Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2000_RegularQ CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIUBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4TH STREET SE MEETING NO. 12 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C,) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 00 -`a JUNE 19, 2000 7:00 P.M. (3-4) D) CONSENT AGE NDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (5-14) 2) Request to Reclassify the Position of Director of the Mayo Civic Center (15-20) 3) Common Vacation Schedule for Non -Bargaining Unit Employees (21-26) 4) Additional Sales Tax Funding for Regional Sports and Recreation Facility at the University Center (27-28) 5) Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing Plan (29-34) 6) Lease Agreement for Brush Disposal Site with David Cordie (35-38) 7) Civic Square Parking Agreement (39-40) 8) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (41-42) 9) Approval of Accounts Payable (43-44) 10) Approval of Low Bid for 2000 Track Backhoe (4546) 11) 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck (47-60) 12) Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Ridgeview Manor Development (61-62) 13) Joint Powers Agreement Amendment #2 for TH 63 South Study (63-64) 14) Engineering Services Contract with McGhie & Betts for Inspection Services for Public Improvements in Rose Harbor Area (65-66) 15) Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Extension of Sanitary Sewer to Serve Undeveloped Property Along 2"d Street SW (67-68) 16) Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Public Improvements to 50"' Avenue NW (69-70) 17) Award of Contract/Foxcroft Storm Water Pond Improvements (71-72) 18) Advertise for Bids/Reconstruct 71h Street NW from 46t' Avenue NW West Approx. 1300 Feet (73-74) 19) Storrnwater Management Agreements Council Agenda June 19, 2000 Page 2 (75-76) 20) Owner Contract/Georgetowne Homes (77-78) 21) Owner Contract/Airbome Express (79-80) 22) Owner ContractlPhase I of The Homestead (81-82) 23) Owner Contract/Quality Overhead Doors (83-86) 24) Utility Connection Agreements/Riverview Subdivision (87-90) 25) Utility Connection Agreements/32 d Street NE (91-92) 26) Supplemental Agreement #11Reconstruction of Civic Center Drive, 2nd Street SE to 2"d Street NE (93-94) 27) Supplemental Agreement #2/Reconstruction of Civic Center Drive, 2nd Street SE to 2"d Street NE (95-96) 28) Advertise for Bids/Install Traffic Signal at 5e Street and CSAH 22 (97-98) 29) Advertise for Bids/Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 & 200 Block Between Broadway and 15t Avenue SW (99-100) 30) Advertise for Bids/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 150 Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway (101-102) 31) Passenger Loading for St. John's Catholic Church (103-104) 32) Speed Zone Study Elton Hills Drive NWAth Avenue to TH 63 E) HEARINGS (105-138) 1) Continued Hearing/Type III, Phase 1 (#00-01) Appeal of the Type 111, Phase 1 (#00-09) Variance Denial (139-154) 2) Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat by Randy Reynolds and Jerry Schultz to be Known as Southern Woods Third Addition (155-172) 3) Type 111, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) by Leslie Lurken to be Known as Wedgewood Hills Fourth Subdivision (173-186) 4) Final Plat to be Known as Georgetowne Homes (187-194) 5) Continued Hearing/Final Plat to be Known as Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision (195-222) 6) General Development Plan to be Known as 0&B's Commercial CenterNVest of Hwy 52, S. of 65t" St. NW and Westgard's First Sub. (223-234) 7) Land Use Plan Amendment by Billman-Orr LLC to Amend Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to Change Designation of 18.86 Acres from "Low Density Residential" to "Commercial" (235-240) 8) Zoning District Amendment Petition by Billman-Orr LLC to Amend Zoning Map to Rezone 18.86 Acres from R-1 District to B-4 District (241-328) 9) Continued Hearinq�General Development Plan by Frank Kottschade to be Known as 40 Street General Development Plan (329-338) 10) Continued Hearing/Type III, Phase II, Zoning District Amendment by Frank Kottschade to Rezone 14.40 Acres from R-1 to R-2/South Side of 4e Street SW, East of 11"' Avenue SW (339-342) 11) Grant Application for Assistance from Federal Transit Administration Council Agenda June 19, 2000 Page 3 F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (343-348) 1) City Administrator - Resolution of Support for 2001 Housing Tax Credits and Use of TIF Funds for Park Side Townhomes (349-350) 2) Public Works - Traffic Signal Agreement with Olmsted County at r CSAH 22 and TH 52 West Frontage Road (351-352) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I DATE: 6/19/00 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 first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM NO. D-1-32 G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: D-1. Approval of Minutes D-2. Request to Reclassify the Position of Director of the Mayo Civic Center D-3. Common Vacation Schedule for Non -Bargaining Unit Employees D-4. Additional Sales Tax Funding for Regional Sports and Recreation Facility at the University Center D-5. Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing Plan D-6. Lease Agreement for Brush Disposal Site with David Cordie D-7. Civic Square Parking Agreement D-8. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-9. Approval of Accounts Payable D-10. Approval of Low Bid for 2000 Track Backhoe D-11. 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck D-12. Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Ridgeview Manor Development D-13. Joint Powers Agreement Amendment #2 for TH 63 South Study D-14. Engineering Services Contract with McGhie & Betts for Inspection Services for Public Improvements in Rose Harbor Area D-15. Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Extension of Sanitary Sewer to Serve Undeveloped Property Along 2nd Street SW D-16. Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Public Improvements to 50s' Avenue NW D-17. Award of Contract/Foxcroft Storm Water Pond hnprovements D-18. Advertise for Bids/Reconstruct 7 h Street NW from 461' Avenue NW West Approx. 1300 Feet D-19. Stormwater Management Agreements D-20. Owner Contract/Georgetowne Homes D-21. Owner Contract/Airbome Express D-22. Owner Contract/Phase I of The Homestead D-23. Owner Contract/Quality Overhead Doors D-24. Utility Connection AgreemenWRiverview Subdivision D-25. Utility Connection Agreements/32"d Street NE D-26. Supplemental Agreement #l/Reconstruction of Civic Center Drive, 2"d Street SE to 2' Street NE COUNCIL ACTION: mo®on by: second a Request for Council Action Approval of Consent Agenda Items June 19, 2000 Page 2 D-27. Supplemental Agreement #2/Reconstruction of Civic Center Drive, 2"d Street SE to 2"d Street NE D-28. Advertise for Bids/Install Traffic Signal at 55' Street and CSAH 22 D-29. Advertise for Bids/Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 & 200 Block Between Broadway & ls` Ave. SW D-30. Advertise for Bids/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15" Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway D-31. Passenger Loading for St. John's Catholic Church D-32. Speed Zone Study Elton Hills Drive NW/4d` Avenue to TH 63 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D . 00 ,, ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF PREPARED BY: THE MAYO CIVIC CENTER S. KVENVOLD The Personnel Advisory Committee has reviewed the request to reclassify the position of the Director of the Mayo Civic Center from Management I, Grade 8 to Management I, Grade 9 and recommends approval of this request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion reclassifying the position of the Director of the Mayo Civic Center from Management I, Grade 8 to Management I, Grade 9. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: I Memo TO: PERSONNEL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Councilmember Stobaugh, Chair Councilmember Marcoux Councilmember Hanson From: Stevan E. Kvenvold 116k CC. Date: June 6, 2000 Subject: Request to Reclassify the Position of Director of the Mayo Civic Center Roy Sutherland has made a request to reclassify the position of Director of the Mayo Civic Center (see attached). The request was initiated when Jim Ibister occupied the position; Jim Ibister resigned to take a position in St. Paul and the position is now vacant. There are five positions in the Park and Recreation Department which are classified in Management I, Grade 8. These positions are: Director of the Mayo Civic Center Director of Golf Director of Recreation Director of Recreation Center Director of Sports Facilities Roy is of the opinion that the duties and responsibilities of the Director of the Mayo Civic Center are greater than of the other positions classified in Management I, Grade 8. Linda Gilsrud has reviewed the request and recommends approval. I also believe that the request has merit and recommend your approval. Since the Director of the Mayo Civic Center position is currently vacant, the approval of the request would not result in an increase in compensation to any current employee. The pay ranges for the two pay grades in question are: Management I, Grade 8 $44,711 to $67,062 Management I, Grade 9 $46,700 to $70,052 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 17, 2000 TO: STEVE KVENVOLD FROM: Roy Sutherland SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION OF THE MCC DIRECTOR POSITION Please consider this request for a reclassification of the Directors position at the Mayo Civic Center. At the present time the MCC Directors position is in grid M1 grade 8. This proposed reclassification would be to grid M1 grade 9. This request is base on the following criteria: *The responsibilities of the position have increased dramatically over the last few years. This is a very visible position in the community. *This person is responsible for a significant amount of money. The budget is approaching $1.5 million in expenditures and $1.2 million dollars in revenue. *The new exhibit hall, the new meeting rooms and all of the other construction projects have added to the Directors responsibilities. *The number of employees that this person must deal with both full and part-time has increased. *The number of groups and individuals that the director must interact with has increased. *The special contracts that the Director must develop and negotiate (food and beverage, signage, pop, AV equipment) take a great deal of skill and time. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Opp March 11, 2000 To: Stevan Kvenvold From: Linda Gilsrud Please consider a recommendation to reclassify the Director of Mayo Civic Center (MCC) from Management 1, Grade 8 to Management 1, Grade 9 based on a request from Roy Sutherland, Director of Park and Recreation. The Director of the Mayo Civic Center manages a full -service convention, athletic and entertainment complex. Managing a large revenue center (SIM+), ensuring that appropriate renovations are planned and implemented, and ensuring an appropriate booking of revenue days are all a part of the Director's role. He is accountable for an indirect staff numbering 100+ and four direct reports. Mr. Sutherland indicates that the position incumbent, Jim lbister, is on call around the clock for concerns that arise and is contacted frequently while officially off duty. Mr. Sutherland is able to provide minimal direction to the Director of the MCC because of the other demands on his time so the position requires an individual who is self -directed. The position also requires a decision maker who exhibits advanced judgement as an error could have a major impact on a public facility. The position holder must remain current with new performance and facility technology to maintain an up-to-date operation. Please see the attached job description that outlines the other major responsibilities undertaken by the Director of the Mayo Civic Center. Mr. Sutherland considers this position more demanding than other positions that report to him who also are included in the Management 1, Grade 8 job family. Please let me know if you require further information. City of Rochester Reclassification Request Purpose: The policy and procedure below are meant to provide consistency and timeliness in the review of requests for reclassification. Policy: All requests for reclassification will be reviewed initially by the Director of Human Resources and Human Resources staff. Within one month of receipt of the reclassification request and required information as outlined below the Director of Human Resources will make a recommendation to the City Administrator and City Council. The City Council will make the Reclassification requests should be initiated given significant changes in a position's responsibilities. Requests for reclassification should pertain to the position, not the individual(s) in the position. 1. The Department Head or his/her designee will review the existing job description. Changes to the job description should be highlighted (e.g., bold type) to differentiate modifications from wording which previously existed. The Department Head should identify the significant changes (if any) in: A. Accountability (impact of an error on departmental/City resources, operations, goals and objectives) B. Judgement (complexity of position responsibilities and degree of independent action) C. Minimum experience required (e.g., change from 1-3 years required to 3-5 years required) or specificity of experience required. D. Minimum education required (e.g. change from Associate of Arts degree required to Bachelor's degree required). E. Direction of others : 1. Does incumbent provide supervision for other employees?; P1 2. Supervise a particular function but no employees?; 2r 3. Perform an ongoing training function for peers and coworkers? 2. Indicate the level of decision making required by an individual holding the position for which the reclassification is being requested (see below). Determine if the level of decision making has increased given the additions, modifications or deletions made to the job description. A. Determine method and establish priorities among tasks to be performed. B. Make operational decisions to achieve goals and processes determined at a higher level. C. Determine processes to achieve predetermined goals and ensure the availability 10 of needed resources and technology. D. Make decisions regarding resource allocation, direction of others, and means to achieve goals given uncertainty of outcome(s) and incomplete information utilized to make decisions. Establish precedent(s) for the future. Request for "Market Adjustment" which does not relate to a Reclassification Request Wage or salary adjustments for an employee or employees in a job title which are necessitated by significant compensation increases made by other employers for similar positions maybe recommended to the Director of Human Resources. The department head recommending a market adjustment should provide copies of the wage information obtained or wage/salary survey data to Human Resources. Human Resources will analyze the comparability of the job or job title to that which exists in the City of Rochester. Budget considerations will also be taken into account prior to a recommendation to the City Administrator for a market adjustment. The City Administrator will review a request for a market adjustment (s) and approve if he/she deems such an adjustment necessary to recruit or retain. Other Changes Affecting a Position A department head recommending a change in an employee's present status in regard to any of the areas listed below, but not requesting a reclassification, should contact Human Resources for assistance: A. Exempt/Non Exempt Status B. Bargaining Unit Assignment C. Job Family/Pay Grade Assignment ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 2000 TO: STEVE KVENVOLD FROM: Roy Sutherland SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION OF THE MCC DIRECTORS POSITION In the Park and Recreation Department there are there are 5 positions at the M1-8 level. These include the Director of the MCC, Golf, Recreation, Sports facilities, and the Recreation Center. The Director of Parks is at a M1-10 level. Enclosed is a copy of the Departments exempt employees. 4 m mry • 0 m m n N m O m U U z a O F a £ 4 pp m N 0 N z x m m 0 z x N m m y O 4 O O S I I O O I 000 £ F4a y4 } m a m e m o e o e 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 a o 0 0 0 O m o o e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oa o}o 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O yy I a N O T F F N O' N O N m ry O m m f P FYry pF4p � V r m N r N N N P n N N V n n N U4h1 m F a ; ems. g�g aai m K u a i of a m w m o m a S CF Zt o > r cZq� Cw c a a 4 F Um {qug a�g o(' 0 0 0 (((aap.� o �_ q(X {aq�e 4404 x a O 4 N O O m y O L7 U f9 O a 4 Z N a o • N e P N r • N m r 0 m a y a 0 ., 0 0 „ o 0 o 0 n 0 n O O O n T m ry ^ N N n n n N N a 4 n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 0 G 4 a N v N N N • v P r r r r F N v v P e 0 m v F r n r r r n r r r r F r r r = F r r m 0 O P • e • a e • • v P P • • • e • e v ti \ � n N ry ry M n N n n ry n N n N N N N N N ry Y O 4 ry N N ry N N N n N n n N n N n N n N N ry Y CITY OF ROCHESTER i 3 DIRECTOR MAYO CIVIC CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MAYO CIVIC CENTER NATURE OF WORK This is an administrative and professional position involved in directing the activities, operations, finances and maintenance of the Mayo Civic Center facilities. Actively soliciting and promoting events and functions that would utilize the facility is a major responsibility for this position. The director prepares and administers the operating budget. This position reports directly to the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation. MAJOR FUNCTIONS/TASKS *A. Promote Mayo Civic Center facilities and services 1. Coordinate booking functions 2. Prepare advertising and promotional materials for distribution 3. Coordinate with the Convention Bureau in promoting athletic events and conventions 4. Contact event promoters to determine potential engagements 5. Prepare and determine feasibility of events based on interest and requirements of the community and public 6. Travel for the purpose of promoting Mayo Civic Center facilities 7. Coordinate the operation or development of new events *B. Supervise staff, maintenance and general operations 1. Prepare and monitor operating budgets and develop accounting systems and procedures for sound fiscal operations/reporting 2. Plan and implement maintenance programs 3. Prepare reports and maintain records on functions and activities 4. Supervise administrative, operations and maintenance staff 5. Propose and recommend improvements of facilities to Superintendent 6. Assess employee development needs and determine employee training opportunities *C. Direct activities and facility services 1. Prepare, negotiate and approve contracts and agreements pertaining to facility rental, use and operation 2. Analyze and prepare recommendations on enhancing existing services and initiating new services/programs 3. Oversee preparations for special events and other scheduled events to meet specifications and requirements 4. Assist in room sets and maintenance activities, as needed *ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS t y Requires bachelor's degree in Business/Public Administration or a related field. and three (3) — five (5) years experience in the operation of an arena and/or auditorium facility with an understanding of finance, sales and marketing including contractual and legal aspects. Preference will be given to Certified Facility Executives (CFE). KNOWLEDGE. ABILITIES. AND SKILLS Knowledge of arena operations and maintenance programs Knowledge of the administrative practices, procedures and methods of operating/directing an arena Ability to promote and coordinate new and scheduled activities Ability to interact with the public in an effective and professional manner Skill in the supervision and direction of administrative, operation and maintenance staff IN COMPLIANCE W(rHE AMERICANS W/DISABILITIES ACT THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE PHYSTCAUENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS The position of Director of Mayo Civic Center may involve carrying and lifting up to 50 lbs. and pushing/pulling of up to 20 lbs. However, this is rarely required nor is prolonged standing or walking. Any form of climbing, bending or reaching is not often necessary. The majority of this job can and may be accomplished while seated. Audio, visual and verbal functions are vital aspects to performing this position. (A breakdown of the physical and environmental demands is available on the "Job Analysis of Physical and Environmental Demands" in the Human Resources Department) DIRECTOR MAYO CIVIC CENTER PARKS ANO RECRFATION MAYO CIVIC CENTER REVISED 17 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING %y DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR 'D. 3 cm DESCRIPTION: COMMON VACATION SCHEDULE FOR NON -BARGAINING PREPARED BY: UNIT EMPLOYEES S. KVENVOLD The Personnel Advisory Committee has reviewed the request to place all non-exempt, non - bargaining group employees under a common vacation accrual schedule and recommends approval of this request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion placing all non-exempt, non -bargaining group employees under the same vacation accrual schedule. uuuNCIL ACTION: Modon by: Second by: to: l(49 Memo To: PERSONNELADVISORYCOMMF= Councilmember Stobaugh, Chair Councilmember Marcoux Councilmember Hanson From: Stevan E. Kvenvold Date: June 8, 2000 Subject: Common Vacation Schedule for Non -Bargaining Unit Employees The City of Rochester has 17 employees that are not assigned to any City bargaining unit. These employees have differing vacation schedules, which makes the payroll function difficult and raises the question of fairness or equity by providing differing amounts of vacation for work functions which may be classified as equal. The Human Resources Department is recommending that all of these non-exempt, non - bargaining group employees be placed under the same vacation accrual schedule (see attached). I am in support of this recommendation and recommend your approval of the request. Iq Human Resources May 31, 1999 To: Stevan Kvenvold From: Linda Gilsrud� Attached is the costing you requested in response to my proposal that we place all non-exempt, non -bargaining unit employees under the same vacation accrual schedule for purposes of simplification, clarity and fairness. As we discussed, it is confusing for supervisors and staff to track the various accrual schedules. Attached in my original proposal and your request for costing information. Human Resources May 23, 2000 To: Stevan Kvenvold From: Linda Gilsrud Human Resources As Human Resources updates the City of Rochester Personnel Policies, I recommend that we place all non-exempt, non -bargaining unit employees under the same vacation accrual schedule for purposes of clarity and fairness. It is very confusing to track which employees earn which vacation amount. The three non-exempt vacation accrual schedules are specified as follows (see page 22 of policy manual) 1. Non-exempt employees 2. Non-exempt employees Custodian (Library), Head Custodian (Library), Head Custodian (City Hall), Transit Surveyor, Parking Meter Service Worker, Parking Meter Lead Service Worker, Traffic Signal Technician 3. Public Utilities technical, non-exempt employees All non-exempt, non -bargaining unit employees would accrue according to the best of the existing non-exempt vacation accrual schedules (#1) effective the first of the month following approval by the City Council. Employees already accruing according to vacation accrual schedule #1 would see no change in their accrual rate. No retroactivity of accrual would take place for employees accruing according to vacation accrual schedules 2 and 3. Lenath of ► • dWl- After 1 year After 3 years After 6 years After 11 years After 16 years After 20 years "Pro rated for regular, part-time employees Please see attached sheet for estimate of additional cost per year cc: Catherine Moran 80 120 144 168 192 200 iq Name Department Public Works Baker, Wayne Parking Fearell, Paul Parking Karau, Steven Parking Robertson, Troy Traffic Mills, Everett Streets Bethke, David RPD Bidwell, Keith RPD Wilson, Kathy RPU Andrist, Heidi RPU Hayes, Dale RPU Richardson, Donn W. RPU Quandt, Dale RPU Crowson, Dean Library Daly, Stephen Library Rushenberg, Mark Library Crandall, Steven City Hall Rubow, Jess City Hall Costing Additional Vacation If Combining 3 NE Plans No. of Additional Vacation HourslYear (approximate) no change 8 no change 24 16 16 8 8 16 no change 8 no change 16 24 32 no change 16 TOTAL 12 employes earn more vacation 5 employees see no change Cost of Additional VacationNear $ 137.52 $ 444.72 $ 260.64 $ 273.60 $ 151.12 $ 155.36 $ 289.12 $ 184.72 $ 310.24 $ 443.76 $ 506.56 $ 295.84 $3,453.20 (At present hrly. rates) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING V DATE: 6/19/00 I AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR D — 4 i i rM DESCRIPTION: ADDITIONAL SALES TAX FUNDING FOR REGIONAL SPORTS PREPARED BY: AND RECREATION FACILITY AT THE UNIVERSITY CENTER G. NEUMANN The City Council previously authorized the use of $8.9 million in local sales tax proceeds to be utilized for the Regional Sports and Recreation Facility at University Center Rochester. At the Committee of the Whole meeting on June 12, 2000, the Mayor and Council reviewed the status of the bids that had been received for this facility. The recommendation from the GRAUC Board of Directors, the City Administrator, and the City Superintendent of the Parks and Recreation Department was that the add alternates that were listed in the bid package be approved for inclusion in the facility. This would require an additional amount of $1,558,673 in sales tax funding to be provided for this facility. If this is approved by the City Council, the total funding for the facility would be provided from $10,458,673 in local City sales tax funding plus $5,000,000 in funding from the State of Minnesota. The sales tax authorization that the City received from the State of Minnesota authorized the use of up to $20 million in local sales funding for "construction of a regional recreation and sports center and associated facilities available for both community and student use, located at or adjacent to the Rochester Center." There would be $9,541,327 remaining for future recreational projects at the UCR if the requested funding is provided. The City and GRAUC have previously requested and supported language that, if adopted by the Legislature, would permit the remaining funding to be considered for other non -recreational projects meeting both community and student needs at the UCR campus. COUNCIL ACTIONREOUESTED Adopt prepared resolution to provide a commitment of up to $10,458,673 in sales tax funding for the Regional Sports and Recreation Complex and Field House to MnSCU upon a schedule to be mutually determined by MnSCU and the City Finance Director. .