication. Since that time, Mr. Kottschade has come forward with several developments in that area and concurrent with that, the City, State, and County have been working on a plan to improve that corridor. The current plans show at least a 110' ROW across the 40" Street area, and maybe up to 125' or 130', depending on elevation of the road. Mr. Nigbur pointed out that the dedication that Mr. Freese outlines in his letter has been substantiated by the Council on many occasions for other projects. He commented that he is not sure where the 41' right-of-way is arrived at because there is no such width in the codes. Mr. Burke pointed out that the applicant has a plan that shows the 41'. Mr. Nigbur referred to the plan from the Environmental Assessment for Highway 63 that outlines Alternative D, which shows the cross section needed for the road, and shows the road is 52' wide and the right-of-way is 100' outside of the pedestrian facilities, not including the slopes. He explained that the 50' is a required dedication based on the ordinance for that status of roadway. Mr. Burke asked if that roadway includes the pedestrian facilities. Mr. Nigbur answered yes. Mr. Svenby explained they were not asking the applicant to dedicate additional land for pedestrian facilities, they just want those facilities shown on the plan. Mr. Nigbur explained the current City ordinance requires pedestrian facilities to be built concurrent with development and construction on a piece of property. If Mr. Kottschade's development comes before the roadway improvements, they do not want him to build his sidewalk in an area that won't be suitable because the area will be torn up to modify the roadway in the future. The Pedestrian Facilities Agreement states that the applicant is Page 5 • •- / / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 obligated to put the facilities in, and if he doesn't have them constructed by the time the City needs them for the roadway project, the City will construct the facilities and the applicant will pay the cost back to the City over a period of time. The applicant, Frank Kottschade, 4719 Warwick Lane NW, addressed the Commission. He stated the City cannot have it both ways. He explained the history of this area and that the City originally denied projects he proposed because they were required to be at the intersection of an arterial or higher order street, but 401h Street was classified as a local street. Now the City is saying 40'h Street will be a collector street. Mr. Kottschade presented a plan for 40'h Street SW. Discussion of this plan ensued. Mr. Nigbur referred to the Thoroughfare Plan, which outlines typical sections on typical right-cf- way widths. He pointed out that this situation is not typical. It is a collector roadway that requires additional roadway capacity in this location, so based on that, it will be a collector standard roadway with a different classification for roadway width. To account for the additional roadway width, the rights -of -way need to expand, also, to accommodate the pedestrian facilities and boulevard areas, etc. Ms. Schultze asked for examples of other areas where atypical situations have occurred. Mr. Nigbur gave the example of the approved Shannon Oaks GDP along Viola Road NE, where the developer only wanted to dedicate 50' on an arterial street, based on his perceptions of the requirements. The ordinance outlined the standards that need to be required and in that location, a 50' ROW was not adequate, and an 80' ROW was recommended by staff. Mr. Nigbur stated that the Council concurred with staff's recommendation. Ms. Baker explained that when reviewing a GDP, the adequacy of public facilities has to be considered. She pointed out the situation along 50th Avenue NW, and noted that at the time of the first proposed GDP, the study of the 50th Avenue corridor wasn't complete, but it was obvious that a wider ROW and a higher order roadway was going to be needed to accommodate the development along the corridor. She noted that the application in question also involves a situation where the proposed development and the adequacy of public facilities, including roadways, needs to be evaluated. Ms. Baker stressed that if beyond the minimum ROW width is required, it is justified for the additional capacity that needs to be accommodated. Mr. Nigbur referred to the Scenic Oaks development on 480'Street SW. He explained that roadway is also classified as a collector roadway; and in that section it is a rural roadway, which requires 1 00'of ROW dedication. There was also the need for pedestrian facilities, which are not included in the Thoroughfare Plan, so they had to modify the 100' ROW to 120' to account for those facilities in the rural ditch section, and the Council concurred with that requirement. Mr. Burke referred to the compatibility of the grading with the street profile, and asked if the right-of-way would include the slopes down to current grade. Mr. Nigbur explained the current ROW of 50' does not accommodate the needs in that location as identified in the Thoroughfare Plan. 110' to 125' is what would be necessary to have what they need on top of the hill for paving and bike path areas. The 50' dedication is the minimum required to be dedicated by the applicant for the development. Any additional ROW will need to Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 be acquired by the State, County or the City. Mr. Nigbur explained that the intent of the comment about grading the property to match the future profiles is so they don't end up tearing up yards to get the slope to work. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Sulk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze stated she is confused about the recommendation from staff for the R-1x zoning district as opposed to the R-2, and she asked staff for some clarification on that recommendation. Mr. Svenby explained that the GDP shows a density of 5.5 to 6 units per acre, which could be accommodated in the R-ix district. The R-2 district is compatible with the land use plan designation, but the R-1, and R-1x districts are also compatible with the land use plan. He stated that the R-1x district would allow townhomes at a density of 5.5 to 8.7 units per acre through a Type II conditional use permit, which would be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and townhomes developments up to 5.6 units per acre can be approved through a Type I (staff approved) conditional use permit. Ms. Schultze asked, for the purposes of compatibility, what benefit there is for coming before the Planning Commission. Mr. Svenby explained that the property is located next to mining and excavation activities and townhomes and single family residential uses may not be compatible with the mining activities going on to the south and east. If the Commission feels that the R-2 district isn't right for the site, the Commission could make a finding that it is not compatible with surrounding uses. Ms. Schultze pointed out normally when the Commission has dealt with the issue of compatibility with excavation, it has been mining and excavation after the housing has already existed. Mr. Werven commented that when the Commission tabled this on March 22, it was to give the applicant, his representatives, and staff the opportunity to come together, but with the exception of the park issues, everything is exactly as it was before. He noted that the applicant and staff are still miles apart after another hour of hearings, and the Commission knows no more than they did before. He stressed that the parties involved need to get together before coming here. Ms. Petersson moved to approve the R-1x zoning district on the property, per staff recommendation. Ms. Baker pointed out the request by the applicant is for the R-2 zoning district, and unless the applicant formally agrees to amend the request to the R-1x district, the Planning Commission needs to act on the request that is on file. Ms. Petersson withdrew her motion. Ms. Petersson moved to approve GDP #151, to be known as the 401' Street GDP, with staff -recommended conditions. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Werven moved to deny GDP #151, to be known as the 401h Street GDP. The motion died for lack of a second. Page • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 1 Hearing Date: April 26, 2000 Mr. Burke moved to continue GDP #151, to be known as the 401" Street GDP, and to have the applicant and staff work out the differences. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. Ms. Baker noted that frustration has been expressed by the Commission as far there not being meetings and negotiations between the applicant and staff. She pointed out that at the meeting on March 22, she approached Mr. Arnold and Mr. Kottschade and made staff available to schedule any type of meeting with other City staff to have the necessary discussions, but she has not received any requests for meetings, nor has Public Works. She commented that it is ultimately up to the Commission to make some recommendation to the Council and if the applicant and staff can't agree, a decision needs to be made by another body, such as the Commission. Mr. Arnold came forward and objected to staff being allowed to testify after the hearing was closed. He stated the City has never come to them with information and the applicant is being penalized for that. He commented that if Public Works wants them to know what is going on, they should come to them. He noted the Commission could move these applications forward to the Council with no recommendation. Ms. Schultze stressed that for the Planning Commission to pass this along to the Council with no recommendation invalidates the Planning Commission. In terms of plans that are presented and negotiations between applicants and staff in terms of public facilities, the applicant should present a GDP that represents what is best for the City in terms of planning purposes. To say that the Commission should pass something on that has so many conditions placed on it and let the Council make the decision invalidates what the Commission is here to accomplish and it is wrong. The motion carried 5-1, with Ms. Petersson voting nay. Ms. Baker asked for clarification as to when this would be tabled until. It was the consensus that it will be tabled until May 10, 2000. Mr. Werven asked if anything will be different at that time. Mr. Suk stated if it appeared that the applicant had not made the necessary arrangements to meet with staff, then it might be appropriate to make a motion to deny it at that time. Discussion ensued. Ms. Petersson moved to continue Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade to the May 10, 2000 meeting. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Burke voting nay. r� Page 4 jL{'t City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes g Date: May 10, 2000 fr Olmsted County will be required for the pond structure to be built within the rlgh way or the applicant will need to obtain the property or relocate the pond to be out\within200 ght-of-way. This stormwater pond location has been !den tifie as a sitetonal basin. Al! required private stormwater facilities mu be constrrent with the initial stages of development. 2. Controxists along CSAH 22. Additional controlled ac s will be requirt from the intersection of any new street with AH 22 at the time o 3. Pedestrian facilities are r lred along both sides of all new,,#Mblic roads, and will also be required along the Vth side if CSAH 22. The 10eloper and staff shall mutually determine the locatio itable for a pedestrlan,fOFlity along CSAH 22, prior to submittal of the first preliminaNclat for this propert 4. Prior to submittal of the first final pla r this pro y, the developer shall execute a development agreement with the City f h<en GDP that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not , stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 5. A detailed Wetland Delineation repo d a replac ' ent plan are required if the applicant intends to fill or drain We nds. This GD ail be revlsed to identify any Wetlands that may exisIGDP. rty. 6. This development is super trip generation lim f 1,300 trips per day, which has been noted oesign improvements th allbe provided by the developer include: ➢ An inboundjfht turn lane on eastbound Circle Drive ➢ On the no ound (outbound) approach to Fast Circle Drive tw es or a wide fla hall be provided to allow right turning traffic to turn at infers ion without delay from left turning vehicles ➢ An i and left turn lane on westbound Circle Drive ➢ T pplicant will be required to share the cost of installing a permanent dlan crossing with the developer of the property on the north side of Ci 7k/and dedication for this development shall be met via a combination of land and ash in lieu of land as outlined in the April 28, 2000 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade to re -zone General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as the "40th Street" General Development Plan The Plan proposes to develop approximately 16.44 acres of Page 5 [ OJ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes t Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 Mr. Svenby explained that since the public hearing was closed at the last meeting, the Commission would need to reopen it if they wish to receive additional public testimony. Ms. Petersson moved, and Mr. Burke seconded to reopen the public hearing. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Svenby referred to a memo from himself, dated May 10, that was distributed to the Commission members. He explained that staff met with the applicant's attorney and consultant yesterday, along with Richard Freese. He pointed out there also was a memo distributed from Mr. Freese. Mr. Arnold stated he had nothing further to add regarding the zone change; they are requesting the R-2 zoning district, and that has not changed. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing for the zone change. Mr. Burke made a motion to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade, as requested. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Findings: 1. Both the present and the proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. According the GDP that was submitted concurrent with this zone change, the applicant has identified developing the site with townhomes at a density of 5.5 to 6 units per acre. The proposed density for the townhome development is more consistent with the R-IX zoning district. 2. The permitted uses in the R-2 zoning district would be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood to the north across 40'" Street SW, however, the property to the south and east have approved conditional use permits that allow mining and excavation activities. The approved conditional use permits indicate stockpiles and haul roads on this property. These activities may not be compatible with the intended use (townhomes) of the site. The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning since it is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Svenby explained there are still two unresolved issues regarding the GDP: the amount of right-of-way to be dedicated for 401' Street SW, and grading being compatible with the street profile and cross -sections. He reviewed Mr. Freese' memo of May 10, which is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Burke asked if the sidewalk is included in the 50' right-of-way. Mr. Svenby answered yes. Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 Mr. Werven asked if the information about 40'h Street SW is new information since the last meeting. Mr. Svenby explained that the plan for 401h Street SW is still in the preliminary stages and is being tweaked. He noted the information presented at the meeting yesterday is the most recent design for 401' Street SW. Mr. Werven asked if Mr. Freese feels it is all right to proceed. Mr. Svenby answered yes. Mr. Quinn asked if the Mr. Svenby's May 10 memo includes the recommended conditions. Mr. Svenby answered yes, and stated there is a total of 8 conditions. The applicant's attorney, John Arnold of Dunlap & Seeger, addressed the Commission and explained that Mr. Kottschade and Bill Tointon are unable to be here. Mr. Arnold noted he doesn't have the documents received at the meeting yesterday because he gave them to Mr. Tointon. Mr. Arnold distributed a letter from Mr. Tointon and Mr. Broberg regarding the information they were denied from Mn/DOT. He stated that immediately after their request following the last Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Freese called him and provided him with the information after getting permission from Mn/DOT to disclose it. Mr. Arnold explained that they are not able to fully evaluate the information at this time because Mr. Tointon has to do some overlays first. He noted the two primary issues are the roadway ROW and the issue of matching the profiles of the projected cross sections of 401h Street SW with their grading plans for the proposed development. He stated that remains open and they will not be able to come to an agreement at this time. Mr. Arnold addressed the conditions and stated they are in agreement with conditions 2 and 3, and a portion of condition number 4 to the extent that they don't agree with the City's standard policy. He feels condition number 5 should be deleted, and they are not in agreement with conditions 6 and 7. He pointed out that condition number 8 has been deleted and they agree with condition number 9. Mr. Arnold noted that number 10 has been deleted and he commented that the Conditional Use Permit has been received. He expressed agreement with condition number 11 only to the extent that the modifications reflect their understanding of the agreement on this matter. He referred to condition number 1 and noted they are not in agreement with the first bullet; they are in agreement with the second bullet in that the pedestrian facilities as shown on the proposed plans for 40`h street & 11 `h Avenue reconstruction, will be shown on the GDP. Mr. Arnold explained they do not agree with the third bullet and the fourth bullet has been deleted and incorporated in to condition number 2. Mr. Arnold explained their request is to have the GDP approved with a 41' right-of-way. He stated this is consistent with an urban collector street. He stated that in regard to matching the street profile and cross sections, they can't agree now and probably will not be able to agree. Mr. Arnold asked that the Commission move forward with this, either approving the applicant's proposal or the City's. He stated they intend to continue negotiation with the City and they have until the June Council meeting to work on the issues. Ms. Schultze pointed out their property is at a point where they want a road and the terrain is very challenging. She asked why they don't work collaboratively with the City to align the road Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 65 el Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 in the best place so the grade change doesn't have to be so extreme. She noted this may change the property line in the best interest of all parties. She commented that she does not see this as trying to take away developable property from the applicant, but it is a matter of trying to mix a lot of different things going on in very difficult terrain. She stated that at least all the owners around the road are trying to work collaboratively to do the least intervention in land and get the best road, the City has to set guidelines that have to be met. Mr. Arnold stated they would prefer to wait until the City actually goes through with this project and they could condemn the additional profile and the temporary easement would become the permanent slope easement. He commented that road isn't challenging on their property, and one thing that could potentially resolve this is that the road going up the hill on 40th Street from 111h Street may not be built because there is no funding. He explained they have discussed the possibility of creating an outlot where the slope easements would be located where they would agree not to build for a period of time and if the City did not build 40th Street, they could have it. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Mr. Brede moved to approve General Development Plan #151, to be known as 40" Street, with staff -suggested findings and conditions per Mr. Svenby's memo of May 10, 2000. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Conditions: 1. The GDP be revised to include the 50 feet of right-of-way shown as being dedicated for 40'" St. SW and 11"' Ave. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 11th Ave. SW and the south side of 40t" St. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, The site details (haul roads, stockpiles, proposed excavated ponds) of the approved conditional use permits covering this property and the adjacent properties. 2. Storm water management must be provided for this development. 3. Controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 40t' Street SW, with exception of the private street access that is shown across from Willow Heights Drive SW, and along 11fh Avenue SW, with the exception of the private roadway shown in the southwest corner of the GDP. The existing access immediately east of Willow Court SW must be closed upon construction of the private roadway. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of- way dedication, SAC and WAC fees and contributions for public infrastructure improvements, contributions for future reconstruction of 4e St. SE. Current City policy for substandard street requires a contribution of $30.00 per foot of frontage for residential developments. The City may create a Transportation Improvement District in the area that may result in a capacity component being added to the substandard street reconstruction charge. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 5. If the development of this property occurs prior to the reconstruction of 4e St. SW, grading of this property must be compatible with the street profile and cross - sections being proposed for the 40`h St. SW reconstruction in the Street Layout Plan. The private roadway connections to public streets must meet City intersection sight line standards. 6. The applicant agrees to dedicate a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of 401h St. SW. This dedication must be provided with the first plat of this development or when the City notifies the owner that a roadway improvement project is programmed, which ever comes first. 7. The applicant agrees to meet the parkland dedication requirement for this development in the form of cash in lieu of land. The development has a parkland dedication requirement of approximately 1.76 acres based on a maximum density of 6 units/acres. 8. A revised GOP shall be filed with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications. Ms. Schultze stated she was glad to hear there was some conversation regarding intersections and working through it over time. Ms. Fogarty presented the reportZDe 00, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olm Plt. Ms. Fogarty stated that staff is recommending approval with eig Ms. Schultze asked if the note of MayNigbur affects anything. Ms. Fogarty stated they are not r ommenfnumber 15 on his memo. Mr. Nigbur expZedthat f in the City limits they cannot plat something in the Township. Ms. Fogarty me of the conditions addres the alignment and the applicants are proposinge up with the subdivision to t est. Mr. Nigbur ated they had a conversation with the consultant tod d there are some limis do on where the proposed right-of-way through the township will go and how it lines across the street. They will work with the applicants on how to b r accommodate the ad system. ROCHESTER . ✓V r�N N LT/JVVW March 8, 2000 Mr. Franklin P. Kottschade 3800 Highnay 52 North Suite 130 Rochester, IMN 55901 RJCME=TEa•lllq. �'//jj DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4th Street SE, Room 106 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 (507) 287-7800 FAX (507) 281-6216 RE: City Policy Requiring Contribution Agreements to Substandard Streets for 40th Street SW from Broadway to 1 Ith Avenue SW and, 1 Ith Avenue SW from 40th Street SW going South approximately 2,658 feet. Mr. Kottschade: I am in receipt of your letter dated February 1, 2000 regarding the above referenced