+. � vy VuUNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Stevan E. Kvenvold',� Date: June 9, 2000 Subject: Bids for Regional Recreation and Sports Facility The recent sales tax initiative allocated $20,000,000 to the University Center Rochester, and State legislative action restricted the usage of this money to recreational types of activities. The construction of a regional recreation and sports facility was previously proposed and the City Council concurred with the request to appropriate $8,900,000 of the sales tax funding to build the project. The State college system is providing $5,000,000 of the needed funding. Bids have been received to construct the project and additional sales tax funding would need to be appropriated to construct a building which would serve the intended purposes (see attached). A number of bids were received and the bid amounts appear to be very competitive. A rebid of the project would not appear to serve a purpose of achieving a lower bid price. I do agree with Roy Sutherland's position that the building does not serve its intended purposes very well without accepting the bid alternates. The Council has previously approved $8,900,000 of the higher education sales tax funding for this project. I recommend approval of the requested $1,558,673 in additional higher education sales tax funding for the proposed project. A3 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6, 2000 TO: STEVE KVENVOLD FROM: Roy Sutherland SUBJECT: REGIONAL RECREATION & SPORTS FACILITY On May 25,2000 bids were opened for the construction of the Regional Recreation & Sports Center. There were 10 bidders on the project with the base bids ranging from $11,794,000 to $13,090,000. The construction budget for the project was $11,450,000. To protect the bid and insure that we would be able to start construction, a series of deduct alternates and add alternates were included in the specifications. Enclosed for your review is a copy of what these deducts and add alternates were. At this time for the project to move forward one of two things must happen. We either accept all of the deducts, none of the add alternates, and award the contract to the low bidder, or we increase the project budget by up to $1,558,673 accept all or a portion of the add alternates, and award the contract to the lowest bidder. If we are going to accept the deducts and build a building, it should be noted that we will have a shell and not much more. There would be no wrestling room, fitness space, offices, bleachers, canopies, sports equipment, sound system, A-V equipment or nets to create a multi -use space. Although much of this equipment and space could be added later, it would cost a great deal more. The time to do it right is now. The add alternates will give us a facility that meets the needs of the college, the community and something we can all be proud of. It will allow us to build a multi -use facility that can accommodate multiple activities, generate additional revenues and meet the needs of the college and a variety of special interests groups. Although the $1,558,673 is a lot of money to add to the project, it is the only way to do it right. The $1,558,673 would allow the project to move forward with all of the add alternates included. It would also add $350,000 to the budget for furniture, fixtures and equipment. This is for such things as telephones, computer lines, baskets, volleyball standards and a variety of other items necessary to run the facility. The request for additional funds for the field house is supported GRAUC. It should be noted that any funds not spent on the project should revert back to the dollars that were allocated for higher education. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES Regional Recreation & Sports Center ADD ALTERNATES Alternate A-1: Fieldhouse Bleacher Seating Provide retractable bleacher seating in the Fieldhouse Alternate A-2: Perimeter and Center Drop Curtains Provide perimeter and center drop curtains in the Fieldhouse Alternate A-3: Intermediate Drop Curtains Provide intermediate drop curtains (between courts 415 and 6/7) in the Fieldhouse Alternate A-4: Performance Court Bleacher Seating Provide retractable bleacher seating at the north side of the Perfomance Court Alternate A-5: East Entry Canopy Provide east entry canopy as described on drawings Alternate A-6: South Entry Canopy Provide south entry canopy as described on drawings Alternate A-7: North Canopies Provide canopies at the two north exit doors as described on drawings DEDUCT ALTERNATES Alternate D-1: Alternate Resilient Sport Flooring System Provide alternate flooring system in the Field House as described in specifications (monolithic -poured system in lieu of poured -on -mat system) Alternate D-2: Alternate Wood Flooring System Provide alternate flooring system in the Performance Court as described in specifications (lesser quality wood floor like Century High School). Alternate D-3: Omit All Seating in Performance Court Delete all retractable bleacher seating at the north side of the Performance Court (This would leave no seating in the Performance Court). Alternate D-4: Omit All Athletic Equipment Delete all athletic equipment as described in the drawings and specifications (hoops & backboards, volleyball, tennis and badminton equipment, wall padding, excludes floor sleeves and pits) Alternate D-5: Alternate Building Plan Delete southeast section of the building as described on drawings (6000 sf including the offices, classroom and combining the athletic practice and multipurpose athletics room into one space). .;,.. ,�. i� '' �r ��� kf., RIM ■ »[ §!| " /��y.k§\§\ §§■ ci / ! )k\§/iv §>|2.�2 - �/ )\©■gin■a!:|! N, ��....l,,.., §�■§�§ §f �§||2 $�j.2.22313; |t 2 /\ �!k§\ƒ|\\§§/ /| }(....... � _§§§§■n|■�■ §|§§ ®#§#§ �K§§§§§■§§■ |§§§§§!§§| �_..�.�.... 00 \§„!K!00000 ■.jjj\\\\\// §�)zz))}§$ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a DATE: 6119/00 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Administrator —I DESCRIPTION Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing Plan PREPARED By: T. Spaeth In order to comply with HUD program requirements, the City of Rochester is periodically required to complete an Analysis of Impediment for Fair Housing Plan to further HUD fair housing objectives. Previously, this Analysis has been completed by an outside consultant due to limitations on staff time. Staff would recommend Council approval of the hiring of an outside consultant to complete this Analysis at a cost not to exceed $5,000. The funding source to pay for this would be the CDBG program administration funds. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Motion to approve hiring of outside consultant to complete an Analysis of Impediment to Fair Housing as required by HUD at a cost not to exceed $5,000. %,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by._to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Administration D _ to DESCRIPTION Lease Agreement for Brush Disposal Site with David Cordie PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth David Cordie has been leasing a 40 acre parcel for a brush disposal site. The lease has expired and a request for a lease renewal to the brush landfill site lease has been requested by David Cordie. The brush disposal site is located on the east side of 50ti' Avenue NW, between Valleyhigh Drive NW and TH 14. At the present time, 50t Avenue NW ends in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the brush landfill site. At this time, there are plans to make roadway improvements to 50ti' Avenue NW, which may include extending the road south to connect to TH 14. In the past 12 months there has been a significant amount of development proposed in this area. A General Development Plan for 235 acres of the Badger property was recently approved by the Council. It is expected that development will occur on this property later this year, and continue over the next 4 to 5 year time frame. It is the staffs recommendation that due to planned development in this area, that the brush site lease be set up as an initial 2 year lease, and a year to year lease from thereon. The annual rent is $2400. Denny Stotz has contacted Mr. Cordie, who has indicated he is in agreement with these provisions. The South Zumbro Watershed Joint Powers Board reviewed this item at their April 19, 2000 meeting and recommended approval of this request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council approval for Mayor & City Clerk to execute Lease Agreement for brush disposal site with David Cordie d/b/a Hathaway Tree Service %.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. -Second by: to: LEASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and executed this _ day of , 2000, by and between the CITY OF ROCHESTER, hereinafter called the Lessor, and DAVID CORDIE, D/B/A HATHAWAY TREE SERVICE, INC., hereinafter called the Lessee. WITNESSETH: 1. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee the premises located within and being a portion of the following described property in Olmsted County, State of Minnesota: The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NW-1/4 of the NW-1/4) of Section Twenty-nine (29), Township One Hundred Seven (107) North and Range Fourteen (14) West. The leased premises are more specifically identified on the attached Exhibit A. 2. The term of this lease shall be for a period of two (2) years from the date this agreement is executed by Lessor. 3. The annual rent is two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400) per year, payable in installments of two hundred dollars ($200) on the 1st day of each month during the rental term hereof. 4. Lessor shall not be obligated to make any alterations, improvements or repairs of any kind on or about said premises with the exception of maintenance of the entrance road and to the extent described below. 5. At the expiration of the two-year period, this Lease shall continue in effect on a year-to-year basis until canceled by either party by providing written notice to the other party at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the current one year lease period. 31 6. The leased premises shall be used for the operation of a tree -waste recycling site for the disposal of trees, tree roots, and non -demolition generated wood waste only. No bark - intact elm wood shall be removed from the site without Lessor's prior written approval. 7. Except for holidays and the months of December through April, the site shall be open to the public for disposal purposes during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturday. The site may be open during such other times as the Lessee may deem appropriate. 8. Lessee shall provide to Lessor at the end of each calendar year a report on the operation of the facility during that year. This report shall include the following: a. The volume and type of material processed during the year. b. Methods of handling material (chip, burn, saw logs, firewood, etc.) C. The identity and amount of any assistance provided by public agencies in the operation of the site during the year. d. Identification of improvements made to the site. e. The proposed tipping fee schedule for the following year. 9. Lessor shall have the right to annually review and approve the proposed tipping fees for the following calendar year. Lessor shall not unreasonably refuse to approve any rate increases that are justified by changes in volume or operating cost. Lessee's imposition of rates not approved by Lessor shall be considered a material breach of the lease subject to termination as hereinafter provided. 10. Lessee shall provide all maintenance personnel for the performance of any work or other services required herein and shall maintain worker's compensation coverage, unemployment insurance benefits, and wage/social security withholdings for these employees. 2 5g., 11. Lessee warrants that it will obtain and maintain through the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, all licenses and permits necessary for the operation of the disposal site and that it will operate said site in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. In the event the Lessee is unable to obtain all necessary permits and licenses, this Agreement shall be rendered null and void. 12. Lessor shall be responsible for maintenance of an all-weather road leading to the disposal area. This maintenance responsibility is limited to providing road rock and grading when necessary. 13. Lessor shall post the site for "No Hunting." 14. Lessee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Lessor harmless from any and all damages and claims for damages that may arise by reason of the use, maintenance or condition of the road and/or disposal site. The Lessee shall procure at its own expense general liability insurance naming the Lessor as an additional insured with bodily injury and property damage limits of at least $2,000,000. Certificates of insurance shall be delivered to the Lessor and shall indicate that Lessor shall be notified within 30 days of any cancellation of the policies. 15. Lessee acknowledges its location adjacent to flood control dam/reservoir and agrees to hold harmless Lessor, its agents, officers, and employees, from any and all damages occurring as a result of flooding at this site. 16. This Agreement may be terminated by Lessor at any time it deems the Lessee to be in material breach of the terms and conditions of any part of this Agreement. 17. Upon termination or expiration of this lease, Lessee shall return the site to a condition substantially similar to its condition prior to Lessee's initiation of tree disposal activities 3 35 1991. This work shall include the removal of all equipment and debris accumulated on the site over time. 18. This lease may not be assigned without Lessors prior written approval. 19. Any notices or reports identified within this lease shall be directed to the Rochester Park and Recreation Department, 201 4" Street SE, Rochester, Minnesota, 55904. 20. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver consent, modification of change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of this Agreement have duly executed the same as of the date and year first above written. 0 CITY OF ROCHSTER, LESSOR BY Charles J. Canfield, Its Mayor BY Judy K. Scherr, Its City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 35� DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT Administration D � l ITEM DESCRIPTION: Civic Square Parking Agreement PREPARED BY: Doug Knott; The City is the owner of the former coal gasification plant site at the northwest corner of Civic Center Drive and Silver Lake Drive (see attached map). On April 6, 1998, we entered into a long-term agreement with Civic Square Associates to lease the property to them at a nominal cost. The site was to be used as overflow parking for the Civic Square Apartment project. Civic Square was a HUD financed project that was required to meet HUD's minimum parking standards. Civic Square constructed a lot at their expense containing approximately 73 stalls. There are rarely more than 10 to 20 spaces used in the lot. Gary Larson, representing Civic Square Associates, received a request from the Post -Bulletin to lease 20 stalls in the lot. The lease would run from July 1, 2000 to July 1, 2001. The lease rate has not been negotiated but would be in the range of $30 to $35 per stall per month. Mr. Larson cannot sublet the parcel without the written consent of the City. Staff suggested to Mr. Larson that if we were to agree to the sublease, we would want a share of the revenue. After some discussion, we settled on a 60/40 split. Out of his 60%, Mr. Larson would be responsible for all operation and management responsibilities, parking enforcement, snow removal, insurance, taxes, etc. From the City's perspective we have no ability to rent the space directly and any rent we receive from the sublease would be a plus. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED In accordance with paragraph (14) of the April 6, 1998 lease with Civic Square Associates, grant Civic Square Associates the right to sublet parking space in the Civic Square overflow parking lot to the Post -Bulletin in accordance with the terms stated above. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 06/12/2000 23:28 507288459'I PAGE 02 CIVICS ARE APA RTMENTS ARTMENTS 101 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE P.0 BOX 9190 _ ROCHESTER, MN 55903 9190 PHONE #507-280-4470 June 12, 2000 FAX # 507-280-642 Mr. Doug Knott City of Rochester 201 Fourth Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Parking Lot Lease Gentlemen: As we have discussed, the present lease does not allow the subletting of parking spaces in this lot. We have been approached by the Post -Bulletin Company who wish to lease twenty (20) parking spaces for the period from July 1, 2000 through July 1, 2001. We have not yet discussed the cost of these spaces pending authorization from the City to sublet spaces in this lot. I would propose that we would pay the City 40% of whatever funds were generated by this subletting while we would retain and pay the cost of upkeep and snow removal, as well as policing I would request that this be presented to the City Council as soon as possible for their approval of an amendment to the present lease. If there are any questions please contact me at 288-6991. ! / /� �',�A i l � �`\ ~� �/ � �P S�� ® � � N w ® (]� 1- Q a J.^, _- �w A R � "' N R F i U] yr V] 1-� � —. a � U W% —1 o w r� nm f �� U /' l AA® l�7 ,a AA ® N r r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ! DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D-8 j i and DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNAJSCHOTT 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. LIQUOR — TEMPORARY 1 DAY ON SALE Community Youth Mentorship Program 334 16" St. SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Summer Festival 7/14/00 Graham Arena - Fairgrounds MASTER INSTALLER Mark Wickersham 2622 26" Ave SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 SEWER & DRAINS Paul Cassidy DBA Eyota Excavating 218 Madison Ave N Eyota, Mn. 55934 SIDEWALKS — CEMENT Wm. Bardwell Company 618 2nd Ave NE Stewartville, Mn. 55976 SIGNS Twin Cities Sign Images, Inc. 17201 1130' Ave N 4104 Osseo, Mn. 55369 %.vJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 40LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE PAGE 2 JUNE 19, 2000 SOUND AMPLIFICATION Se Settlers Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Musical Get -Together Slatterly Park - 6/16/00 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM (Prior approvals Given By: D. Hanson, J. McConnell, M. Evans & M. Marcoux) Gay -Lesbian Community Services PO Box 454 Rochester, Mn. 55903 Annual Pridefest 7/15/00 Central Park 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM Shiloh New Testament Church 1821 26°i St. NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Worship Concert 7/29/00 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM Quarry Hill Park (Please Waive 8:00 Time Period) Rochester Civic Music 201 4' St. SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 July 4s' Concert 8:30 PM to 10:00 PM Down By The Riverside Concerts Sunday Nights From July 9`s to August 2061 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM Silver Lake Park (Please Waive 8:00 Time Period) MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE Rochester Jaycees 4s' of July Kiddie Parade 11:00 AM to 11:30 AM Central Park down 15` Ave NW to YMCA COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses, permits and miscellaneous street uses. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/00 NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D - 8 ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT 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 The Studio Academy Charter HS 707 151 Ave NE Rochester, Mn., 55906 Musical Talent Event 6/23/00 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM Silver Lake Pavilion Rochester, Mn. 55904 Calvary Chapel of St. Paul 500 North Robert St. St. Paul, Mn. 55106 Fellowship Bible Study & Worship -Wednesday Evenings 6/21/00 thru 8/30/00 Kutsky Park 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM Mayo Medical Center 201 Bldg Mayo Clinic Employees Family Get -Together Graham Arena North 8/26/00 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above ADDENDUM licenses. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6119/00 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. �> _ 9 "I.I DESCRIPTION: Approval of Accounts Payable PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $1,574,454.71. Less: Any exceptions UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. D _ r0 rITM DESCRIPTION: Approval of Low Bid for 2000 Track Backhoe PREPARED BY: Jennifer King The Public Works Department requests the Council accept the low bid of $161,900.00 from Sweeney Brothers Tractor for the purchase of a 2000 Volvo Track Backhoe. A 5 year maintenance contract, a ditch cleaning bucket, and sales tax not included in the original bid amount will bring the total cost to $182,151.00. 2000 Equipment Revolving funds budgeted are $160,000. Bids were received from five vendors. • COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to accept the low bid from Sweeney Brothers Tractor for a 2000 Volvo Track Backhoe and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a contract for the backhoe purchase. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Memo To: Steve Kvenvold From: Jae Fitzpatrick Date: 06116/00 Re: Extended Warranty Track Backhoe Steve, There is an extended warranty optional available to us that we may want to take advantage of. The optional repair contract for the period following the two year standard warranty of ownership up to and is the fifth (5) year ownership or 6000 hours, whichever occurs first, shall be paid by the vendor. The optional repair contract will cover the cost for parts, labor and travel for repairs, to include transportation of unit to vendor's facility for repair. Components which are covered: Engine (all), Controls, Drive motors, Tanks, Valves, AWFM radio, Cab, Air conditioning, Radiator, Electrical system, Boom, Stick and Bucket cylinders, Other specified attachments, Emergency brakes, Drive pump, Frames, Final drives, Hydraulic system (all) Circle, Final drive gear train, Altemator Starter Electrical control system. All parts used in repair shall be manufacturer's new parts (no used or rebuilt parts). is 8 Page 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5- DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. 'p_ I' ITEM DESCRIPTION: 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck PREPARED BY: Jennifer King The Public Works Department requests that the Council reject the bids received from Interstate Motor Trucks and MacQueen Equipment Inc. for a 2000 Model 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck. The Public Works staff has reviewed the bids and would like to revise the specifications and rebid this truck in 2001 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Reject the bids from Interstate Motor Trucks and MacQueen Equipment Inc. for the 36,000 GVW 4x4 Single Axle Truck. %.vJNCIL ACTION: Matron by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-19-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING D- r 01- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the PREPARED BY: Ridgeview Manor Development. Brent Svenby, Planner June 13, 2000 An EAW was prepared for the Ridgeview Manor development in March 2000 to determine the potential environmental effects of this development that included 127 acres west of 50th Avenue NW, south of 65ht Street NW. , The 30 day comment period on the EAW expired on May 31, 2000. Three comment letters were received (see attached). Responses to the written comments from MCPA, MN DNR and MN Historical Society are enclosed. Minnesota Rules require that a decision an this matter must be made by the RGU (Common Council) no later than 30 days after May 31, 2000 (end of comment period). Council Action Needed: Adoption of a resolution setting forth the City's declaration on the EAW adequacy, The resolution should include specific findings. This resolution will be transmitted by the Planning Department to the Environmental Quality Board. :hments: 1. Copy of June 13, 2000 memo from Planning Staff which includes a copy of the Summit Pointe EAW, comment letters received and responses to the agency comments. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Rochester -Olmsted Government Center Building 6. McGhle & Betts, Inc. uuUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: .10 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: June 13, 2000 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING HOUSINGlHRA BUILDING CODE WELLISEPTIC RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Ridgevlew Mmer Background: The 1973 Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, administered statewide through the Environmental Quality Board, is the basis for the present Environmental Review Program of the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 - .7900 were promulgated to administer the mandates of the Policy Act, spell out the specific environmental review procedures, and define when and how they must be employed. The intent of the environmental review program is to identify early the potential impacts of a project and provide time for the decision makers to require that mitigative measures are incorporated into the project design before local permits are granted. The first level of environmental review under the program is known as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or "EAW". The specific content, environmental scope, and procedures for an EAW are specified in Minnesota Rules. The rules mandate what type of projects must go through the EAW process and who will act as the responsible unit of government to determine if additional environmental review is necessary in the form of a much more detailed Environmental Impact Statement or "EIS". The Ridgeview Manor development project exceeds a mandatory EAW category in that it will eventually result in the permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural land to a more intensive use (Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 36). The rules assign the responsibility for the EAW preparation and determination of adequacy to the local unit of government which is charged with the responsibility to approve or deny permits for the project to proceed. In this case, the local responsible governmental unit would be the Rochester Common Council. EAW Process: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Summit Pointe was transmitted to the Environmental Quality Board on April 24, 2000. The Planning Department notified and provided a copy of the EAW to the various state and federal agencies prescribed by Minnesota Rules. Copies of the EAW were made available to the City Clerk, County Administrator, and Public Library for public display, as well as a copy at the Planning Department. A press release was made to the Rochester Post Bulletin which explained the procedures for submitting comments. 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 5071285-8345 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Z qqRidgeview Manor EAW On May 1, 2000, the notice of availability was published in the EQB Monitor. The 30-day comment period expired on May 31, 2000. The following comments were received regarding this EAW: 1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (see attached) 2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (see attached) 3. Minnesota Historical Society (see attached) Rochester's Responsibilities in the Process: Under Minnesota Rules the City of Rochester is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) to determine the need for further environmental review of a project by preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The decision facing the City is whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects and compare the impacts that may be expected to occur from the project with four criteria outlined in the rules (and listed below). This report could act as a record of the findings made by the City and a basis for the decision that is made. The City must make either a negative or a positive declaration. If a negative declaration is made on the need for an EIS, then the City must notify all persons or agencies that originally received copies of the EAW. The Environmental Quality Board shall publish the decision in the EQB Monitor. If a positive declaration is made, meaning an EIS must be prepared, then it should include the scope of what specific issues must be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. A positive declaration should include the time, date and location of the public meeting to discuss the scope of the EIS. Response to Comments: Under the environmental review process, the RGU's record must provide written response to substantive comments received during the EAW comment period. In this instance we received written comments from those agencies listed above. The comments received generally related to: 1. Sensitive Resources 2. Stormwater Basins 3. Cumulative Impacts 4. Douglas Trail Please see the attached letter from McGhie & Betts Environmental Service, Inc., dated June 12, 2000 for responses to the concerns and issues raised by these agencies, Criteria for Determinina Significant Environmental Effects: In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City must consider the following factors as outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 subp. 7: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and 3 Ridgeview Manor EAW D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's. Findings: The Planning Staff recommends that based on the following findings that the City makes a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for the Ridgeview Manor Development and that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects: The anticipated environmental effects of this project are found to be the same as those experienced with any residential development in the City of Rochester. This site has no unique environmentally sensitive features which warrant more detailed investigations. A determination has been made that a portion of Wetland A is not a calcareous fen. The functions and values of this wetland remain moderate to high and the developer has proposed to avoid this portion of the wetland. 2. Water quality of surface waters from the runoff or waste waters from the site should not be significantly degraded because of this project. Erosion and water quality of runoff will be controlled by the installation of stormwater detention ponds and sediment traps. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual provides for an ongoing regulatory authority of the City over erosion control practices. Wastewater from this project will be treated at the City of Rochester Wastewater Treatment Plant which is capable of accepting the estimated amounts of wastewater generated by this project. 3. The potential for groundwater contamination is found to be reduced by the use of a stormwater collection system which employs detention basins as compared to the existing unrestricted overland flow in the property's present state. Spills on the ground surface will have the potential to be intercepted in the stormwater detention areas before they leave the property. 4, The anticipated cumulative loss of agricultural lands within the urban service area of the City of Rochester (where sewer and water service is available) to urban land uses is an anticipated effect of the orderly growth of the City. Land use policies direct development to growth centers such as Rochester to reduce the pressure on agricultural lands in the outlying area to be converted to residential uses. The more efficient use of land for residential purposes where increased densities can be realized because of sewer and water availability is expected to help conserve truly prime agricultural areas. 5. Dust and noise, which will be generated because of the construction of this project, will be no more than typical for any residential development. The City of Rochester has a noise ordinance which will protect nearby residents from unreasonable noise from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Methods for controlling dust will need to be implemented by the developer. Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City prior to construction and will need to incorporate erosion control measures. 6. This property is within the City of Rochester 25 year Urban Service Area according to the Olmsted County Land Use Plan. Cumulative effects of development within the Urban Service Area will include the loss of prime farmland and wildlife habitat. The loss of terrestrial habitat and prime farmland caused by this development should actually help the efforts to retain more significant habitats and farmlands in less developed areas of the County by removing residential pressures and concentrating them in planned areas where the density of development creates a more efficient use of land. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ridgeview Manor EAW Ridgeview Manor EAW�j 2. Letter from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 3. Letter from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 4. Letter from Minnesota Historical Society McGhie (1Q{� Betts Environmen Services, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 Fax 507-289-7333 June 12, 2000 Mr. Brent Svenby Senior Planner Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: EAW Comments for the Proposed Ridgeview Manor Development; MBI #1084/9420 Dear Mr. Svenby: Thank you for forwarding the comments you received regarding the Ridgeview Manor EAW. Our response to these comments follows. Response to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments: EIS requirements: We do not believe that an EIS is warranted for this City subdivision. The proposed Ridgeview Manor Development is independent of any other potential projects within this rapidly growing area of Rochester and therefore does not constitute a "phased" action as defined in MN Rules 4410.0200 sub 60. The City of Rochester Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the facility plan, identify the Ridgeview Manor Development within the 25-year urban service area. These plans have anticipated and have accounted for the growth, the infrastructure needs and associated impacts that are now occurring within this area of Rochester and therefore this individual proposal is not subject to the "cumulative impact criteria" as defined in MN Rules 4410.0200 sub 11 and 4410.1700 sub 5. In the City of Rochester Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Urban Service Area Designation the RGU has already taken into account the cumulative impact of expanding urban development. Sufficient information concerning cumulative impact is analyzed for the 25 year urban service area in the City Water supply Study, the Wastewater Facilities Study, the Draft Stormwater and Wetland Management plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. Item 10: In accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), Section 8420.0540, Subp. 2, D, (4) stormwater basins may be eligible for replacement credit as determined by the local government unit. The ponds must be "associated with an ongoing or proposed project that will impact a wetland and replacement credit for the treatment ponds may not exceed 75% of the treatment pond area and may only be used for public value credit above a 1:1 ratio." The proposed replacement plan will be reviewed by the City of Rochester and the Board of Soil and Water Resources for William E. Tointon, CET, President James E. Swenson, RLS, Secretary David L. Morrill, PE, Treasurer Jeffrey S. Broberg, CPG, Vice President Bruce Campbell George Pooh Lenore F, Marken Registered Environmental Manager Certified Environmental Auditor Certified Soil Scientist Environmental Specialist A- C--1 llnnnAinifii Cmnlnb. EAW Comments - Proposed Ridgeview Manor Development Page 2 55 MBI #: 1084/9420 compliance with the Wetland Conservation Act and under agreement between the MPCA, BWSR, DNR and the US Army Corp of Engineers the approval of a "Letter of Permission" for a wetland replacement plan under the current WCA regulations will constitute acceptance and a valid wetland permit. The MPCA authority for wetland regulation is limited to MN Rules 7050.0186 which makes no mention of special requirements for replacement above the 1:1 ratio and is silent on the types of acceptable mitigation for wetland impact yet the WCA regulations specify that stormwater ponds are acceptable for mitigation above the 1:1 ratio. The MPCA comments that stormwater basins cannot be counted for mitigation does not comply with WCA and is in error. Response to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comments: Item 11, b: A site inspection determining that the wetlands on the site are not calcareous fens was completed on May 30, 2000 by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the City of Rochester Planning Department and the agent for the applicant. During this inspection the plant communities within Wetland A were studied and samples were taken. DNR staff completed a list of all the vegetation species observed within Wetland A. Upon completion of the site inspection, it was determined by DNR that Wetland A does not contain a calcareous fen. While the wetland does not include a calcareous fen, the functions and values of this portion of the wetland remain moderate to high and it will be avoided by the proposed development. Item 12: Some grading work may be proposed within the vicinity of the Douglas Trail on the Ridgeview Manor property, however, no grading is proposed or anticipated that would impact the trail. Anticipated grading in the area near the trail is needed to route and treat stormwater runoff in accordance with the City of Rochester requirements. The grading will be reviewed and subject to approval by the City of Rochester Engineering Department and the applicant would welcome coordination with the DNR regarding the Douglas Trail and adjacent waterway. The Grading Plan will be completed during the preliminary design phase of the project. We do not believe that it is necessary to compete an AUAR for the land within the City of Rochester 25 year Urban Service Area for the same reasons discussed above in response to he MPCA. Minnesota Historical Society: Photographs of the homestead will be completed shortly and will be forwarded to the Minnesota Historical Society for their records. Cj� EAW Comments - Proposed Ridgeview Manor Development Page e MBI #: 1084/9420 Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the comments you received regarding the EAW. If you have any questions regarding our reply or you need additional information, please call me at 289-3919. Sincerely, McGHIE & BETTS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. Lenore Marken Environmental Coordinator cc: Joel Bigelow, BBB Development Greg Bond, McGhie & Betts, Inc. 55 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-411 May 30, 2000 Brent Svenby, Planner Rochester-Ohnsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Re: EAW for Ridgeview Manor Development, Rochester Dear Mr. Svenby: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the above -referenced document and provides the following comments for your consideration. While the EAW for this proposed development is well written and generally addresses the issues associated with the project, we note that this is another of seven EAWs we have reviewed for developments in Rochester since the beginning of the year. As we stated in our letter of May 3, 2000 on the Hidden Oaks ValleyBandel North development, with this rapid growth, we believe it would be beneficial for the City to prepare an Alternative Urban Areawide Review to provide a comprehensive look at future development in the area recently added to the urban service district. This would not only facilitate broader -based planning, but once completed, would preclude the need for individual EAWs on future projects within the AUAR area. Specific Comments Item I I.b., Fish, wildlife and ecolopcallly sensitive resources While the "no" box is checked here in regard to the presence of sensitive resources, if a portion of wetland A is determined to be a calcareous fen, it would qualify. MDNR staff have scheduled a visit to the site for today (May 30) to evaluate the plant community of the potential fen. If the wetland is determined to be a calcareous fen, we will work with the developer as to how to manage the site. It should be noted that we did not have authority to "approve" the first phase of the General Development Plan as stated in this section, but we appreciate that the consultant did meet with us and discuss the plan, and that we were able to come to an understanding on the procedures for evaluating the wetland. DNR Information: 651-296-6157 a 1-888-646-6367 a TrY: 651-296-5484 0 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper containing a Who Values Diversity 0 Min4num of 10% Post -Consumer Waste May 30, 2000 Page 2 Item 12 Physical impacts on water resources It is unclear if there are plans for work in King's Run, the watercourse that follows the Douglas Trail on the southwest edge of the property. I£ so, we would be interested in how this is carried out, to ensure the integrity of the trail. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Based on the information provided, we see no need for an EIS on this project, but believe it would be of benefit to conduct an Alternative Urban Areawide Review of the new urban services area as stated above. We look forward to receiving your Record of Decision and responses to comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Ken Wald of my staff at (651) 296-4790 if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor. Environmental Planning and Review Section Office of Management and Budget Services c: Joe Oschwald Don Nelson Con Christianson Bob Bezek Larry Nelson Jon Larsen, EQB Ridgeview Manor EAW let.wpd 20000546-0002 Russ Peterson, US F&WS Wayne Brehmer, BBB Devel. 517 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency May 26, 2000 Mr. Brent Svenby, Planner City of Rochester 2122 Campus Drive Southeast Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Ridgeview Manor Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Mr. Svenby: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Ridgeview Manor Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), in the city of Rochester (City), Olmsted County. Based on the information contained in the EAW, the Environmental Review staff believe that significant effects related to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be warranted to address the cumulative environmental effects that result from this project and any impacts that may result due to the proximity of this project to the Badger Ridge Development, the Weatherstone Development, the Summit Point Development and the Hidden Oaks Valley/ Bandel Hills Development. At a minimum, the EAW should be supplemented to address, in more detail, the cumulative effects to the environment from the substantial development currently under construction in this area. It should also be noted that The City's Comprehensive Plan does not substitute for an appropriate environmental review and would not substitute for the information that would be obtained either through the preparation of an EIS or a more complete EAW. According to Minn. R. 4410.1700 DECISION ON NEED FOR EIS Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects And According to Minn. R 4410.0200 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS Subp. 11. Cumulative impact. "Cumulative impact" means the impact on the environment that results from incremental effects of the project in addition to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects regardless of what person undertakes the other projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 MY) St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20%fibers From paper recycled by consumers. U Mr. Brent Svenby, Planner Page 2 May 26, 2000 Also to be considered: Item 10. Cover types: • Stormwater basins may not be counted as mitigation for wetland fill Please note that, as the responsible governmental unit for the EAW, you are required to provide specific responses to these comments pursuant to Minn. R. pt. 4410.1700, subp. 4. These responses must be received prior to issuance of necessary MPCA permits or approvals for the project. We look forward to receiving the required responses to our comments, and your decision on the need for an EIS. If you have any questions regarding our comment letter, please call me at (651) 297-8236. Sincerely, l k Wr Denise Leezer Project Manager Operations & Planning Unit South District DL:lk cc: Dave Morrison, MPCA, Rochester Subdistrict Office Tom Balcom, Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul Jon Larsen, MN Planning, St. Paul 51 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY June 2, 2000 Mr. Brent Svenby City of Rochester 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: EAW — Ridgeview Manor Cascade Twp., Olmsted County SHPO Number: 2000-2609 Dear Mr. Svenby: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the above -referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1600. We do not believe that an archaeological survey is necessary for this project area. We would ask that photographs of the existing farmstead be submitted to our office so that its potential historical significance can be evaluated. Contact us at 651-296-5462 with questions or concerns. Sincerely,.e i L uyx,(rtJ13� Dennis A. Gimmestad UQ Government Programs & Compliance Officer 39.5 KELLOGG BOULEVARD WEST I SAINT PAhL, MINN'ESOTA 55102-1906 / TELEPHONE: 651-296-6126 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (Ol DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Joint Powers Agreement ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works a -j 3 PREPARED BY: R. Freese The City of Rochester, Olmsted County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation entered into a Joint Powers Agreement on March 3, 1998 for the Preparation of a Layout Plan, Environmental Assessment and a Preliminary Design for the TH 63 South Corridor from TH 52 through 48th Street South. Yaggy Colby was retained to conduct the work for an amount of $699,628,82. The Cooperative Agreement requires that MnDOT pay 50% of the cost, the City 37.5% of the cost with Olmsted County paying the remaining 12.5%. The City's original contribution was $261,986. Recently the City Council approved an Amendment No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement that extended the schedule for completing the work until December 31, 2000. The project consultant has submitted contract Amendment #2 for approval by MnDOT, The County and the City. Amendment #2 seeks an additional $503,899.33 in compensation for the following items: • study area expanded to include the segment of 40th Street SW (CR 147) between l lth Avenue and 18th Avenue SW • study area expanded to include the segment of 45th Street SE (CR 101) east of St. Bridget Road (CSAH 20) • expanded traffic projection and analysis required for the Environmental Assessment • expanded wetland delineation required for the Environmental Assessment • expanded public involvement effort has been required MnDOT has recommended approval of Amendment #2. Olmsted County has approved Amendment #2. The work has been completed and the consultant's documentation of the extra effort and expense is reasonable. The City 37.5% portion of these additional costs will be $198,962. MnDOT announced on June 9, 2000 that $13,200,000 of state funding has been obligated to the construction of the interchanges at both 40th Street and 48th Street South. The City has obtained $6,400,000 in Federal TEA-21 funds for the project. The projected construct cost of the two interchanges plus the improvements to 40th Street, 48th Street and St. Bridget's Road is estimated at $20,500,000. Right-of-way and engineering will be additional cost. The project has a November 2002 bid letting date. The project will probably take two construction seasons to complete. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Amendment #2 to the Joint Powers Agreement No. 76998 for the expanded scope and costs for completing the TH 63 Layout Plan, Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 03 DATE: 6l19100 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services Contract with McGhie & Betts for Services for Public Improvements in the Rose Harbor area (J- ITEM NO. D-14 PREPARED BY: D. Nelson This is a proposal by McGhie & Betts, Inc. to provide engineering services (staking, inspection, and testing) for the following local improvement project: "Public Improvements to Sunset Ave, Rose Ave, and Harbor Parkway in Rose Harbor" Project No. 8701-8-97, J-9656 McGhie & Betts is recommended for this work since they provided the engineering design services for the project. Therefore, McGhie & Betts is familiar with the project and the needs of the property owners. McGhie & Betts is capable of providing the desired level of staking, inspection and testing for this project. The negotiated professional fees are as follows: J9656 Rose Harbor S.E. Area Actual Cost Not to Exceed COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: $32,700 If the City Council approves the proposal, a resolution could be adopted authorizing the execution of an Engineering Service Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. Attachment: McGhie & Betts, Inc. Letter of Proposal COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 65 DATE: 6119/00 nr.FNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Extension qiA of Sanitary Sewer to serve undeveloped property along 2nd St This is a proposal by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates to provide engineering services for the following local improvement project: "Extension of Sanitary Sewer from 2nd St NW to serve Undeveloped Property along 2nd St SW" Project No. M070, J-9700 Bonestroo & Associates are recommended for this work since they provided the engineering design services for public improvement project along 23'd Ave NW to construct a storm water pond and utility extension. Therefore, Bonestroo & Associates are familiar with the project and the needs of the area. This project will extend the 12" sanitary sewer line west from 2nd St NW to undeveloped properties along 2nd St SW and connect to the existing sanitary sewer system at the east side of Avalon Cove development. This will allow the City to abandon the sanitary sewer line running east west across the future Cascade lake area. Work will consist of approximately 3300 linear feet of new sanitary sewer and will be integrated with sanitary sewer across developing properties. The negotiated professional fees are as follows: Preliminary Analysis $ 4,580 Final Design $11,160 Misc Expenses $ 2,070 Total: $17,810 Project funding is included in item #3, page 46 of the 2000 - 2005 Capital Improvement Program. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Engineering Service Agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates for the extension of sanitary sewer to serve undeveloped property along 2nd St SW. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: s 200 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ,D-/(Q i i rM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Public PREPARED BY: Improvements to 50th Ave NW. (J-9578) D. Nelson (O The City has approved General Development Plans for the Weatherstone, Ripley, and Arcon projects located along 50" Ave NW between 55'" St NW and 65' St NW. The existing condition of 50" Ave NW is substandard and in need of reconstruction and widening. The City has received $1,350,000 in Federal TEA-21 funds to assist in the reconstruction of this roadway. The City has also applied for $5.0 million in Transportation Revolving Loan Funds (TRLF) to assist in the construction of this roadway. The procurement of federal and state funds involves an extended level of effort in the preparation of Project reports, plans and specifications. In order for the City to deliver the first phase (grade and gravel) of this project in 2000, the Public Works Department recommends the execution of professional engineering services. This is a proposal by Howard R. Green Company to provide engineering services for the following local improvement project: "Reconstruct portions of 50'" Ave NW" Project No. 6360-4-99, J-9578 Howard R. Green Company has the ability to provide the preliminary design analysis for road improvements to 50" Ave from Valley High Drive to 65" St NW. In addition, they will provide detailed design for construction grading of 50' Ave NW from Nicklaus Drive (just south of 50" Ave NW) to 65" St NW. The negotiated professional fees are as follows: Preliminary Analysis: from V. High to 65" St NW $ 76,448 Final Design: Grading Work along 50" from Nicklaus Dr to 65" St NW $35,218 Total: $111,666 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an Engineering Service Agreement with Howard R. Green Company for the design of Public Improvements to 50" Ave NW. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 6/19100 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA i i add DESCRIPTION: Improvements" (J-2463) ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D-j PREPARED BY D. Nelson Bids were received and opened after 11:00 A.M. , June 14, 2000 for the following project: Project No. M003 (J-24631 "Foxcroft Storm Water Pond Improvements" This project is proposed to be funded with Storm Water Management funds. It is not specifically included in the 2000 - 2005 Capital Improvements Program as a separate project, but is included in the general Rehabilitation of existing storm water management facilities, pg. 46 (item 6), This project includes water quality improvements to the existing pond, such as deepening of the basins, outlet control structures, minor pond shaping, and some landscape plantings. The project is Phase I of a multi -phase project to improve management of stormwater in Zumbro Watershed Basin, Storm Water Sub -District 1. The following bids were received: 1. Rochester Sand & Gravel...........................$75,520.00 (low) 2. Winona Mechanical...................................$75,789.50 3. Frasier Construction .............................. .... $83,483.00 4. Road Constructors....................................$108,480.30 5. Winona Excavating....................................$115,741.00 Engineers Estimate....................................$69,340.00 Public Works recommends the award of contract J-2463 to Rochester Sand & Gravel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Rochester Sand & Gravel at $75,520. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: Ill 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D-ts t i cn♦I DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: "Reconstruct 7'h Street NW from 46m PREPARED BY: Avenue NW west approximately 1300 feet' D. Nelson This is a request for resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received until 11:00 A.M. at the office of the City Clerk on July 12, 2000 and considered by the City Council on July 17, 2000 for the following project: Project No. 6207-4-00 J —9594 "Reconstruct 7t1 St NW from 46t1 Avenue NW west approximately 1300 feet" This project has been requested by the developers of Diamond Ridge and Manorwood West. This project is proposed to be funded with Contribution Agreements, Connection Charges, and Tax Levy. This project was not included in the 2000 CIP. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on July 12, 2000 at 11:00 A.M. Note to City Clerk: Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning June 19, 2000. vvUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: IJ 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D7 l ITEM DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS PREPARED BY: V-n M. Baker "j) The Department of Public Works has received requests on eleven (11) different properties, to voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. This department has reviewed the information for these properties and has determined that there is support for participation. The properties for which the owners have requested voluntary participation in the City's Plan are as follows, and include the applicable participation fee for each property: • Gift of Life building addition (Lot 8, & p/o Lots 7, 9, & 10, William McCullough's Addition) $1,465.23 • Renning's Flowers building addition (Lot 1, Block 1, Replat of Lots 17 & 18, Block 2, Valhalla 411 Subd) $ 317.28 • Touchless 2000 Carwash (Lot 2, Block 1, Wood Lake Park) $2,552.75 • Mayo Foundation (Charlton North Building / MRI Addition) $3,689.31 • Our Savior's Lutheran Church addition (p/o NW'% 30 107 13, Address: 2124 Viola Rd NE) $1,527.30 • Bear Creek Apartments (p/o S'/ NW'/4, 07 106 13 & p/o S % NE'% 12 106 14) $6,884.D3 • Emmanuel Baptist Church addition (Lots 5 & 6, Allendale Subdivision) $3,615.52 • Airborne Express (Rochester International Airport) $12,979.23 • Park Place Motors (Lots 14, 15, & p/o Lot 16, Allendale Subd) $12,199.64 • St. John's Catholic Church parking lot (p/o Lots 1 — 3, Block 13, McCullough's Addition) $ 502.52 • Corporate Gardens property (Lot 2, Block 1, Shorewood Retail Replat) $8,648.46 The Owners of these properties have already provided payment for their respective charges. These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the properties to participate in the City's Plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted properties, in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: ?s 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works i i rM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Georgetowne Homes (J9661) PREPARED BY: � M. Baker v Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Georgetowne Homes — Georgetowne Limited Partnership (Owner) & Fraser Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9661 consisting of "Watermain to Serve Georgetowne Homes". 4�fSCi'yyR".3E�, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City ! Owner Contract for J9661 "Watermain to Serve Georgetowne Homes" %,vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 17g 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D — Q-1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Airborne Express (J9691) PREPARED BY: Tr� M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Airborne Express — MDC Rochester LLC (Owner) & Friedrich Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9691 consisting of "Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Airborne Express". • Construction of this facility is within the airport property on land owned by the City of Rochester. Development of the property is facilitated by a long term lease between the City and Developer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9691 "Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Airborne Express" L,ULINCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 116/19 /00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -a aZ" ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Phase I. of The Homestead (J9638) PREPARED BY: M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Phase I. of The Homestead — Rochester VOA Elderly Housing (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9638 consisting of "Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Phase I. of The Homestead, consisting of Building D, located on Lot 3". fl h�TM- NW COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9638 "Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Phase I. of The Homestead, consisting of Building D, located on Lot 3" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 8 DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract —.Quality Overhead Doors (J9628) ITEM NO. D -;.3 PREPARED BVVT M. Baker 0_i'1 Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Quality Overhead Doors — R & P Properties LP (Owner) & Bob Braaten Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9628 consisting of "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Quality Overhead Doors". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9628 "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Quality Overhead Doors" i.,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING %j DATE: 1119/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works f�_;l ITEM DESCRIPTION: Utility Connection Agreements: Riverview Subdivision, J9352 PREPARED BY: J. Loehr Twenty-three property owners in Riverview Subdivision have requested permission from the City to connect their property to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system. The properties are subject to Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges, a Sewer Availability Charge and a Water Availability Charge for the benefit received from the public sewer and water systems. The amount of connection charges and availability charges for each property is shown on the attached spreadsheet. Utility Connection Agreements have been prepared between the City and the property owners for the connection charges and availability charges. The property owners have signed the Agreement for their respective property. Payment of the connection charges and availability charges are not required until July 1, 2000. If payment is not made for a property by that date the connection charges and availability charges will be levied as "unpaid charges" and assessed against that property over a period not to exceed ten years. Interest will be charged at 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance from July 1, 2000, to the date the "unpaid charges" and accrued interest are paid in full. Connection of a property to the public sewer and water systems is not required until December 1, 2001. If connection is not made by that date the City will levy a supplemental assessment against that property in the amount shown on the attached spreadsheet. The Riverview Subdivision property owners are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998. The twenty-two property owners will receive credits to the amount that each owner owes the City. These credits for public and private improvements are made consistent with the WQPP Policies. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Utility Connection Agreements. 2. Order the City Clerk to record the Utility Connection Agreement with the Olmsted County Recorder. 3. Authorize the levying of "unpaid charges" against a property if payment of the connection charges and availability fees relative to that property are not made by July 1, 2000. 4. Authorize the levying of a supplemental assessment against a property if that property is not connected to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system by December 1, 2001. Attachments: Location Map Spreadsheet COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: Previous RIVER CT NE z I i-LLLI= CHEVAL A NE 9k JS . `1'! .. •�q�iippYy;y��`�� EY�'�` m 27 ST NE r, kq I HALING CT" 9 R C G 8 G g Z gq S S ffi 8 S Z A Z 8 Fla w w (8 A A• Q qI F k Q F Q R A F A A° 8 g»q R 8 8 8 B 8.8 8.8.' 1 R F'C yy py F aj� C Lisa L 1k • .§ # q.8 a k 4 � 8 8x a • ' ��gs � a 8 @49i�19@a8@. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a w w 9 9 4 9 9 8 9 9 A 9 9 9 3 it �! 1 JiE_8 d 6 3 jjj` A A � yA ^y F F 8 � F i� 8 F R 9 4 A F g q E q ffi AV • 8 i a 4 � g 7 R$ S 7 S 7 i 4 c a g 7qq e• § qq gy qq4 �� i! A Ayy i B d t t! ! 9 A 8? 4 8 yye y! �!! 9l993�;Fm:;319193�59� C G R C C gg R8 'eGB Wffi q!:ffiR Sffi p.:::.9- xAe A '�AA ffiR 8�'8A 8 ci A a a an a Z 8 9 9 9 S� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9"'7 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTAGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. 17'A)requested ITEM DESCRIPTION: Utility Connection Agreements: 32nd Street NE, J9252 PREPARED J. Loe Twelve property owners on 32nd Street N.E., in Morris' Second and Third Subdivisions, have permission from the City to connect their property to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system. The properties are subject to Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges, a Sewer Availability Charge and a Water Availability Charge for the benefit received from the public sewer and water systems. The amount of connection charges and availability charges for each property is shown on the attached spreadsheet. Utility Connection Agreements have been prepared between the City and the property owners for the connection charges and availability charges. The property owners have signed the Agreement for their respective property. Payment of the connection charges and availability charges are not required until July 1, 2000. If payment is not made for a property by that date the connection charges and availability charges will be levied as "unpaid charges" and assessed against that property over a period not to exceed ten years. Interest will be charged at 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance from July 1, 2000, to the date the "unpaid charges" and accrued interest are paid in full. Connection of a property to the public sewer and water systems is not required until December 1, 2001. If connection is not made by that date the City will levy a supplemental assessment against that property in the amount shown on the attached spreadsheet. The 32nd Street NE property owners are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998. The twelve property owners will receive credits to the amount that each owner owes the City. These credits for public and private improvements are made consistent with the WQPP Policies. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Utility Connection Agreements. 2. Order the City Clerk to record the Utility Connection Agreement with the Olmsted County Recorder. 3. Authorize the levying of "unpaid charges" against a property if payment of the connection charges and availability fees relative to that property are not made by July 1, 2000. 4. Authorize the levying of a supplemental assessment against a property if that property is not connected to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system by December 1, 2001. Attachments: Location Map Spreadsheet uuUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: y ! , /,. |||| ] - \� |!!�!■!■!.� !! ||�||�|■|■|� �■!■!■�!■|■! . | ?§2j jj 9jf aa&..�z... .. , �2..,¥...,&- ! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 01 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works -a b i i cdI DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1; Project # 9802 (9469) Reconstruction of Civic Center Drive, 2nd St. S.E. to 2nd St. N.E. PREPARED BY M. Easley The plans provide for the reconstruction of Civic Center Drive from 2nd St. S.E. to 2nd St. N.E. During the course of construction it became known that it was the intent to hold the annual Celebration of the City Festival on a section of the project, between East Center St. to 2nd St. S.E., in future years. Plans were then amended to include underground electrical system improvements for use by the vendors during the Festival. Commitment to these improvements was discussed at the Committee of the Whole meeting on August 19, 1999. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1 Project # 9802 (J9469), in the amount of $25,188.20 to cover the cost of : 1. Installation of approximately 4,500' of 2" electrical conduit. 2. Installation of 14 randomly spaced electrical access boxes. Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work and have found it consistent with the cost of other electrical work on the project, for the decorative lighting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1 in the amount of $25,188.20; Project # 9802 (J9469) Civic Center Drive. . wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q3 DATE: 6119/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -al i i rnA DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #2; Project # 9802 (9469) PREPARED BY Reconstruction of Civic Center Drive, 2nd St. S.E. to 2nd St. N.E. M. Easley The plans provide for the reconstruction of Civic Center Drive from 2nd St. S.E. to 2nd St. N.E. including the installation of decorative lighting. During Project development an area of curb, sidewalk and three decorative lights were intentionally left off the plans, to be completed by the Park Department as part of the Mayo Civic Center addition, slated to be built in 1999. When it became apparent that The Civic Center addition would be delayed indefinitely it was determined that it was in the best interest of street drainage and pedestrian safety that the work should be completed as part of this contract. Curb and sidewalk work in this area was completed with minor overrun of contract items governing that work. However, it was necessary to negotiate for the cost for the purchase and installation of three decorative lights. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #2 Project # 9802 (J9469), in the amount of $8,822.00 to cover the cost of: 1. Furnishing and installing 3 decorative light fixtures. 2. Installation of associated electrical wiring. Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work and have found it consistent with the cost of other decorative lights installed on this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #2 in the amount of $8,822.00; Project # 9802 (J9469) Civic Center Drive. ,,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: q� 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b -;q3 i i cid DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FORBIDS: PREPARED B Install Traffic Signal at 55' Street and CSAH 22 (J6383) R. Kelm This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: SAP 55-622-35 City Project No. 9755 (J6383) Install Traffic Signal at 56' Street and CSAH 22 The Signal project, engineering and construction will be funded with Municipal State Aid funds and County State Aid Funds and Private Funds The project is included in the 1998-2003 Capital Improvement Program budget ( item 5, page 34). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by:_ to: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q� DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works D —aq ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: PREPARED BY: Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 & 200 Block between Broadway R. Kelm This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Project No 6300 lt2-3-98 (J9511) Reconstruct North South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and I" Avenue SW & Project No 63001/2-3-99 (J9512) Reconstruct North South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and V Avenue SW The Feasibility Report and Assessments for these two projects were approved during the May 15, 2000, City Council meeting. The two projects have been combined and will be awarded as one construction project, due to location and type of construction. The concrete alley project, engineering and construction will be funded with Special Assessments and funds from the General Street Resurfacing fund (J-2201) as found in the 2000 Capital Improvement Program budget. This project will involve the placement of concrete pavement, and associated storm sewer repairs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on ° T at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning R . i COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: RECONSTRUCT NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN 200 BLOCK BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 1ST AVENUE SW Project No. 63001/2-3/99 Project Location J9512 N Project Location RECONSTRUCT NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN 300 BLOCK BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 1ST AVENUE SW Project No. 63001/2-3-98 J9511 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /q DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works .D- 30 iir-M DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FORBIDS: 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 request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Project Number: 6215-4-00, (J9609) Proiect Name: "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway". Project Background: The project feasibility report and assessments were approved during the June 5, 2000, City Council meeting. The project, engineering and construction will be funded with Special Assessments and General Street Resurfacing funds (J-8308 & J-2201). This project will involve the placement of concrete curb/gutter, bituminous overlay, storm sewer, and associated sidewalk repairs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on °a , C1fr at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning.. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Concrete Curb & Gutter in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway Project No. 6215-4-00 J9609 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (p ( DATE: 6-19-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works "J DESCRIPTION: Passenger Loading for St. John's Catholic Church ITEM NO. D-3f PREPARED BY: k* D. Rossman The City has received a request from Rev. Msgr. Gerald A. Mahon at St. John's Catholic Church to modify the recently installed passenger -loading zone adjacent to St. John's Grade School at 424 West Center Street from school days only to all Mondays thru Fridays. There is a need to maintain control of these spaces on non -school days to serve the school and other building parking needs. Staff has reviewed the request and agrees that the change should be done. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution amending paragraph (20) of Section E "Passenger Loading Zones" of the Comprehensive Traffic And Parking Resolution Book, to read; (20) First Street SW on the north side of the street, from 4`s Avenue to a point 450 feet west of 4' Avenue 15 minute limit, 7:00 am to 4:00 pm; Monday thru Friday. .... JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 06-19-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D r 3;;6— i i tM DESCRIPTION: Speed Zone Study Elton Hills Drive NW: 4'h Avenue to TH63 PREPARED BY: j� D. Rossman r The City has received a request to reduce the current speed zone on Elton Hills Drive from its present limit of 40 mph to 30 mph. Staff has collected the existing running speed data, and recommends to the City Council that an official request be sent thru Mn/Dot to have this zone reduced. The roadway in question is shown on the attached map. The road is designated as an arterial on the ROCOG Thoroughfare plan. The roadway has two traffic lanes in each direction along with a center left turn lane approaching the public street intersections. • Traffic Volumes & Speed : Direction Volume 85%speed East Bound 6,750 38 mph West Bound 6,750 36 mph • Police Review: The speed zone reduction was discussed with Sgt. Bob Schei of the City Police. The Police Department agrees with the requested reduction. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution requesting Mn/Dot to conduct a review of the existing speed zone on Elton Hills Drive NW: 4' Avenue to TH63, and to lower the speed from 40MPH to 30 MPH. %,JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 3 Lb�i>EY a ST L /h Si 3 0 0 0� _ I 40TH ST �e.:orwo, �"s/" ? cb 0 PL L4 oI sent sr �— t; E 3 H rF4 ---- J COUNTY RD 22 p 3s g 63 a � < 3 I ` Ati? N AT LR VOSa a ! j ]Tn/ S7 LH BAIRD to C HE z KNOu- Cj VEGAS \Sl U�Y - FRT q BRISTOL LN q TLAND S� -% � C. 4j z fps LN i 1 F 33 ST3 �r �R\� e SERVICE FRONTAGE ROPD E N RNER CT .T c> > 32H0 ST NE r a J 33 z ST CNAI DR D RIVER OF 32N0 CT NE 2i ��h N1U5 AVE 315T ST ^ 3 _ _ _ _ 31ST ST WE EHEVAL AL—LN 315i ST WE 3 55 7TH �` i i `�{ F CPYGUSS 30 NE �gg `-, AVE �° i ,� ST 27TH ST NE t 29TH sT RIVERWO 'L TRL(ER ff T Y r' Y i W V' z 1 a z GR RP CLENWIE HILT r 28TH ST yj i s < t&//+mr 27rH ST W OR y � S T n w� < 3 1 °'y — 26rH sr \R txnT �n ST ELTON � � � � a 26 57 ~ `� O � NORTHER � H 24TN ST y�' 6'.�' 25T 6 N VIKING C � � 6J �y l �i< VANW✓' Yy HALING CT o '� Hf1Is H CT 4 s a NORTHERN DR p w000,HAVEN WOLOLiCtAVE, c �i OR_.G�N.1CT /tasty $7 " V VA(k r ' �„,,. E. RIVER 23 ST 23RD ST n Cr CS H�"'" A ,1S F%R IP <V I 22NDST < 20 K Ca /�� / -SING VILLAGE !� 22NO ST 21 ST Sr ti 3' ""�aCATE \� J% � 21ST ST 6 NORTHERN HDI � LN c. I9TH sr Nw � � 20TH sr � D J\ t9 s �yS SIERRA Lp 19TH CrW W [ f EST } � v 1O F 3 < t 7rH sr ' WOODME cr 16TH ST WE 4� v F mm Sr ' 1gSSi < 1s 1 2 ST 17TH Sr 16TH ST p"rA'' FF < FF< F<F < ISTH S7 15 15TH St 167H ST n 15TN ST s /3 / 15TH Sr 141H I ST NOW : Bl90 ST tom t4TH �T € < < I ST < < < 12TH ST < BT F i� 1r'' < i / z CT r B < zm sr IITH ST IITH ST o- ITon Sr 10TH ST 11TTH ST 10TH g Sr `°e sr S7 � yl,� - 9TH �, < yt OI F� � 9TH SI � , (� �7 W... Co 91H STST 6 81H ST A V O �(7 � RD ) Yv w w TH sr Nw 6TH Sr 6TM 7 € Uka— \LO U „ lam, nc.�.+_ _ i R (*I 4T"A, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. .. Consent Agenda Finance Department C) _ 33 EM DESCRIPTION: Accept Low Bid for Portable Engine Driven Sewage Pump PREPARED BY: Jennifer King The Water Reclamation Plant requests that the low bid of $18,607.71 for one (1) Portable Engine Driven Sewage Pump be accepted from General Repair Service. Only one bid was received for this item. 2000 Equipment Revolving funds budgeted were $25,000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Accept the low bid from General Repair Service for one (1) Portable Engine Driven Sewage Pump and authorize the purchase. _ OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1o5 DATE: 6/19/00 AGEN PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED ITEM) ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PLANNING DEPARTMENT e. - I Type III, Phase I (#00-01) Appeal of the Type III, Phase I (#00-09) Variance Denial I Randy Klement June 15, 2000 Rochester Zoning Board ofAppeals Recommendation: On June 5, 2000, the Rochester City Council continued the Type III, Phase I (#00-01) Appeal of the Type III, Phase I (#00-09) Variance Denial requested by the applicant, Rochester Public Utilities. The variance request was for the placement of two telecommunication equipment shelters that would not meet the required 40' setback requirement from a property line. The applicant has submitted a revised site that meets the setback requirement from the south property line and has lowered the height of the proposed fence/wall to six (6'), the maximum height allowed under the zoning ordinance, However, the revised site plan does require a variance for the following: 1) a variance of 25 feet to the allowed setback to the west side property line. Council Action Requested: Approve or deny the variance appeal by the applicant based on the revised site plan and attached information. --ttachments: 1. Copy of memo and revised site plan and landscape plan from Rochester Public Utilities 2. Copy of memo from John Harford, Senior Planner 3. Copy of memo from Council Member Marcia Marcoux Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk t ate" 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File s 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 19, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 SE 4`b Street. JNCILACTION: Mobonby: second 4/o.fito4o.1 r u_ we pledge, we deliver DATE: June 14, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Randy Klement, Consolidated Planning (Deepara e t FROM: Doug Rovang, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Additional Information Appeal of Type III, Phase I Variance Denial (#00-09) Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Equipment Installations Baihly Water Tower Site SW As stated at the 6/5/00 City Council meeting, the proposed telecommunications equipment layout at the Baihly Water Tower site has been modified such that RPU is requesting only the 25' side yard set back variance. A copy of the professionally prepared site work / landscaping plan for the proposed wireless telecommunications installation at the Baihly Water Tower site is attached. Council Member Marcoux requested a finished landscaping plan at the 6/5/00 Council meeting. AT&T Wireless Services has verbally committed to accomplishing the proposed site work / landscaping, and my understanding is they will provide a written statement to that effect prior to the 6/19/00 City Council meeting. Last, as also requested by Council Member Marcoux at the 6/5/00 Council meeting, two RF engineers representing two of the wireless telecommunications companies will be available at the 6/19/00 Council meeting to answer related questions. c: Greg Woodworth, Manager of Engineering Lary Koshire, General Manager Julie Townsend, for AT&T Wireless Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 IN r TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JOHN HARFORD, SENIOR DATE: JUNE 12, 2000 RE: TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES/FACILITIES ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE WELVSEPTIC FAX 5071285-8232 5071285-8224 507/2B5-8213 507/285-8345 507/287-2275 This memo is a response to a request from Council member Marcia Marcoux regarding a an appeal to a Board of Appeals decision on telecommunications facilities on a city water tower site. Attached you will find three memos provided to the city planning commission and county planning commission in 1996 covering the issues and preliminary ordinance language. Staff met several times in July, august, and September, 1996 to discuss the impact of the 1996 Telecommunications Act on the city and how to address the law and our zoning ordinance along with related legal issues. The staff prepared information and draft language addressing the local control of telecommunications towers and services. Staff conducted research to acquaint the CP&ZC and CUDE about the 1996 law, the technology (at a general level), and local government options for zoning controls, and, through the research identified options to minimize potential impacts. The CP&ZC and ultimately the City Council determined that the city could address several matters within the zoning ordinance. These matters included: 1. classification of the use in the zoning ordinance and zoning districts permitting telecommunications systems as a use; 2. tower height and setbacks from lot lines; 3. co -location as a means to minimize the number of towers; 4. some minimal aesthetic considerations such as color and tower design, signage, etc.; 5. coverage of antennas mounted on existing structures. The Council approved the zoning ordinance text amendment in January, 1997. The staff, CP&ZC and City Council all agreed that requiring conditional use permits or other public review for telecommunications systems was not needed. The thinking at the AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER time was that the city could identify the major issues and establish standards to address the needs of the city and the telecommunications companies. The standards would be applied at the time that a zoning permit is applied for. A Type I Design Modification is required where the height of a tower exceeds the height allowable in the zoning district. (Type I applications require only staff review.) Due to the existing ordinance requirements prior to the telecommunications amendment, knowledge of the needs of telecommunications companies, location requirements for companies, and the 1996 law the staff did not focus as much attention to several matters including: 1. buffering and screening — The existing ordinance requirements were expected to address any such needs for screening. We did not expect large buildings on the order of 12'x28' in size and 10' in height to be used. Screening towers did not appear to be feasible due to their height. 2. limiting zoning districts — The city came to the conclusion that we may create legal problems if the city limited towers to non-residential zoning districts, especially given that along US 52 , US 14, and portions of US 63 there are significant areas covered by residential zoning districts. This factor along with uncertainty of telecommunications location needs forced the city to determine that telecommunications services would be allowable in residential zoning districts under certain circumstances. Co -location requirements were thought to limit impacts on residential areas. 3. knowledge of existing city lands and sizes of city owned parcels that might be used by a telecommunications company — current zoning standards for telecommunications buildings/equipment were not anticipated when water tower sites were chosen and towers constructed. 4. specific and additional standards for telecommunications services, equipment, and buildings on public lands, and specifically for RPU water tower sites. Attachments: 1. Memo dated September 3, 1996 2. Memo dated Oct. 10, 1996 3. Memo dated Oct. 21, 1996 4. Memo dated Nov. 1, 1996 V) ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission CUE County Planing Advisory Commission FROM: John Harford DATE: September 3, 1996, Amended December 9, 1996 RE: Telecommunications Towers and Local Zoning What is it and Why is it an Issue Now? Cellular communications consists of two types for the purposes of this review —widely used cellular phones and paging devices, and the newest technology referred to as personal communication system (PCS) devices. Both types of communications requires a network of towers that serve the "cell sites". The cellular tower technology has limitations in that it is a network of short-range cell sites with a fixed capacity. As a result service improvements occur either through separate and competing carriers covering the same area, or the cell being split with a new tower serving the newly split cell. Cellular towers may range in height from 50 to 250 feet depending on topographic restrictions. The towers can be monopoles, guyed towers(using guy wires), or lattice towers(open steel structure). Cellular antennas can occupy other communications towers, or be located on buildings, silos, water tanks, windmills, smokestacks, church steeples, light poles, etc. A shed is usually needed to house related transmitting and maintenance equipment where a tower is freestanding. The industry expects the demand for these communications devices to grow. By 1992 there were 10 million portable phones and paging devices throughout the country, and by the end of 1994 there were 24 million. The Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 will open up more frequencies of the radio spectrum for use. That law also limits what communities can do under local zoning to control the development of towers. The City Administrator's Office wants the commission's views on this issue where it affects land use and zoning decisions. Policy The city land development manual and zoning ordinance and county zoning ordinance do not have statements of policy specifically covering telecommunications towers and related structures. Nor is there a specific policy in either land use plan. The League of Minnesota Cities suggests the following policy based on work by the City of Bloomington. The city will "facilitate establishment and provision of lawful wireless telecommunications services with the following local objectives in mind. • Minimize the overall number of towers through co -location requirements. • Insure that new towers will be safe and blend into their environment when possible. • That they be placed in suitable locations with residential locations being a last resort. • That zoning ordinances and other municipal police power regulations be defensible in light of federal and state laws" Current City Ordinance Requirements The ordinance allows towers as a principle use and are classified as area accessory uses. They are a Type I use permitted in all zoning districts. A Type I Design Modification issued by staff is permitted for the height of a tower with a required "setback from property lines a distance equal to the height of the structure". County Ordinance Requirements The county zoning ordinance does not specifically address telecommunications towers, but covers similar uses including "commercial radio and television towers" and "public utilities". The ordinance allows communications towers as conditional uses in the agricultural districts and the A.R.C. district; it is a similar use to radio or television towers. They are not a permitted or conditional use in the residential districts unless they are considered a "public utility" as defined in the ordinance. Staff does not consider them a public utility. Towers are not allowed in the R.S.D. or Recreational Commercial districts. Towers are not a permitted or conditional use in the commercial (CS or HQ districts, and industrial (I) district. In the CS and HC districts a tower might be permitted if it is accessory to the business office of a telecommunications company. Height limitations in every district except the HC and I districts would preclude towers. There are setback requirements for towers in the HC and I districts; for each foot of height over 35 feet there shall be 2 feet of setback required and applied to the side and rear yards. Zoning Approaches to Tower Siting To keep this memo short this section will cover very briefly the types of approaches being used by other communities who are facing a proliferation of towers. Two major issues for these cellular towers is the aesthetic or visual impacts, and safety concerns including EMF(electromagnetic fields) and tower safety. The 1996 law precludes local governments from banning towers or addressing the EMF issue as long as the emissions comply with federal regulations. With these factors in mind the standards addressed by other communities include: 0' r • height of the tower and location (zoning district); • tower setback from property lines; • landscaping and screening of the tower base, fence, and sheds; • lot size requirements; • accessory structures, placement, and related requirements; • security requirements - lighting, fencing, other; • maintenance and parking - tower removal upon abandonment or damage; • other possible standards include colocation(multiple companies on one tower), location on existing structures, specifying allowable tower types, signage on the towers or shed, FAA approval, tower color, insurance coverage, determination of local demand, communications interference; • location on public lands and buildings - specifically on public parks, water towers, or buildings. County Related Issues There are a number of differences between towers being located in the city and those in the county. 1. In the county there are few, if any, tall buildings/structures to place antenna so there will more likely be a need for separate towers. 2. Should the county require design criteria in agricultural areas? And, should the county require all towers to meet certain design standards if the telecommunications towers must meet them? 3. Agricultural areas abut city limits around every city in the county. Should areas abutting city limits be required to meet different requirements than agricultural areas removed from city limits? 4. Setback and height requirements, and other requirements addressing safety and aesthetics may not be needed in agricultural areas. But what requirements should there be where towers may be located near farmsteads or subdivisions located in agricultural areas? In the city ordinance towers are handled as a permitted use by staff but must meet certain requirements. In the county ordinance they are currently handled as a conditional use permit. Should that approach continue to be used? 16' ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 73T43MITTRIPT9351 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: John Harford DATE: October 10,1996 RE: Text Amemdent to the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance - Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services and Towers Background: During the summer city staff initiated a review of citywide policy on wireless telecommunications, specifically due to the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed into federal law. The law allowed for the selling of certain parts of the radio spectrum for a new communications system known as PCS or personal communications systems. The CP & ZC and CUE discussed the zoning issues in September and determined that changes are needed in the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance provisions that address commercial wireless telecommunication services and towers. Based on your comments and those of CUE the staff are suggesting the following amendment to sections of the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance. Definitions: Add definitions for several terms that are in the provisions but not defined in the current LDM. Additions to Section 60.200, • antenna - Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting elctromagnetic waves, including but not limited to, directional antennas such as panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes, and Omni -directional antennas, such as whip antennas. commercial wireless telecommunication services - Licensed commercial wireless telcommunication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. public utility - persons, corporations, or governments, supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the general public. For the purposes of this ordinance, commercial wireless telecommunication service facilities shall not be considered public utility uses, and are defined separately. 0 FA tower - any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade. Performance standards: The following changes should be made to Section 62.930. A new section should be added as 62.937 Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services Services and Towers. Staff suggests the following addition to the LDM for this section. 1) Purpose. In order to establish predictable and balanced regulations that protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community, these regulations are intended to: 1. facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunication services to the residents and businesses of the City; 2. minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards; 3. avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower or antenna failure and weather related occurrences through structural standards, careful siting, and setback requirements; 4. encourage the placement of commercial wireless telecommunication service towers on institutional, commercial, or industrial property, and large publicly owned parcels; and, 5. maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate commercial wireless telecommunication service antennas in order to minimize the number of towers needed to serve the community. 2) Tower Height. All proposed towers and all accessory structures or buildings shall meet the maximum height provisions of the underlying zoning district and Section 60.424(6)(A)(3). 3) Tower Setback. Towers and all accessory structures or buildings shall conform to the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. Where fences are used to control unauthorized climbing of towers the site plan shall conform to the requirements for fence setbacks in Section 63.126 Fences, Walls and Hedges, and be located to the inside of the lot toward the tower based on the standards of Section 63.265 (1) Definition of Bufferyard Types. 4.) Tower Design Requirements. a. Towers and antennas shall blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and camoflaging architectural treatment except where color is dictated by federal or state authorities. Tower color shall be a solid color, not multi -colored, and shall be white, light blue, or light beige. Its b. New towers shall be a monopole design. Existing towers may be used for the placement of antennas and will not be required to be of a monopole design. 5) Antenna Co -location. All commercial wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements. a. A proposal for a new tower shall not be approved unless the City finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one mile search radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: 1. the planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost; 2. the planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost; 3, existing or approved towers and buidlings within the search radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer; 4. other unforseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building. b. Any proposed tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height, or for at least one additional user if the tower is over 50 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. 