subject. I interpret your letter as seeking information on two subjects. First, the amount of right-of-way dedication required by the City. Second your share of the cost to reconstruct 40th Street SW and 1 Ith Avenue SW along your property frontage. The City received your General Development Plan application #98-130 on April 8, 1998 for a proposed townhome development project located west and north of Willow Creek along the south side of 40th Street SW. This was the only known proposed development of your property along 40th Street SW until the City recently received on February 23, 2000 a GDP 900151 for 16.44 acres north and west of Willow Creek along the south side of 40th Street SW. The two GDPs on file with the City indicate residential development at a density that will generate additional traffic on 40th Street SW, 1 Ith Avenue SW and TH 63. In other words, the City's need for additional right-of-way along 40th Street SW occurs because of the additional traffic your proposed development will generate. The City of Rochester Land Development Manual requires the dedication of right-of-way for city street purposes. In particular the dedication is to be consistent with the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan designation for the roadway segment. The Long -Range Transportation Plan classifies 40th Street SW from TH 63 to 1 Ith Avenue SW as a Collector Street with a total right-of-way width requirement of 100. The current right-of- way width for 40th Street along your property frontage is 33 feet. Therefore, you will need to dedicate an additional 17 feet in order to satisfy this requirement. The proposed right-of-way for 40th Street SW from TH 63 to I Ith Avenue varies in width on the Draft Layout Plan being prepared by Yaggy Colby Associates for MnDOT, Olmsted County and the City of Rochester. The width varies due to the number of roadway lanes, including necessary turn lanes, and due to the embankment fill slopes at the 1 Ith Avenue intersection and at the TH 63 interchange overpass bridge. I met with Yaggy Colby Associates staff on February 24th and An r Ud cPynrtwunr Emolow = q09 71 9 /11 was advised that the final amount of right -of --way needed for the reconstruction of 40th Street SW is still not set and would be subject to change until the completion of the Project Hearing process. Additional right-of-way needed by MnDOT, Olmsted County or the City of Rochester for the 40th Street SW improvements, beyond that acquired by dedication, would be acquired pursuant to MnDOT right-of-way acquisition policies and procedures. Right -of -nay dedication requirements will also apply to the TH 63 / 40th Street South interchange and ramps. The TH 63 / 40th Street SW Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan anticipated that the former Cote Property south of 40th Street SW would generate approximately 9,805 trips that would contribute to the average daily traffic (ADT) utilizing the interchange. This is approximately 17.2 % of the total ADT utilizing the interchange. The former Cote Property occupies the southwest quadrant of the proposed TH 63 / 40th Street South interchange. A future development project(s) for this property, of similar size and trip generation as proposed in the En%i onmental Assessment, would significantly contribute to the need for an interchange at TH 63 and 40th Street South. Based on that development's impact on the need for an interchange at TH 63 and 40th Street South, the City will require that approximately 4.9 acres, or 17.2 % of the total right-of-way needed to construct the interchange Project, be dedicated for the interchange right-of-way from that portion of the former Cote property. As far as I Ith Avenue SW is concerned, it appears that the entire west frontage of your property along l Ith Avenue SW is not in the City of Rochester. Eleventh Avenue is Olmsted County Road #147 and the City does not have jurisdiction regarding future improvements to the road. I believe that the right-of-way dedication requirements for the collector designation of l tth Avenue SW may still apply in Rochester Township under the County Zoning and Land Use Plans. I suggest that you contact Rochester Township and Olmsted County officials for further information I anticipate that cost contributions for the proposed improvements to 40th Street SW will be in the form of Substandard Street Charges and/or Special Assessments as authorized by Minnesota Statutes 462.358 subd.2a. The City has previously used special assessments to recover costs associated with street improvement projects in the City. Several years ago the City enacted provisions for a Substandard Street Charge that would apply to the reconstruction of existing streets. The Substandard Street Charge was not intended and does not address the additional costs attributable to capacity improvements needed for a particular street or a network of streets resulting from the development of property in the area. The City is currently in the process of amending the Substandard Street Charge Policy to include two components of the charge; a reconstruction component (current charge) and a capacity component based on the contributing share of traffic from each property in a designated street network improvement area. Costs the City incurs for acquiring right-of-way for a street improvement is included in calculating the amount of special assessments and/or Substandard Street Capacity Charges for a project. In 1999, the City submitted the TH 63 / 40th Street South Interchange Project, including the reconstruction of 40th Street SW from TH 63 to 11th Avenue, to the MnDOT District 6 Area Transportation Partnership for federal funding in 2002. The ATP-6 has approved $6,400,000 in federal funding for the construction portion of the Project. The Project scope has been expanded at the request of Olmsted County to include the regrading of the 40th Street SW (CR 147) hill from 11 Avenue to 18th Avenue SW. The revised project construction cost estimates prepared by Yaggy Colby will necessitate a follow up request in March 2000 for an additional $3,200,000 in federal funds from the ATP-6. The ATP-6 decision on this request will be known in April 2000, but the final MnDOT decision on the request may not be known until later this year. The amount of federal funding the Project receives directly impacts the City's share of the 40th Street SW costs and ultimately the amount of the capacity component in the Substandard Street Charge. To complicate the matter, MnDOT has recently reprogrammed the start of the project for 2003 due to their inability to acquire all of the Project right-of-way within the original project schedule for 2002 construction. The facts of the previous paragraph make it impossible for me to give you a definitive cost at this time for your share of the cost to improve 40th Street SW. I will make a qualified attempt to provide you some relative magnitude of possible costs for your property. The residential townhome housing project west and north of Willow Creek that is proposed in your GDP 400-151 application would have approximately 2,430 feet of frontage along 40th Street SW in the City limits. The project as proposed would require 17 feet of right-of-way dedication per the LDM and Long Range Transportation Plan. The Substandard Street (Reconstruction Component) Charge would be $72,900 based on the assumed frontage of 2,430 feet and the current Substandard Street Charge rate of $30.00 per foot of frontage. Additional capacity improvements, such as turn lanes and bypass lanes at the entrance to the proposed development, would be charged to you as the Capacity Component of the Substandard Street Charge for this project. The estimated cost for these street capacity improvements attributable to the additional traffic from the development proposed west and north of Willow Creek south of 40th Street SW in GDP #00-151 are $6,784. You have previously proposed commercial development of the portions of your property east and south of Willow Creek. These types of land uses and trip generation rates were used in the TH 63 Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan. The street capacity improvements needed to serve the property south of 40th Street SW between TH 63 and Willow Creek are significant. The portion of federal funds that the City receives for the proposed 40th Street improvements will be used to reduce the eligible City share of the Project costs and resultantly the Capacity Component of the Substandard Street Charge. The Capacity Component of the Substandard Street Charge will be calculated as follows utilizing estimates in this illustration: Project Construction Cost $12,000,000 minus MnDOT Share $ 6,000,000 minus Olmsted County Share $ 2,000,000 minus eligible federal funds for City Share $ 2,000,000 minus Substandard Street Reconstruction Charges $ 200,000 = Subtotal =Substandard Street Capacity Costs $ 1,800,000 Subtotal Substandard Street Capacity Costs $ 1,800,000 divided by total weekday peak hour trips generated by all uses accessing 40th Street SW 4,244 trips = Total Substandard Street Capacity Charge per Trip $ 424 / trip The TH 63 / 40th Street SW Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan anticipated that the portion of the former Cote Property south of 40th Street SW and east of Willow Creek would generate approximately 1,143 trips per weekday peak hour which is 26.9 % of the total weekday peak hour trips taking access to 40tn Street SW. Resultantly, the estimated Substandard Street Capacity Charge for the former Cote Property, based on the above hypothetical example would 0 • q(D be 26.9 % of the Substandard Street Capacity costs of $1,900,000 which would be approximately $484,600. Again, this is nothing more than an estimate based upon these facts and circumstances. The actual cost will likely differ from these estimates. The Substandard Street (Reconstruction Component) Charge for the frontage along 40th Street SW east of the Willow Creek bridge would be $26,880 based on the assumed frontage of 560 feet and the current Substandard Street Charge rate of $48.00 per foot of frontage for commercial property. The City will spend approximately $250,000 for its share of the TH 63 / 40th Street South Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan. The City will require one-half of this cost be recovered as proportional contributions from each vacant property that develops within the study area for the cost of the traffic analysis contained in the Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan. This contribution is in lieu of each development in the study area preparing a separate Traffic Impact Report for the property, if required by the Land Development Manual. The City has required other development projects in the area to pay for their proportional share of the traffic analysis. I estimate that your proportional share would be $34,875 based on 27.9% of the total internal and external trips in the traffic analysis area. I realize that the information provided in this letter might not be specific enough for your use in preparing a pro -forma for your property. As the contents of the letter indicate their are several unknowns and only preliminary cost estimates associated with the project. In addition, the City Council may opt to recover costs for reconstruction and capacity improvements to 40th Street SW using the more conventional special assessment procedures. I apologize for the length of time it took to prepare this response. As you are aware the 40th Street South interchange project is in the later stages of the environmental review and preliminary design layout. The data I needed to prepare a response of sufficient detail was not readily available and took longer to assemble than I had planned. If you have any questions please call me at 281-6195. Sincerely, Richard W. Freese, P.E. Director of Public Works cc: Stevan Kvenvold Terry Adkins Mike Nigbur i Memo To: City Planning and Zoning Commission From: Brent Svenby, Planner Date: 05/04/00 Re: Zone Change Petition #00-04 and GDP #151 Mr. Kottschade submitted an application for a zoning district amendment (#00-04) and general development plan (#151) on February 23, 2000, The applications were scheduled for a public hearing before the CPZC on March 22, 2000. In staffs review of the proposed GDP, we suggested that the GDP be revised to conform to the requirements of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. On March 22, 2000, the Commission tabled the applications until the April 26, 2000 meeting so that the issues raised by staff could be resolved. At the meeting, we informed the applicant that if he wished, we would schedule a meeting with other City Departments to work on resolving the issues. The applicant did meet with the Rochester Park and Recreation Department prior to the April 26�' meeting. The applicant did not submit a revised GDP for the April 26, 2000 meeting. The issues originally raised by staff still apply to the GDP with the exception of parkland dedication requirements. At the April 26, 2000 CPZC meeting, a staff member from the City Public Works Department was present. The Commission again tabled the applications until May 10, 2000. On May 1, 2000, Mr. Kottschade requested information regarding 40'" Street SW from Mr. Freese, Director of Public Works. The GDP has not been revised, so the same issues that staff originally raised apply to the GDP, with the exception of parkland dedication requirements. Staff would recommend that the Commission act on the applications at their May le meeting. The Commission can either recommend approval of the GDP with the condition that it be revised to incorporate staffs recommended revisions so that it will comply with the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, or denial based on findings that it does not comply with adopted ordinances. Under state law the City must either approve or deny these applications within 60 days, with an additional 60 days being available upon notification by the City. Mr. Kottschade was notified that his applications would be determined within 120 days from the date they were submitted (2/23/00). If the City does not act on these applications by June 21, 2000, they will automatically be approved. Mr. Arnold has submitted two letters to be entered into the record, which are enclosed d 12' RONALD L SEEGER MILTONA. ROSENBLAD PAULA. FINBETH DANIEL E. BERNDT JOHN B. ARNOLD PETER C. SANDBERG TINA L MOHR KENNETH R. MOEN Wn.UAM J. RYAN PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLAS A. BOESE THOMAS W. JACOBSON May 2, 2000 LAW OFFICES DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. 906 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE W3 MARQUETTE BANKBUILDINO PO BOX 549 ROCHESTER, MMNESOTA 55903-0549 TELEPHONE.• (W7) 888-9111 FAX (507) 288-9342 FAX (607) 288-0812 ROBERT R. DUNLAP (1915.19n) VIA HAND DELIVERY CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTN MITZI BAKER 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 MARY H. DUNLAP WILLIAM P. VOLRMAR MARK E. FOSSE REN D. SCHUELER GREGORY J. GRIFFTTHS MICHAEL S. DIE9Z ERIC D. LARSON SHARON C. ZEHE of Counsel FRANKLIN 3GCHAE18 A.M. *SANDY" KEITTH RE: Cote General Development Plan (GDP 9151), Zoning District Amendment 900-04 40th Street and 1 Ith Avenue Southwest - Franklin P. Kottschade Dear Mitzi: Enclosed please find two letters which we would like entered into the record material for the continued hearing concerning GDP #151 and Zoning District Amendment #00-04 for the May 10, 2000 continued hearing on the above referenced matter. Very truly yours, IBA/ck Enclosures RONALD L SEEGER M M70N A. ROSENBLAD PAULA. FINSETH DANIEL E. BERNDT JOHN S. ARNOLD PETER C. SANDBERG TINA L MOHR RENNETH R. MOEN WILLIAM J. RYAN PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLAS A. BOESE THOMAS W. JACOBSON May 2, 2000 LAW OFFICES DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. MARY H. DUNLAP 206 SOUTH BROADWAF, SUITE 606 wnjiAM P. vOLiO.IAR MARQUETTE BANEBUILDING MARK E. FOSSE PO BOX 549 BEN D. SCHUELER ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 65903.0649 GREGORY J. GRIFFITHS MICHAEL S. DIE= TELEPHONE: (601) 298.9111 ERIC D. LARSON FAX• (607) 2W-9342 SHARON C. ZEFIE FAX (507) 2W-M12 of Counsel ROBERT R. DUNLAP FRANKLIN MICHAELS (1916 IM) AM.'SANDY' KETTH CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTN MITZI BAKER 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 RE: Cote General Development Plan #151/Zoning District Amendment #00-04 40th Street and 11th Avenue Southwest - Franklin P. Kottschade Dear Commission Members: Pursuant to the tabled and continued hearing concerning the above referenced applications, the applicant, Franklin P. Kottschade, is submitting the following information and documents for the record in conjunction with the City of Rochester Department of Public Works request relating to public roadway contribution. Mr. Kottschade had previously made application to develop the property subject to the application. In 1995 an application was submitted pursuant to Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 and Zoning District Change #94-10, which included the property currently before the Commission, the project included both commercial and residential uses. The Commission specifically found that the property did not conform to the requirements relating to use as it was not located on a major arterial or higher use road. The Commission voted 6 - 0 against the application. See attached Minutes of City of Rochester Planning Commission March 8, 1995 hearing, Page 8 . The same application was forwarded to the Rochester City Council for action. The City Council issued Findings of Fact which specifically held that the location criteria for the 1995 application were not met because the "site is not located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with a similar or higher level street. The site is located at the intersection of a currently designated "local" street (40th Street Southwest), which has been recommenced for redesignation to a "collector street" status ... " As a result of that finding, Mr. Kottschade's application was denied. See September 27, 1995 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order re Revised Future Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 attached. Page 2 May 2, 2000 Mr. Kottschade has submitted a new application for residential use of a limited area of the property. Mr. Kottschade has been informed that 40th Street is no longer a "local street" but will be redefined as an "urban collector" street and therefore he is being asked to dedicate additional property to the City of Rochester. First, Mr. Kottschade contends that this change is inconsistent with the City's original denial of the 1995 land use application. If in fact the future designation is for a collector's street or even an arterial street, why was the original application not granted. Instead the Council specifically found that this was a local street and therefore did not meet the criteria. The only conclusion one can draw is that the street size issue is only being used to block the development of Mr. Kottschade's property. Second, Mr. Kottschade is willing to dedicate 41 feet to provide the City of Rochester with the area necessary to be an urban collector street. The most recent detail of the proposed 40th Street that has been obtained as of the date of this letter shows a typical section of 40th Street as being an urban collector street, the sidewalk within the right-of-way. See attached typical section 40th Street Southwest. The typical section shows 41 feet on the south side of the road which would be located on Mr. Kottschade's property. The current Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Rochester identifies an urban collector street having an 80 foot width and matching the profile of the current proposed 40th Street. See attached Page 14 of Thoroughfare Plan, City of Rochester. Urban Collector Street, Cross Section. Mr. Kottschade is willing to dedicate the property necessary and consistent with the typical cross section and the urban collector street definition even though the actual street is atypical and requires 41 feet. If the City is asking for 50 feet, what the City of Rochester is really asking is for an arterial street designation under the City of Rochester Thoroughfare Plan. See Pages 12 and 13, City of Rochester Thoroughfare Plan attached. The applicant has not been advised this is an arterial street but in fact is designed as a collector street. If this is in fact an arterial street, this position is inconsistent with the City's actions in 1995 in denying Mr. Kottschade's proposed use of the property on the basis that the street was not an arterial street nor proposed to be an arterial street. Mr. Kottschade is asking for consistent application of the City's own definitions and prior findings in analyzing the request of the City of Rochester Public Works Department for additional dedication of land. Very trul ours, Id JARNOLD LNLAPLAW.com 7BA/ck r DvNLnP & SEEGER, P.A. • 0 LAW OFFICES DuNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. RONALD I. SEEGER MARY H. DUNLAP MILTON A ROSENBLAD 206 SOUTH BROAD WAY, SUITE 60S P. VOLKMAR PAULA. FINSETH MARQUEm BANSBUILDING MA AREK EE. . FOSSE DANIEL E. BERNDT PO BOX 50 KENMD. ELER JOHN B. ARNOLD ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 6690 4U9 GRE YJ. GRIFF MICHAEL S. DIE1Z MICHAEL J. DIM PETER C. SANDBERG TINA L MOHR TELEPHONE. (507) 288-9I11 ERIC D. LARSON BENNETH F. MOEN PAX (6P7) 288-9342 SHARON C. 2ZHE WIIJIAM J. RYAN FAX (507) 288.0912 of Couaed PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLASA. BOESE ROBERT A DUNLAP FRANKL N MICHAELS THOMAS W. JACOBSON (1915.1992) A2& "BANDY' KEITH May 1, 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY RICHARD FREESE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OLMSTED COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 201 FOURTH STREET SE, ROOM 108 ROCHESTER MN 55404 RE: Cote General Development Plan (GDP #151), Zoning District Amendment 900-04 40th Street and I Ith Avenue Southwest - Franklin P. Kottschade Dear Mr. Freese: Mr. Kottschade has made an application to the City of Rochester for a General Development Plan above referenced concurrently with a request for zone change. After two hearings with the City Planning and Zoning Commission, the major unresolved issue relates to the City of Rochester proposed improvement of 40th Street Southeast and 11th Avenue Southwest, and in particular the requests made by Michael J. Nigbur of your departrnent pursuant to a letter dated March 14, 2000. The City Planning and Zoning Commission has tabled the hearing until May 10, 2000 for further discussion of the issues related to the proposed road usage. Prior to the initial hearing Mr. Kottschade obtained a draft of the street proposal dated February 2000 from Rochester Township. That is the only information we have been able to obtain concerning the proposed road. Mr. Kottschade's consulting engineering firm requested information concerning 40th Street from Yaggy Colby, but were advised that MN DOT had told them not to divulge any information relating to 40th Street to Mr. Kottschade or his agents. In order to understand the request of Public Works for the road use, we need to know precisely T what the City intends on doing. As indicated we have not seen any plans other than what has been provided by Rochester Township. In addition, there is no Official Street Map relative to this property. Therefore, we are requesting immediate information concerning the following, so that we may address these issues with Public Works prior to the May 10 continued hearing. We would like to get this information as soon as possible as Mr. Kottschade will not be present Page 2 May 1, 2000 at the May 10 hearing, but will be in Washington DC for matters related to congressional hearings on land development issues. We need the following information: A copy of the final construction plans for improvements to 40th Street and 1 lth Avenue Southwest. 2. A copy of the geometrics (street section) if not a part of the plans. 3. Any and all slope easement needs (permanent and temporary) for the project. 4. Any and all construction easements necessary to build the two roadways. 