6. Antennas Mounted on Existing Buildings or Towers. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on existing buildings, towers or structures, shall meet the requirements of the underlying zoning district. A site plan and building plan shall be submitted to the City as part of the zoning certificate. 7. Accessory Utility Buildings. All buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be: a. constructed of material similar to the surrounding residential area when located in or adjacent to a residential zoning district. Exterior materials on buildings shall not include metal siding or roofs. J(� 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 Bufferyard Regulations. 8. Signs and Advertising. The use of any portion of a tower for signs other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited. 9. Tower Lighting. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority for a particular tower. When incorporated into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to the tower. 10. Abandoned or Unused Towers. Abandoned or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the zoning administrator. In the event that a tower is not removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities maybe removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property. 11. Public Safety Telecommunications Interference. Commercial wireless telecommunications services shall not interfere with public safety telecommunications. All zoning certificate applications shall include adequate information that will be reviewed by the City and County public safety communications system before a certificate may be issued. Before the introduction of new service or changes in existing service, telecommunication providers shall notify the City at least 10 calendar days in advance of changes and allow the City to monitor interference levels during the testing process. 12. Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information required elsewhere, applications shall include the following information: a. A report from a licensed professional engineer that describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; b. A letter of intent from the commercial wireless telecommunication service tower owner committing the tower owner and successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. c. Information specifically indicating how a tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. Changes to Other Sections of the LDM: In Section 60.424(6)(A) add to the first sentence of subsection 3b on page 58 "Transmission towers, commercial wireless telecommunications service towers, and windmills....". In Section 62.930(1) pu in parenthesis "(including commercial wireless telecommunication service towers)" after "communication distribution system". i It$ ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: John Harford DATE: October 21,1996 RE: Wireless Telecommunications Towers - LDM Amendments In the memo you received in your packet I suggested certain amendments to Section 62.930 of the LDM. These changes as written would apply to all telecommunications towers in all zoning districts. You may want to consider an alternative thast differentiates between residential/commercial and industrial property. There are alternative organizational approaches in the LDM. They are: • as proposed in the memo dated October 10, 1996; • a separate row in each zoning district table with references to standards that don't fit on the table; • as part of sections 62.260 Detailed Use Regulations -Residential Districts, and 62.380 Detailed Use Regulations -Non-residential districts. There are 12 provisions that address tower performance standards. Of those 12 the following standards may not be applicable in an industrial zone. • Number 4 covering tower design requirements - monopoles would not be required in the industrial district unless located adjacent to a residential zone or residential land uses. The question to ask is whether the city should be consistent on pole type. • Number 5 addressing co -location - in industrial districts this provision could be deleted if the CP&ZC is of the opinion that multiple towers in the industrial district is acceptable. • Number 7 addressing accessory utility buildings - a statement could be made in that section indicating that this provision does not apply in industrial districts. Staff recommends keeping the standards together as Sec. 62.397 but stating whether each provision applies in all districts or only in residential and commercial districts. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission City Council FROM: John Harford DATE: November 1,1996, Amended November 14,1996 RE: Text Amemdent to the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance - Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services and Towers Background During the summer city staff initiated a review of citywide policy on wireless telecommunications, specifically due to the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed into federal law. The law allowed for the selling of certain parts of the radio spectrum for a new communications system known as PCS or personal communications systems. The CP & ZC and CUE discussed the zoning issues in September and determined that changes are needed in the Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance provisions that address commercial wireless telecommunication services and towers. These provisions address those policy considerations. The intent of the changes is to allow telecommunications antenna and towers in all zoning districts in the city if they meet certain minimum requirements. Current height and setback requirements would apply to the towers. Exceeding the height limitation would require a Type I Design Modification and a setback from each lot line the same as the tower height. The suggested changes also include tower design, antenna co -location, using existing buildings, accessory buildings, signage, lighting, abandoned towers, interference, and related requirements. Tower setbacks and height are not changed from current ordinance standards. However, some city staff have expressed reservations about this provision. Bloomington identifies protected residential districts and does not allow towers over 30 feet in height in those areas. They state that outside the protected residential areas the maximum height of any tower shall not exceed one foot for each four feet the tower is setback from protected residential property up to a maximum of 150 feet. In non-residential districts the setback is two feet for each one foot of height up to 150 feet. Other cities ordinances' appear to require typical height limitations and setbacks as required of other buildings. l Proposed Amendment Definitions: Add definitions for several terms that are in the provisions but not defined in the current LDM. Additions to Section 60.200. • antenna - Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to, directional antennas such as panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennas, such as whip antennas. • commercial wireless telecommunication services - Licensed commercial wireless telcommunication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), specialized mobilized radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. • public utility - persons, corporations, or governments, supplying gas, electric, transportation, water, sewer, or land line telephone service to the general public. For the purposes of this ordinance, commercial wireless telecommunication service facilities shall not be considered public utility uses, and are defined separately. • tower - any ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade. Performance standards: The following changes should be made to Section 62.930. A new section should be added as 62.937 Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services Services and Towers. Staff suggests the following addition to the LDM for this section. 1) Purpose. In order to establish predictable and balanced regulations that protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the community, these regulations are intended to: 1. facilitate the provision of commercial wireless telecommunication services to the residents and t__-:__sses e fthe the"; ADD - in the City ofRocbester and surrounding area; 2. minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards; 3. avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower or antenna failure and weather related occurrences through structural standards, careful siting, and setback requirements; 4. encourage the placement of commercial wireless telecommunication service towers on institutional, commercial, or industrial property, and large publicly owned parcels; and, 5. 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. 2) Tower Height. All proposed towers and all accessory structures or buildings shall meet the maximum height provisions of the underlying zoning district and Section 60.424(6)(a)(3). The height of towers shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the tower's point of contact with the ground or rooftop to the highest point of the tower, including all antennas or other attachments. When towers are mounted on top of other structures or buildings, the combined height of the structure or building and tower must meet the height requirements of the applicable zoning district. 3) Tower Setback. Towers and all accessory structures or buildings shall conform to the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. ADD - Where the towers exceed maximum height limitations in the zoning district the minimum setback shall be established by Section 60.424(6)(a)(3). Towers located in districts with no height restriction shall be required to meet the setback requirements of Section 60.424(6)(a)(3). Where fences are used to control unauthorized climbing of towers the site plan shall conform to the requirements for fence setbacks in Section 63.126 Fences, Walls and Hedges. Fences or walls shall be located between the plantings and the tower based on the standards of Section 63.265 (1) Definition of Bufferyard Types. 4) Towers as the Principal Use. In any residential district a commercial wireless telecommunications tower shall be considered the principal use on the property. The telecommunications tower located on a residential lot or parcel shall be the only principal use allowed on the property. Accessory buildings to the telecommunications tower on a property may be permitted as regulated by this section of the ordinance. 5) Tower Design Requirements. a. Towers and antennas shall blend into the surrounding environment through the use of color and camoftaging architectural treatment except where color is dictated by federal or state authorities. Tower color shall be a solid color, not multi-colored,and- shall he ,hire, lig blue, er light beige. ADD - Tower color shall be determined by the zoning administrator based on the surrounding landscape, building type and design, and zoning district. b. New towers shall be a monopole design. Existing towers may be used for the placement of antennas and will not be required to be of a monopole design. c. No tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk, crow's nest, or like structure, that is more than 4 feet in height, except during periods of construction or repair when the tower is located (a - in any residential zoning district or located on a lot that is within 200 feet of a residential zoning district, a designated residential area on the land use plan, or where residential uses currently exist. 6) Antenna Co -location. All commercial wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements. a. A proposal for a new tower shall not be approved unless the City finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or building within a one mile search radius of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: 1. the planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost; 2. the planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer ADD - or qualified radio frequency engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost; 3. existing or approved towers and buildings within the search radius ADD - that are 60 feet or over in height that cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer; 4. other unforseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower or building. b. Any proposed tower shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height, or for at least one additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. 7) Antennas Mounted on Existing Buildings or Towers. The placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on existing buildings, towers or structures, shall meet the requirements of the underlying zoning district. A site plan and building plan shall be submitted to the City as part of the zoning certificate. 8) Accessory Utility Buildings. All buildings and structures accessory to a tower shall be: I 193 1-1 a. constructed of material ADD - on the exterior of the building similar to the surrounding residential area when located in or adjacent to a residential zoning district. Exterior- . iate-:.d.. on buildings shall net in elude metal siding a reefs. 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 Bufferyard Regulations. ADD - c. Accessory buildings shall meet the height limitations as stated in Section 62.273. 9) Signs and Advertising. The use of any portion of a tower for signs other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited. 10) Tower Ligbting. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not have affixed or attached to it in any way except during time of repair or installation any lights, reflectors, flashers, or other illuminating device, except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission or state agency. When incorporated into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to the tower. 11) Abandoned or Unused Towers. Abandoned or unused towers and associated facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the zoning administrator. In the event that a tower is not removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities may be removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed against the property. 12) Public Safety Telecommunications Interference. Commercial wireless telecommunications services shall not interfere with public safety telecommunications. All zoning certificate applications shall include adequate information that will be reviewed by the City and County public safety communications system before a certificate may be issued. Before the introduction of new service or changes in existing service, telecommunication providers shall notify the City and County at least 10 calendar days in advance of changes and allow the City and County to monitor interference levels during the testing process. 13) Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information required elsewhere, applications shall include the following information: a. A report from a licensed professional engineer that describes the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate; b. A letter of intent from the commercial wireless telecommunication service tower owner committing the tower owner and successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use. c. Information specifically indicating how a tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons. Changes to Other Sections of the LDM: • In Section 60.424(6)(A) add to the first sentence of subsection 3b on page 62 "Transmission towers, ADD - commercial wireless telecommunications service towers, and windmills...". • In Section 62.930(1) ADD - "(including commercial wireless telecommunication service towers) " after "communication distribution system". ITEM E-1 FROM: Marcia Marcoux, Councilmember 2°d Ward MOTION: Request to continue this item to June 19`s 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. . .: ►F lay' TO: Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: Randy Klement, Planner 6. Y1, DATE: April 26, 2000 RE: Variance (Type III, Phase n, #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 A�{i�ili �lltii r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GISIADORESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSwGIHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 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 comer 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 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 14 J property line for an Area Accessory Development (a telecommunications service is considered an Area Accessory Development) is 40 feet in the R-I 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 15' 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(l) — 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. lad 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. MINIMUM 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. S-i'CE PlAA) EXISTING WATER TOYER 800 AMP n�7 ,� ➢RY VE�L'L PROPOSED METER PACK � �.`` `} I CHAIN LINK FENCE 1 NaRT�FIESRN PCs° FOLWDATIDN PAD �t pR i1SE V?P ELTER ' oi} a SF PROPOSED AT&T COAXIAL ] CABLE ROUTE l VIRI ESS lc"x2R' N Q E°UIP. SHELTER _ y} l i TE LCO ROUTE EL ECTRICAL ROUTE EXISTING TRANSFORMER EXISTING TELCO PEDESTAL �—� �- BAIHLY SUMMIT DRIVE SITE PLAN 0 IS 30 60 �O Page 4 dity of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 ABSENCE (V DETRIMENT: The gran g of this variance request does not appear to be materiaTVetrimental to the pu is welfare or to other property in the area. However, the gr g of this varianc request would be detrimeataf o the intent and purpose of the of Rochester oning Ordinance a gpOL;Eifid Development Manuatlnjhat the rebu g of the st cture to its grpfffts style would not meet the r area area and minimum r u%redOde Chapter 65, Nonconformity chapter is t mai ce and repair thwhen the opportunity MINIMUM VAR he minimum alleviate th d hardship would Building of and Section 63.31 Developments. Urn percentage of landscape requirements. The intent of nonconformity and the normal gage their move toward conformity or destruction. ances that d be nec-Ossary to i variance to ' eZV40 63.304 — Multiple and Section 63.31 — Residential Tvae 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 Family 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 dity 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 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals 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 Q 2 City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals J J 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. isPage 8 l City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 Ms. Alice Fisher, of 1154 23'd 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'd 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 court cases on that very issue. When writing to make sure that they recognized that factor district in the city. counties around the country, have lost the ordinance originally, they were careful This is a permitted use in every zoning 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 IO t City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: May 3, 2000 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. Staver 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. Staver 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. Hanford 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 15� • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (3q , DATE: 06-19-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. m ro,LIC HEARINGS PLANNING S ".I DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #OD-22 by Randy Reynolds and Jerry PREPARED BY: Schultz to be known as Southern Woods Third Addition into 24 lots for single family Theresa Fogarty, residential development, one outlot, and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for new Planner public roadways. The property is located south of Southern Woods Place SW, and east of ✓ June 13, 2000 NOTE: Recommendation # 3 can be removed. The City Council approved the Amended CitylOwner Contract at their June 5, 20DO meeting. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 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: !. The Plat shaft be revised: a. Changing the designation of 'Woodview Lane" and add the directional of "SW. b. Changing the designation of "Woodview Drive" and add the directional of'SW . c. Changing the designation of "Southern Way Place" to 'Southern Place SW. d. Changing the designation of 'Southern Way Place` (east of the intersection with "Woodview") to 'Southern Lane SW. 2. This Plat does not include the dedication of right-of-way consistent with the approved General Development Plan (Oudot A). The applicant shall plat and dedicate the proposed streets (as depicted on the GDP) to the City of Rochester in the future or when the City formally requests dedicated of the right-of- way, whichever comes first 3. A revised City/Owner Contract for Southern Woods First and Second Subdivisions must be executed prior to the approval of this preliminary plat. 4. Stormwater Management must be provided for this Plat Mr. Geoff Griffen, GGG Engineering, representing the applicant, stated they concur with all the staff recommendations. Mr. Burke moved to approve Type III Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00422 by Randy Reynolds and Jerry Schultz to be known as Southern Woods Third Addition, with staff suggested conditions. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried M. Planning Department Recommendation: 1. See attached staff report, dated May 17, 2000, COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: Page 2 RCA June 13, 1000 Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the fifteen findings for denial in paragraph 61.225 can be made. Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated May 17, 2000. 2. Minutes of the May 24, 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 19, 2000, in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. GGG Engineering bot&44%Lrn V004 ba GENERAL DEVELOPMENT -PLAN . SOUTHERN! iVOOOS SUBOMSiON SECTIONS 2$35 ROCHESTER TOWNSHIP .\-V -,A T ------------- - 0 � J1 a� 9.f/'. 71000N'' F•5 Gs1 / •' 8%• q, / � I90 •_._ ... �0. �'r � \ j i �'i I{ i� � � T i :.1, 11 .! � � t 1 t I• : it Hill CL Aj L) oil, I � 6 I \ l I I ' ..a ; - ._ _.r_ `_ J,r I` ,,Ifs; �'� t ; _; 1 1 '• I 1 ; '�� , IE DOD i' \ �/ '/arill // `�: r r''i\ `J/�� --1 1• \\` ! \\•y ��' tx \.'' ` \`... ..__ _ - _ �../� .', //.'..y, i\\i�/., •._ \ �\;,` \ \,•��t"[yip\._ _... 47 ;.\:. e�eerryy --_._ ��.r ///� t �\�. , n ��•. ." ''m`+7,z;y`;i_ _.,a _v-:+E1y�„�:. "`.:.. Z-�?e•,"L^es_-,.,': r, 1 •:l;,•'-/,: •i. •./. ': , /J � / •/ / - Cy^I� III' CL lam`. .` "'1�.�-, .i:y; .`'? '.•' �L"�.• i`�N,;. ��'/ •Y F s.».+aoal POR,H 1 � d-- ------ !N�i111� � it II , � j I i 1 ! i i � 1 � i •, \ I - ���� ? I-------- Itbd I 11 11 I it .I ._ _ _' -i i. \ �• i IIV IIItOb kil IV �1:1 11'I 1 �':'� r'---tv-._ .. / I{tl�.�. JI•r I i I I 1 I1 It It CV 4` •. 'li rp. ;,l r,�1 �,1Ii`,`` �� .`, \��. s�,,` �'r\;• /' !J �', 'r' i�' '.-'•'_,..:.'�,�tR �!l�li� �6 �y\ 1� 1y:1 ��Ilt cr' t y, `, _ II / '., i�� _•.. f"..»�i.s!�`.� ��I I I� \ i 1.'- �i '1 . ��!tll I I i-� � J� r�` I i' % •�y J i -�/. i . -----:r7-" ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING G&ADDRESSING/ MAPPING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission HOUSINGMRA BUILDING CODE FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner wELUSEP IC FAX DATE: May 17, 2000 RE: Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-22 by Randy Reynolds and Jerry Schultz to be known as Southern Woods Third Addition into 24 lots for single family residential development, one outlot, and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for new public roadways. The property is located south of Southern Woods Place SW, and east of 11's Avenue SE (County Road 147). Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Randy Reynolds Jerry Schultz 3552 West River Parkway NW Rochester, MN 55901 GGG, Inc. 14970 Highway 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department - John Harford, Wetlands Representative Planning Department - Addressing staff Public Utilities - Water Division 5071205-8232 507/285-8224 5071285-8213 507/285-8345 507/2B7-2275 Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments ( 5 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Southern Woods Approved General Development Plan 5. GGG, Inc. -K„� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Preliminary Plat 00-22 Southern Woods Third Addition May 17, 2000 Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located south of Southern Woods Place SW, and east of 1111 Avenue SE (County Road 147) . Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 28.19 acres being subdivided into 24 lots for single family residential development, one outlot, and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for new public roadways. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for four new roadways. The first roadway is a cul-de-sac named "Woodview Lane". This roadway is designed with a 50' right-of-way with a 40.67' roadway. "Woodview Lane" cannot be used due to a "Woodview Lane SW" already being used. This roadway name will need to be changed and the directional of "SW" will need to be added. The second roadway labeled as "Woodview Drive" is designed with a 60' right-of-way. "Woodview Drive" cannot be used due to a "Woodview Drive SW" already being used. This roadway name will need to be changed and the directional of "SW" will need to be added. The third roadway labeled as "Southern Way Place " is designed with a 50' right-of-way. This roadway name will need to be changed to "Southern Place SW". The fourth roadway labeled as "Southern Way Place", east of the intersection, is designed with a 50' right-of- way. Since the extension of this roadway is proposed to be a cul-de-sac, the roadway will need to be changed to "Southem Lane SW". Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all roadways, and along 1111 Avenue SW. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. Drainage: The topography is some what steep, with 1180' along the southern boundary of this plat to 1110' to the northern boundary of this plat. The plat identifies slopes greater than 15% on Lots 1, 2, 10, 11, 12,13 and 14, Block 2 and Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. 1(�� Page 3 vvv Preliminary Plat 00-22 Southern Woods Third Addition May 17, 2000 Drainage (Continued): The Plat is designed with storm sewer collection pipes that will convey storm water into an existing stormwater pond in Southern Woods. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to the submittal of the final plat. Storm Water Management must be provided for the development of this property. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. This portion of the site was shown not to have wetlands. A Wetland Replacement plan was completed, prior to this plat, and is on file with the Planning Department. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development, Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. This development requires 29 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 Park & Recreation Department stated that dedication requirements for this plat have been met via the previous dedication calculation when Southern Woods 1"was approved. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Southern Wood General Development Plan. This plat does not dedicate ROW consistent with the approved GDP. These streets are located in Outlot "A" of this plat. 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. 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. Page 4 Preliminary Plat 00-22 Southern Woods Third Addition May 17, 2000 The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions / modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. Changing the designation of "Woodview Lane" and add the directional of "SW". b. Changing the designation of "Woodview Drive" and add the directional of "SW". c. Changing the designation of "Southern Way Place" to "Southern Place SW". d. Changing the designation of "Southern Way Place" (east of the intersection with "Woodview") to "Southern Lane SW". 2. This plat does not include the dedication of right-of-way consistent with the approved General Development Plan (Outlot A). The applicant shall plat and dedicate the proposed streets (as depicted on the GDP) to the City of Rochester in the future or when the City formally requests dedication of the right-of-way, whichever comes first. 3. A revised City / Owner Contract for Southern Woods First and Second Subdivisions must be executed prior to approval of this preliminary plat. 4. Stormwater Management must be provided for this Plat. Reminder to Applicant: Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City / Owner Contract for construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans 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. 10 Page 5 Preliminary Plat 00-22 Southern Woods Third Addition May 17, 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. 1. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. Effective May 15, 1999 Page 6 Preliminary Plat 00-22 Southern Woods Third Addition May 17, 2000 M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. Effective May 15, 1999 ROCHESTER PARK AND F. ;REATION DEPARTMENT / 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Preliminary Plat #00-22 Southern Woods 3" (Replat of Outlot D Southern Woods 1s°) The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: The applicant has12.0 acres of parkland dedication credits as a result of the May 2, 2000 dedication of Outlot B Southern Woods 1 ". Dedication requirements for this plat have been met via the previous dedication calculated when Southern Woods 13t was approved. 1;:\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 3897\SOUTHERN WOODS 3RD.DOC ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/12/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur 1 5-1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41' 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 #00-22 on Southern Woods Third Addition (Randy Reynolds__& Jerry Schultz) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 2. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 3. Stormwater Management must be provided. 4. Utilities shall be extended to the property lines. 5. The revised City / Owner Contract for Southern Woods First & Second Subdivisions must be executed prior to preliminary plat approval of this subdivision. 6. The east extension of Southern Way Place should be Southern Way Lane. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: :• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre. Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre. ❖ Stormwater Management Fee of $1983.50 per acre. ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. 1 Street Name Sign 1 Street Ends Sign Q%TEMPIPP#00-22.d0c c5 rpu we pledge, we deliver May 9, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-22 by Randy Reynolds to be known as Southern Woods Third Addition. 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. This area is within the Intermediate Level Service Area of the Airport High Level System. Static pressures will range from the mid 50's PSI to mid 80's PSI. 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 you"&� rs, 064v� Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Randy Reynolds & Jerry Schultz Geoffrey Griffin, GGG Engineering Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 • GGG 6 163 Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Phone: 507-867-1666 Fax:507-867-1665 April 27, 2000_- i� Mitzi Baker ! Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department dt ' MAY 4 2000 2122 Campus Drive SE `!1.;- Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Future streets through Southern Woods Third Addition Dear Mitzi: The plat of Southern Woods Third Addition does not depict proposed streets which were shown on the Southern Woods General Development Plan. These streets are located in Outlot "A" of Southern Woods 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 9UROjtt Design Engineer Developers signature: Jerry Schultz — esideo Southern WooA Development Date ############################################################################ City Planning Comrnission Minutes May 24, 2000 Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated May 17, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. He showed a map of the property and explained the phases. Discussion ensued regarding where Southern Woods Place SW is located. Ms. Christine stated that the outlots are different than what was planned on the general development plan. Mr. Svenby stated that the applicant is platting the property west of Block 1 to 11a' Avenue as one outlot. Based on the general development plan, it showed that the outlot would be replatted into single family lots. Ms. Schultze stated that she had never seen the process of applying for an outlot that is planned to be single family lots in the future. Mr. Svenby responded that it is easier to do a legal description, designating the area as an outlot. Mr. Burke asked if the applicant would need to come before the Commission when he plats the outlot into single family lots. Mr. Svenby responded yes. The applicant's representative, Geoff Griffin, addressed the Commission. He stated that he concurs with staffs recommendations. Ms. Petersson asked if they plan to preserve the trees on the property. Mr. Griffin responded yes. He stated that he is staying away from the slopes and trees. They plan to put the houses on the lower level, with the backyards going halfway up the hillside. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Mr Bifr q r�orgd to appJJCro�xv� [ype 111 Land Subdivisibn p(mit (Preliminary Plat) #00 22 by Randy Reynolds and JarrrBhu, pw-ltr,�n as Southern t+yoods Third with staffs suggsgo Itj, Ms Patanappb� � $ 3ltlbrk,:The o(lohaarzted3ls X MI.. J. 4 gJ. lJ f f� F �yJft' 7 I k. "' Y , A , i%wrss�isv .r7t°y"'�3 �Ay. 4 #a }j \ !w H {1 + H •4 !f hX4ef t" '. ,e 1 E F a�-'� Y.n�akr'� � � 3. r ding tha desipnat(oir�f"Nloodsieyv Lana"and add`e directional of v n Rlatng 3hgAasignatloq taf t+Vloodvietf Pk>Va q acid tha dlrecjj�h aing tF��signation of"Soyther �il� "Southeri� d,l yC�hanptn{j t]}.I sue! R? 9 I f "Souther Bj 46,a 1,(east of the Inter '«17outhet ' kq�� .�Ap 5k a. (+ + 44 k 1 9 1ai oes o chid t edicatlon of ii ht-of wa't�� 4nsis e t t Asa r G+� aralt �,iopmeilt Rlan (Qutlot �)fA appllCap sia�l ptsatd F1d►caie §Nprogose�stts° w;w a GDPa sk jn'tFjb, utgrek ryhe '3ha Cjj#+ tt tryajly rerj3res �le�lpalio 4� iq r, �f�xa `whiche x oA ram r, � ,h z l iced City Iblvner,Contrarfo€outhar�l Woods Firs4 aqd Second Subdiv4sto�is trtustben , it u -uted dorlto a royal of ti"ijtF f4j(miila ' lot• _+'-`,.., a ,r ., ,,,�' Kr; ,, , !k v P PP a REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 06-19-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING I DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00.23 by Leslie Lurken to be known as Wedgewood Hills Fourth Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 9.56 acres of land into 31 lots for single family development, one Outlet for access to a park and dedicate right-of-way for a new public roadway. The property is located along the west side of 501' Avenue NW, south of Holy Spirit Church and the existing Wedgewood Hills Subdivision, June. 13,2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: te -3 PREPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty, Planner j� The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat. Mr. Josh Johnson of McGhie and Betts, addressed the Commission. He explained that the plat conforms to the approved general development plan, the phasing concept, and with the rest of the surrounding development. Mr. Johnson stated that the City proposed the area to the south to be a future regional detention basin and potential wetland replacement area and it is his understanding this area will not be developed for residential use. Also, as 52 Avenue heads south, it will be turned into a cul-de-sac. Therefore, the applicant proposes to cross off condition 1d or revise it to state that they shall work with the City on how they can come up with a better solution for the mid -block connection. Schultze suggested that item 1 d also state "or as determined by staff with applicant due to terrain". 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: a. The applicant work with G1S addressing staff on an appropriate name for that roadway (shown as 051" Street NW'). b. Increase ROW ofV1 Avenue to 60 feet. c. Provide controlled access along the entire east line of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 15, Block 5. d. Provide a 30' outlot orpedestrian connection within Block 5, approximately mid -bock, consistent with Section 64.227 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual ores determined by staff with applicant due to terrain. 2. Prior to submittal of a final plat for this property, a Wetland Delineation shall be completed and approved and/or any necessary permits related to Wetlands must be secured. 3. The applicant agrees to meet parkland dedication requirements with the dedication of the Z41 acre Outlet A, Wedgewood Hills 3 °. Outlet A shall be dedicated to the City. 4. Pedestrian Facilities shalt be constructed along both side of the new public roadways and along the westerly ROW of 50t8 Avenue NW. COUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: Second by: to: Page 2 RCA (% June 13, 2000 5. A Development Agreement for this property must be executed, with the City, prior to submittal of the final plat that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall also include that the property is subject to Traf is Capacity Improvement Area Charges and that the property shall be graded in a manner consistent with the profile and cross section of 5e Avenue NW, as established by the City. 6. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. Ms. Schultze moved to approve Type III Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00.023 by Leslie Lurken to be known as Wedgewood Hills Fourth Subdivision, with staff -suggested conditions and findings as amended above. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried M. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated May 15, 2000. Council Action Needed: 1, The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. T Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the fifteen findings for denial in paragraph 61.225 can be made. Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated May 15, 2000. 2. Minutes of the May 24, 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 19, 2000, in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie & Betts YlOS8NN1Yi USISHHJOH _ - •��-•- •r• • . +. r... NVId 1MRKd0'Iaa3Q 'IVZIE[NH0 I�^ S`IM QOOMR`JQaM _ 9+'s;aag atq�ayy ' J a�au�ruv C -W ri hn •r •x snxanr rr,�os ; � q E K 1 � N ' fL 1 I 2"2 R 'I` `. ` y,`t' ':• i\ (. .I� ,X�, �' I l;i l .4 ! ` la ��1� �• �.1 �'k : I, A i�� qy ter^ =_ - ;_;_: rr:--.rz+�--'''_`. / Y`x�n1�IlYAY-'P��'9�• _ _ I 1 --_._ 1t 1 / [y�wa T N '•1_ E Jy� �t _ I 16 v 1 {{L` • r ! _ _.�I /, } R I � ' � .� fir'• �ya•_ IWM�,._. rr..A W l� E+ F a x ,D O urrwa to a � r r �7 a Ul��1 Ifltor���T�u1H� p�.oill�.rtr=� wl� Iof r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GISIADDRESSING/ TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner J WELUSEPTIC FAX DATE: May 15, 2000 RE: Type III, Phase 11, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-23 by Leslie Lurken to be known as Wedgewood Hills Fourth Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 9.56 acres of land into 31 lots for single family development, one Outlot for access to a park and dedicate right- of-way for a new public roadway. The property is located along the west side of 50"' Avenue NW, south of Holy Spirit Church and the existing Wedgewood Hills Subdivision. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Leslie A. Lurken 1027 NW 7" Street Rochester, MN 55901 McGhie & Betts 1648 Se 3' Avenue Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department - John Harford, Wetlands Representative Planning Department - Addressing staff Olmsted County Soil & Water Conservation District 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 5071285-8345 507/287-2275 Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments ( 5 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Wedgewood Hills Amended General Development Plan .� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ^ Page 2 ,(C�/[_) Preliminary Plat 00-23 Wedgewood Hills 4" Subdivision May 17, 2000 Development Review: Location of Property: Zoning: Proposed Development: Roadways: The property is located along the west side of 501h Avenue NW, south of Holy Spirit Church and the existing Wedgewood Hills Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. This development consists of 9.56 acres of land to be subdivided into 31 lots for single family detached housing, and one outlot for park access. This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for several roadways. The first roadway labeled as "Street Name NW" intersects into 5011 Avenue NW from the west. This roadway is classified as a "major local" street and is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The Planning Department Addressing staff recommends designation of this roadway as "51" Street NW". The second roadway labeled as ""52nd Avenue NW" is a continuation from the north and intersects through the "Street Name NW" roadway to the south. This roadway is classified as a "major local" street and is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The third roadway labeled as "50'h Avenue NW" is a continuation from the north and intersects through the "Street Name NW" roadway to the south. This roadway is designed with a 50' right-of-way. The fourth roadway labeled "Duvall Place NW" is a continuation from the north and intersects into the "Street Name NW" roadway. This roadway is designed with a 56' right-of-way. The right-of-way for 501 Avenue NW should be shown as 60 feet on the preliminary plat and dedicated either at the time of the final plat recording or upon notice from the City, whichever occurs first. Pedestrian Facilities: In accordance with current City policy, pedestrian facilities shall be constructed along both sides of the new public roadways and along the westerly ROW of 50' Avenue NW. Page 3 Preliminary Plat 00-23 Wedgewood Hills 41h Subdivision May 17, 2000 Drainage: The topography is slightly rolling to the north with 1110' along the southern direction and 1140 along the northern direction. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to the submittal of the final plat. Storm Water Management must be provided for the development of this property. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. Prior to approval of the final plat or grading activities within this area, a wetland delineation will be required. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines -will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. This development requires 38 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well, for the single family homes. Parkland Dedication: The Park & Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. The dedication has been met with the dedication of the 2.41 acre Outlot A, Wedgewood Hills 3r° Subdivision. The application should be given dedication credits for the .08 acre park access on this plat (Outlot A). Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Wedgewood Hills General Development Plan, amended in 1999. This plat is generally consistent with the amended GDP. Staff Review and Recommendation. Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. Page 4 • • Preliminary Plat 00-23 Wedgewood Hills 411 Subdivision May 17, 2000 The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions / modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised to: a. Label the new east/west public roadway as "51" Street NW". b. Increase ROW of 50`h Avenue to 60 feet. c. Provide controlled access along the entire east line of Lot 1, Block 15 and Lot 15, Block S. d. Provide a 30' outlot or pedestrian connection within Block 5, approximately mid - block, consistent with Section 64.227 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. 2. Prior to submittal of a final plat for this property, a Wetland Delineation shall be completed and approved and/or any necessary permits related to Wetlands must be secured. 3. The applicant agrees to meet parkland dedication requirements with the dedication of the 2.41 acre Outlot A, Wedgwood Hills V. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 4. Pedestrian Facilities shall be constructed along both sides of the new public roadways and along the westerly ROW of 50'h Avenue NW. 5. A Development Agreement for this property must be executed, with the City, prior to submittal of the final plat that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall also Include that the property is subject to Traffic Capacity Improvement Area Charges and that the property shall be graded in a manner consistent with the profile and cross section of 60" Avenue NW, as established by the City. 6, stormwater Management must be provided for this development. Reminder to Applicant., Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City / Owner Contract for construction of all public Infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. This Plat Is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application, If the applicant intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements. l Page 5 • !�3 Preliminary Plat 00-23 I lV Wedgewood Hills 41 Subdivision May 17, 2000 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. Effective May 15, 1999 Page 6 / Preliminary Plat 00-23 t Wedgewood Hills 411 Subdivision May 17, 2000 M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. Effective May 15, 1999 ROCHESTER PARK AND Rom. REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 1 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm Planning RE: Wedgewood Hills 4t' Preliminary Plat #00-23 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 9.56acres Number of dwelling units ............................................. 31 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 3.24 unitslacre Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .76 acres The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication with dedication to be met with the dedication of the 2.41 acre Outlot A Wedgewood Hills 3b. The applicant should be given dedication credits for the .08a park access in this plat (Outlot A). Applicant: Leslie Lurken 1027 70 street NW \\CITY_OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\NW 2995\WEDGEWOOD HILLS 4TH.DOC ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/12/00 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 507-207-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Preliminary Plat #00-23 on Wedoewood Hills Fourth Subdivision (Leslie Lurken) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. 2. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 3. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed at the cost of the Developer, concurrent with this development, along both sides of all new public roadways. The Owner/Developer is responsible for required pedestrian facilities along the westerly ROW of 50 Ave NW. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 5. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 6. Controlled access is required along the entire east line of Lot 1, Block 1, & Lot 15, Block 5. 7. This property is within the area designated for the Northwest Area Traffic Improvement District, and will be subject to Traffic Capacity Improvement Area charges. G:ITEMP1PP#00-23.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota 5/12/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur i 167 [DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 8. Water & Sewer lines shall be extended to the property lines. The ROW for 501h Ave NW should be shown as 60 feet on the preliminary plat, and dedicated either at the time of Final Plat recording, or upon notice from the City that a street reconstruction project is scheduled for this road segment, which ever occurs first. 10. The property shall be graded in a manner consistent with the profile and cross section for 50th Ave NW, as established by the City. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: •A Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J9173) @ $392.64 per acre plus 7.5% interest from 5/16/94. Northwest Water Tower (J9265) @ $1154.67 per acre plus 7.5% interest from 4/16/96. 4- Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge @ $30.00 per foot of frontage along 50th Ave NW. 4• A proportional share contribution for the Northwest Area TID Capacity Component. Stormwater Management Fee of $1983.50 per acre if on -site detention is not provided. 4• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. 