5. A project schedule that includes the bid date, etc. 6. Any proposed wetland replacement areas that the City is considering obtaining on the Kottschade property lying between 40th Street Southwest and the ponds to be constructed adjacent to Willow Creek. Very truly you , Jo . Arnold JARNOLD@DUNLAPLA W. com JBA/ck cc Franklin Kottschade, via fax 288-0658 Planning & Zoning Commission DuNLAP & SPEGER. PA REQUES OR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-5-0 Ar,FNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING u / ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00.04 by Frank PREPARED BY: Kottschade to re -zone 14.40 acres of land from R-1 (Mixed Single Family to R-2 (Low Brent Svenby, Density Residential). The property is located along the south side of 40` St. SW, east of Planner 111h Ave. SW. May 31, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held public hearings on March 22nd, April 261h and May 10, 2000, to consider a zone change request to rezone approximately 14.40 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Mr. Burke made a motion to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade based on staff - suggested findings. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated March 17, 2000. ncil Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria list in the staff report. If the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated March 17, 2000 2. Minutes of March 22"d, April 26t'and May 10, 2000 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department— GIS 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 5, 2000 in the Council / Board Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. epoc UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to: Zone Change #00-04 Kottschade 550' Notification Distance Ward 1 (Hanson) Ll 02/24/00 40 STISW el U) W W W 0 I� U CA, CTON ST SW 5 F r W U � 40 ST SW - TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: March 17, 2000 II■►�rn4! l�ti r�piini �inii r� w��avmjl�p■q�9 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-04by Frank Kottschade to amend the zoning district for 14.40 acres of land located along the south side of 401h Street SW, east of 11`h Avenue SW. The applicant is proposing tc change the zoning designation from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) District to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) District. Planning Department Review: Petitioner/Owner: Consultants: Frank Kottschade 3800 Highway 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55901 Requested Action: The petitioner is requesting that the property in question be rezoned from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. Existing Land Use: This property is vacant land that is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. Conditional use permits #97-23 and #97-29 apply to the property. These conditional use permits allow for the excavation of sand and gravel materials in the floodway and associated haul roads and stockpiles within the floodprone district. Proposed Land Use: According to the GDP, the applicant is proposing a townhome development with a density of 5.5 to 6 units per acre. Townhome developments were a conforming and permitted use in the R-1 zoning district prior to the City's �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 ' vv Zone Change 00-04 March 17, 2000 decision in October of 1998 to remove all townhouse, duplex and accessory apartment uses from the R-1 zone. The City then added the R-1x district as the most restrictive zoning allowing townhouse development. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 9, 2000 to discuss this project with area residents and landowners. Adjacent Land Use and North: Across 40th Street SW, R-1 (Mixed Zoning: Single Family) zoning district in the City of Rochester. South: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map with the floodway overlay district. The property on the south side of Willow Creek is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. A number of conditional use permits have been approved for these properties allowing sand and gravel excavation. East: Property owned by the applicant that is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district. West: Adjacent to the site and included in the proposed GDP is land zoned A-4 (Agricultural - Urban Expansion) district on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. Across 11'h Avenue SW there is 4 lots zone Industrial in the County. Transportation Access: The proposed access locations are 40'h Street SW and 11`h Avenue SW. The access point to 40th Street is across from Willow Heights Drive SW. The private roadway extends westerly parallel with 40th Street SW and intersects with 111h Avenue SW approximately 500 feet south of 40th Street SW. The existing public streets adjacent to the site (401h St. SW and 11t" Ave. SW) are both classified "collector" streets but presently constructed to minimal "local" street standards. According to the City's Capital Improvement Program, 401h Street SW is scheduled to be reconstructed in the year 2002. 11'h Ave. SW, presently a County Road, has only a gravel surface. 50 feet of right-of-way will need to be dedicated for both of these roadways Page 3 Zone Change 00-04 1 t March 17. 2000 Referral Comments: Report Attachments: at the time of platting. None of the agencies had comments on the zoning district amendment. 1. Location Map 2. General Development Plan Map 3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 4. rn.- Jey a +fie Mw-cll dd,o'iOoo CPzc. -iw[ t CaRKt. a 6 GO mom, I). Analysis for Zonina 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. Both the present and the proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. According the GDP that was submitted concurrent with this zone change, the applicant has identified developing the site with townhomes at a density of 5.5 to 6 units per acre. The proposed density for the townhome development is more consistent with the R-1X zoning district. 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 I (,}jV�" _7one Change 00-04 March 17, 2000 b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). The permitted uses in the R-2 zoning district would be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood to the north across 40'" Street SW, however, the property to the south and east have approved conditional use permits that allow mining and excavation activities. The approved conditional use permits indicate stockpiles and haul roads on this property. These activities may not be compatible with the intended use (townhomes) of the site. The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning since it is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above -mentioned findings, it would appear that the proposed R-2 zoning district could be considered over zoning site for the proposed densities that the applicant has identified on the general development plan. The R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) zoning district does allow Performance Residential Developments (townhome developments) to be up to 5.5 units per acre as a type I use with developments between 5.5 — 8.71 units per acres as a type II use and between 8.71-15 units per acre as a type III use. The zoning ordinance and land development manual does allow increases above the type I density up to the maximum type II density by the inclusion of certain design features in the development plan which qualifies the applicant to increase the density. Staff would recommend denial of the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district but would support rezoning the property to the R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) zoning district. Since this rezoning is an upzoning an GDP has been filed concurrently. If the GDP is continued or tabled, the rezoning petition should also be so that they are reviewed concurrently. Mcthie , Betts C. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyor .1—= i 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 MINUTES OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING FOR "COTE PROPERTY" IN SECTION 26 OF ROCHESTER TOWNSHIP March 9, 2000, 7:00 P.M., McGhie & Betts, Inc. In attendance: See attached attendance list. Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to review the revised General Development Plan and the need to change the zoning to R-2 and to answer questions that may arise. The following minutes of the neighborhood informational meeting were prepared by Bill Tointon of McGhie & Betts, Inc. General Discussion: A brief presentation which described the proposed amended General Development Plan and the need for the zone change to provide for development of the proposed townhomes. It was further indicated that due to a change in the zoning code, townhomes no longer can be located in an R-1 District. The General Development Plan lies partially outside the corporate limits; however, the City has authority to approve it because it lies within the Urban Service Limits. However, the City cannot change the zoning outside the cooperate limits. A grading plan has been submitted to the City to prepare the future building pond areas of the townhomes. qp3 K. M. McGhie, PE, LS, 1994-1975 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 An Equal Opportunity Employer 0`4 MthieV!!qt� �nC. ConsultingEngineersrs 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 Questions/Comments by Attendees: Q 1. What is the setback from the rear of the proposed townhomes to the future ponds? A f. A specific site plan has not been developed at this time. One will be developed after a GDP/zone change approval. The setback will vary. It is our best guess, at this time, that the setbacks will range from 50 to 150 feet. Q 2. Where is the existing access to the townhomes from 40th Street SW? A 2. The access to the proposed townhome project from 400 Street SW will be in the previously approved location opposite Willow Heights Drive SW. Q 3. What are the size, type (style) and location of townhomes? A 3. The architectural style, size and type of townhomes have not been decided at this time. This information will be provided with the site plan. Q 4. What is the timing of the proposed improvements to 40th Street intersection with US 637 A 4. We are not sure of the timing of the improvements. We believe the public agencies are currently working on the layout and timing. One attendee stated that he has discussed the future roadway improvements of 40th Street with the City. The City is working on identifying the specific right-of-way needs. 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, L5, Vice President Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E. Gowin, PE, LS Mark E. Severtson, LS Daniel J. Zemke, PE Gregory R. Bond PE An Equal opportunity Employer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 05— DATE: 6/5/2000 ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY anKINS HH G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). �k a) An Ordinance Annexing To The City Of Rochester Approximately 4.92 Acres of Land Located in a Part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the West Side of West Circle Drive South of Valleyhigh Road NW North of 19" Street NW. b) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 49.91 Acres of Land Located in a Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 106 North, Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Min esota. Said Property Located on the East Side of 23'd Avenue SE South of 28' Street SE. c) An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Section 85A.21 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to a Curfew During a Local Emergency. d) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 60.327 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to Development Criteria for Special Districts. qZVP M_r e) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property From the A-4 District to the tqt* District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the West Side of West Circle Drive South of Valleyhigh Road NW and North of 19°i Street NW. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS `n COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS I) Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes from Meetings of 01131100, 02114100, 02128100, 03120100, 04103100, 04110100, 04117100, 04124100, 05101100, 05/15/00 and 05/22/00 STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA COUNC/U/BOARD ROOM, GOVERNMENT CENTER F JANUARY 31, 2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M. 1) Meeting with the County Board to Discuss Land Use Issues RE: a. City of Rochester Request to Change the Land Use Designation in the Area Along TH 52 North b. Additional Suburban Development in Rochester Area FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2000, 7:30 A.M., ROOM 104, CITY HALL 1) Meeting with Kevin Schieffer RE: DM&E Railroad Proposal STANDING COMMITTEEfiGENDA ROOM 104, CITY KALL FESF-.,tARY i4, 2000 COMMITTEE OFTI-t6 WFfQLE - 4:15P.M. P�kGE (1-6) :0 Rec(uest for Fkvwl.w IChild Care Resource and Referral 2) Review of Revised Plans for the Maio OWIc Center Expawslow Project STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL FEBRUARY 28, 2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-2) 1) Review of RPU Gas Turbine Proposal (attachment) .cam �c Y/e ��a, 4O (3-14) 2) A&L Network Presentation (attachment) (15-30) 3) Review of John Magnotto Complaint (attachment) STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL MARCH 20, 2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-8) 1) Review of Funding Strategies for Substandard Streets (attachment) A presentation was made by the Public Works Director. The Council was advised that at a meeting earlier this afternoon, the developers abutting Soh Avenue NW between 5P and 65`h Streets NW indicated that they would be willing to enter into contribution agreements based on the average per acre charge of $1,854 per acre. Several of those developers and their engineers were in attendance. The developers requested that the Council take action at the evening meeting to allow their developments to proceed through the preliminary platting phase with the understanding that the restriction relating to the number of trips allowed by the cap would prevent proceeding on final plats unless or until the City made its commitment to reconstruct 500Avenue NW, which will be dependent upon the receipt of contribution agreements. STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL APRIL 3, 2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-22) Discussion of Financial Feasibility of the Proposed Time Square Project (attachment) - STANDING COMMITTEE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL APRIL 10, 2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-10) 1) Continued Discussion of Proposed Time Square Project (attachment) (11-33) 2) Consideration of Proposed Township Fire Protection Agreement (attachment) G�..-•-c�-v��rm �sL� COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL APRIL 17, 2000 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-15) 1) Review Emergency Situation Exercise - April 20, 2000 (attachment) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL APRIL 24, 2000 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-12) 1) Review Implementation of Wetland Conservation Act ((attachment) t, 2) Discussion of Community Action Program/Mina Wilson (13-22) 3) Consideration of Position on Internet Taxation (attachment) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA ROOM 104, CITY HALL MAY 1, 2000 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-42) 1) Proposed Royal Management Redevelopment Project (attachment) PAGE (1-5) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL MAY 15, 2000 4:15 P.M. 1) Consideration of Proposed Library Study (attachment) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MONDAY, MAY 22, 2000, ROOM 104, CITY HALL, 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-12) 1) Gary Mattison Requests to be Heard (attachment) lax -a-ti.,..P�o -,..✓ice .�c�c., �e haw, �.--.-� z. �. .e�=,lam � � ter*-�%-�- �-1`•`` TUESDAY MAY 23 2000 COUNCIL/BOARD ROOM 4.45 P.M. (13-14) 1) Meeting with County Board to Discuss Traffic Concerns on 5511, Street NW and Adult Group Home Policies (attachment) 7,11 itw-��• ��• C �-Gc..�u� ,Qs/,.?° .u..-ce ..,its-�` 10 �D, r u 8�. nc G. o. Iv 44,e,61-).7 -v �- ) .; . 6�F�a 41,