1 Stop Sign 3 Street Name Signs C:7E M P%PP#00-23.doc WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. Application Number Rai No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 c. Changing designation of "Southern Way Plac "tq "Southern Place SW" d. Changing the signation of "Southern Way a"(east of the intersection with."Woodview- o "Southern. Lane S 2. This plat does not Igclude dad on. of right -of way'consistent.with thee approved Gone i`al Developme an (Outlot A) The applicant shall plat and dedicate the proposed str (as icted on the: GDP) #o the City�f Rochester,ln the future or when th #ortrially re ' sts dedlci ion ctf.th6 right=ofanray whichever come 3. A revised /`bwnerContract for'Southern Woo 'firstand Second Subdi ons 'must beexecuted'prior to approval oft reliminary plat 4. ormwater Management must 6eprovided forthis Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-23 by Leslie Lurken to be known as Wedqewood Hills Fourth Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide south of Holv Spirit Church and the existing Wedqewood Hills Subdivisions. Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated May 17, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby stated that condition number 1c, on page 56 of the staff report, should read "Provide controlled access along the entire east line of Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 15, Block 5." Mr. Svenby stated that condition number la, on page 56 of the staff report, should read "The applicant work with the GIS addressing staff on an appropriate name for that roadway." The applicant's representative, Josh Johnson of McGhie and Betts, addressed the Commission. He explained that the plat conforms to the approved general development plan, the phasing concept, and with the rest of the surrounding development. Mr. Johnson stated that the City has proposed the area to the south to be a future regional detention basin and potential wetland replacement area. He indicated that it is his understanding that it will not be developed for residential use. Also, as 52 Avenue heads south, it will be turned into a cul-de-sac. Therefore, the applicant proposes to cross off condition ld or revise it to state that they shall work with the City on how they can come up with a better solution for the mid -block connection. Ms. Baker stated that staff would like the opportunity to look at this issue further with McGhie and Betts and Public Works. If it is not feasible for the land to develop residentially, staff may suggest that the Council waive that requirement. Mr. Suk asked if staff would like the condition to stay in place. 110 Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Baker responded yes. Ms. Schultze asked if it would make sense to add a note saying "or as determined appropriate by review with applicant and staff'. Ms. Baker responded that, if there were no notation, staff would inform the Council that they have had the additional discussions and explain to them what the conclusion was. Discussion ensued regarding how the Council would receive the information. Ms. Schultze revised her prior notation to state "or as determined by staff with applicant due to terrain". Mr. Johnson stated that the national wetland maps do not show wetlands on the property. Therefore, they are in the process of filing for a no loss certificate. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 IT to submittal of the final plat that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication;, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall also include that the property is subject to Traffc,Capacity Improvement Area Charges and that the property shall be graded in a manner consistent with the profile and cross section of 50th AvenueNW, as established by the; City. 6. 5tormwater Management must be provided for t'is developmant.; The item was table earlier in the proceedings. Ms. Baker presented the st reports, dated May 18, 2000, to the Com fission. The staff reports are on file at the chester-Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained t t the applicant is asking for three things: 1. A request f a land use plan amendment to change the designation of the p perty from low -dense residential to a commercial designation. 2. Rezonf the property from the R-1 zoning district to the B-4 general commercial district. 3. Appro'val of a general development plan. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' el DATE 6-19-00 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-24 to be known as Georgetowne Homes PREPARED BY: Brent Sven June 16, 2000 Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated June 15, 2000. This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an Impact on the need for Parkland and that the dedication of cash in lieu of land in the amount of $44,500 will meet this need. 2. The plat be revised to dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of 55tb Street with the exception of the two private street accesses shown on the approved public improvements plans. Access will also be restricted along both the east and west sides on the roads leading Into the development for a distance of 150 from the intersection with 55" Street NW. 3. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. "he owner must post "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs along all of the private roadways. 5. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, the owner must provide the City an executed easement agreement with the adjacent property (Hunter), dedicating reciprocal access to 55th Street NW via the private road which aligns with 25t" Avenue NW. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. 2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial of the proposed Substantial. Land Alteration Activity EnCIOSUres: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording Statement 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 7. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated June 15, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. Second by: to: r 7s t � VN Hz �Z0 P 0 k m ° yR.0 �7r.;O �Ap a A i r a II _ u � Fa „ ti0 II c , 9 ,mil l u �p\7 , , g§ a�'Wag'" 31111 103 4�9 Ik� f Y I elm I J n 'aj P O �'y y 1 I Q \ e A m Cwl1 15 0'•'lt y 1x r• I o C 5 oe Z lop rn 1 a @ ,4• xz. ys� IC 9 I 00'28'09•' c vz xl+rx 924.97 c UNPLATTED ` g� N rN � M TO: Rochester Common Council lloeee\1�.a1} SEE, or", l���11/� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATIOW 507/285-8232 PLANNING FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner MAPPINGESSING! HOUSINGMRA DATE: June 15, 2000 BUILDING CODE WELUSEPTIC RE: Final Plat #00-24 to be known as Georgetowne Homes Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner. Georgetowne Limited Partnership 2227 7"' Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. RPU Water Division 2. RPU Operations Division 3. Planning Department — Wetlands 4. Planning Department —Addressing 5. Rochester Public Works Department 6. Rochester Park and Recreation 7. Fire Department 8. MnDOT Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of GDP 5. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 55f° Street NW, east of the Menards store. 507/285-8232 507/285-B224 507/285-8213 507/285-8345 507/287-2275 Zoning: Lot 1, Block 1 is zoned B-5 (Residential Commercial). Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot A is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Proposed Development: This development consists of 21.27 acres of land to be subdivided into 2 lots and one outlot. Lot 1 is zoned B-5 and currently no development is proposed for the site. Lot 2 will be developed with townhomes. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER /y Page 2 11 Georgetowne Homes June 15, 2000 Streets: The plat does not dedicate right-of-way for any public roadways. The development will be served with private roads. Drainage: The majority of the storm water from the development will be directed to the existing City's regional storm water management pond located on the adjacent property to the east. Outlot A will need to be dedicated to the City for storm water drainage. According to the executed Development Agreement the owner also agrees to dedicate Lot 1, Block 3, Lot 1, Block 4 and Outlot C, Cordul Commercial Park to the City for storm water drainage. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The applicant is avoiding the development of the floodplain and potential wet areas of the property. Public Utilities: The City has approved the public improvement (water main and sanitary sewer construction) plans. Spillover Parking: Spillover parking requirements will be reviewed with the Site Development Plan review. Parkland Dedication: The parkland dedication requirements for this plat is 1.78 acres. The Park and Recreation Department recommends that the dedication requirements be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $44,500. Payment of the dedication requirement will be due prior to the recording of the plat. General Development Plan: The General Development Plan for this property was approved in 1999. The plat is generally consistent with the approved GDP. Substantial Land Alteration: This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alternation as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat, subject to making findings established in Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM. This development includes a proposal for cut and fill work which involves a grade change of 10- feet or more from the pre-existing grades. Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Page 3 Georgetowne Homes June 15, 2000 Staff Suggested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alternation, staff recommends the following findings to Sections 62.1105 and 61,146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land Development Manual: 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The knob of a hill is being proposed to cut down to allow to site to be leveled and to match the grades of 5e Street NW. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. All cut material will be used to fill in the low area of the site. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. All excess material will be used on the site so no trucks will be hauling from the property. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground water and surface water quality. 5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester. There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. The grading of the site will allow for the grades to match the existing grades of 55"h Street NW. 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for development that is consistent with the land use plan. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to last 3 to 4 weeks. 8) The grading activity will only take place during the construction of the roadways and buildings pads that are planned for the site. The grading is expected to be completed in 3 to 4 weeks. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater management will be provided for the development. 11) The areas of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and will not effect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed in 3 to 4 weeks. The duration seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and Interim erosion and sediment control. t*7q Page 4 / (to Georgetowne Homes June 15, 2000 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner contract process for this development. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable 2) Not applicable 3) Not applicable 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable 6) Not applicable 7) Not applicable 8) Not applicable Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat for this property was not required since no public right-of-way is being dedicated. All roadways within the development will be private. Final Plat: Planning Staff Recommendation: The City and the applicant have entered into a development agreement for this property. Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the need for Parkland and that the dedication of cash in lieu of land in the amount of $44,500 will meet this need. 2. The plat be revised to dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of 5e Street with the exception of the two private street accesses shown on the approved public improvements plans. Access will also be restricted along both the east and west sides on the roads leading into the development for a distance of 150 from the intersection with 551h Street NW. 3. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. Page 5 Georgetowne Homes June 15, 2000 4. The owner must post "No Parking —Fire Lane" signs along ail of the private roadways, 5. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, the owner must provide the City an executed easement agreement with the adjacent property (Hunter), dedicating reciprocal access to 551h Street NW via the private road which aligns with 251h Avenue NW. NOTE: Payment of parkland dedication fee is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents. 19( Page 6 Georgetowne Homes June 15, 2000 Land Development Manual Excerpts 62.1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as pail of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary govemmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; l Page 7 Georgetowne Homes June 15, 2000 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development pemtit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens an the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase 11 site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use I I Page B (lo Georgetowne Homes June 15, 2000 under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of paragraph 61.146. ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE r c ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 `$7 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 2000 TO: Jennifer Gamess Planning RE: Georgetowne Homes Final #00-24 Number of dwelling units ............................................. 100 Densityfactor............................................................ .0178 Dedication............................................................... 1.78 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. $25,000 The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $44,500 (1.78 acres X $25,000 /acre) with payment due prior to recordation of the plat. Applicant Geor®stown LJmRed Partnership 2227 7"' Street NW N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\NW 2B96\GEORGETOWNE HOMES.DOC 18t° ROCHESTER Minnesota 6/13/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 56904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4"' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #00-24 on the George Townehomes property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. Charges/fees that are applicable to the development of the property have been addressed in the Development Agreement, with the exception of : ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 8 Street Name Signs 4 Stop Signs 1 Street Ends Sign 2 Trucks Prohibited Signs C:\TEMP1FP#00-24.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / g# / 5-19-00 l AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, CONTINUED HEARING PLANNING I DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-26 to be known as Hindermann Fitzgerald PREPARED BY: Subdivision (Quarry Ridge project is located on Lots 1, 2, 3). Mitzi A. BakerSenior Pinnne June 14, 2000 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and find that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Parkland dedication for this plat be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $97,960, per the June 13, 2000 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. 2. Prior to development of Lot 4, record of an access easement to this property from an existing public road must be provided to the Planning Department or, development of Lot 4 cannot occur until a new roadway is constructed along the east frontage of this Plat as part of the T.H. 52 reconstruction project. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated June 14, 2000 Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 19, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. McGhie & Betts, Inc. r 1 t td -;4b INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: I 04 jig 95 rou AVMHOM xxnu airsA.Z -•� �—Q --wflempium mn W /, raaaaaarm.® r r , aP Y i I mwamoawuea•a �7; }a�y •awm• r..V •a•a • I III r_..IL07 1�•" ; ,k \ .! '1 ,1-4I s. hol ��•..j i i\ p�t r F �� F0� 1lll ,V [. I � � ita O A I ° Ho ICI � � w • V• y I l � 1N6� W z r4 a III 1� ai° yl k •�• r. k 0 p Fq_�9i E" 1 1 N tlN i p Y L laRltp• y 1� lows yN � si I I 2 � /ru•onr iri•nu � l l o �� ���.J `� 1�•z � J I ,�� asl o I I rrll ., i r 0. ee,1 II jig �i+�0. I I �l•� ,lji DTI _---:ILK- _MR � _ Q SJ V'IdNn •— IT Al i i,l']��si;(5 !� 8� j�1 77i ;n11 Fr(�aa s9$ df 1M i f 90 ,.T TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: June 14, 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 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/2B5-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 'RE: Final Plat #00-26 to be known Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision. Planning Department Review: ApplicanUOwner: William Fitzgerald 2505 Lenox Ct. SW Rochester, MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. RPU Water Division Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments ( Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: This plat is located north of 2ntl St. NW, west of T.H. 52. Zoning: Lots 1, 2, and 3 are zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The remainder of the Plat is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 June 14,2000 t Proposed Development: Lots 1, 2 and 3 are the location of the approved GDP for Quarry Ridge. This GDP included three multi- family buildings located within lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 was identified as being permanent open space, A Conditional Use Permit was recently approved for this property to allow for 1) mining/excavation within Outlots B and C and 2) filling in the flood prone district to facilitate development of the multi -family complex. Lot 4 was not included in the GDP. Since there is not a need to provide access through Lot 4 to adjacent properties and it does not appear as though this lot will result in limitations for developing adjacent properties, a GDP for this lot would not be necessary. The future use or intended use of this property is limited to the current zoning (R-1, Mixed Single Family), unless an amendment to another district were approved in the future. Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. The plat abuts 2"d St. NW along the south boundary. As part of the reconstruction of T.H. 52, a roadway is planned along the eastern limits of this plat which will provide access to Lot 4 and the multi- family development. Drainage: Detailed grading and drainage plans require final approval prior to recording the final plat documents. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. Public Utilities: Utilities are available to serve this property. Spillover Parking: Parking requirements for this property will be reviewed at the time specific development is proposed. Parkland Dedication: Rochester Park and Recreation recommends that parkland dedication for this development be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $97,960. General Development Plan: Lots 1, 2 and 3 are the location of the approved GDP for Quarry Ridge. This GDP included three multi- family buildings located within lots 1 and 2. Lot 3 was identified as being permanent open space. A Conditional Use Permit was recently approved for this property to allow for 1) mining/excavation within Outlots B and C and 2) filling in the flood prone district to facilitate development of the multi -family complex. Lot 4 was not included in the GDP. Since there is not qXjPuage 3 ne 14, 2000 a need to provide access through Lot 4 to adjacent properties and it does not appear as though this lot will result in limitations for developing adjacent properties, a GDP for this lot would not be necessary. The future use or intended use of this property is limited to the current zoning (R-1, Mixed Single Family), unless an amendment to another district were approved in the future. Preliminary Plat: There was not a preliminary plat for this property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated with this Plat and there is not a need to provide connections through this plat to adjacent properties. Therefore, the preliminary plat was not required. Plannina Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and find that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Parkland dedication for this plat be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $97,960, per the June 13, 2000 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. 2. Prior to development of Lot 4, record of an access easement to this property from an existing public road must be provided to the Planning Department or, development of Lot 4 cannot occur until a new roadway Is constructed along the east frontage of this Plat as part of the T.N. 52 reconstruction project. REMINDER TO APPLICANT: Parkland Dedication fee must be paid prior to recording the final plat documents (mylars). ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769113 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2000 TO: Planning RE: Hinderman Fitzgerald Subdivision Final Plat #00-26 Parkland dedication is required for only Block 1 Lots 1-3 of the subdivision. Additional dedication may be required in the future if Block 1 Lot 4 is used for residential development. Acreage of lots 1-3.................................................... 16.2 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 310 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 19.13 units/a Density factor...... ...................................................... .0158 Dedication..... .......................................................... 4.898 a Fair market value of land ............................................. $20,000 The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $97,960 (4.898 acres X $20,000/a) with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. Should Lot 3 Block 1 be restricted by a nondevelopment restrictive easement as per the GDP condition that the area not be considered for future development. Applicant: William FUzgerald 25D5 Lenox Court SW Rochester N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\ 2000\ DEDICATION\NW 2898\HINDERMAN FITZGERALD FINAL.DOC (aq ROCHESTER Minnesota 6/13/00 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 #00-26 on the Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision (Quarry Ridge GDP) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. Charges/fees that are applicable to the development of the property have been addressed in the Development Agreement. C:\TEMP\FP#00-26.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING L DATE: 6-19-�0 7 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING le, —(O A DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B's Commercial PREPARED BY: Center. The applicant, Billmann-Orr LLC, is proposing to develop approximately 18.86 Brent Svenby, acres of land with commercial uses. The development may consist of the permitted uses Planner consistent with the B-4 zoning district. The property is located west of Highway 52, south of 65'" Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are being considered concurrent with this request. r June 13, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this GDP on May 24, 2000. The Commission also reviewed a Land Use Plan Amendment and Zone Change Amendment currently with this General Development Plan. See the minutes of the Commission meeting 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 Manual. Ms. McGowan made a motion to deny General Development Plan #154, to be known as O & B's Commercial Center, with staff -suggested findings. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3, with Mr. Werven, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Burke voting nay. Planning Staff Recommendation: - See attached staff report dated May 18, 2000. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 18, 2000 2. Minutes May 24, CPZC Meeting of 2000 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 19, 2000 in the Council/Board `embers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. ;GG Engineering COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: I* GDP #154 LUPA #00-06 Zone Change #00-08 1,350' Notification Distance Ward 3 (McConnell) 04/28/00 z z J v 3 z w ♦ r�:,y l: ♦,� ♦ •�,� G ,.I'al aNS►1��l.2�a7R4tlI Ellli l�/� vu 1�ryYr (► o� ,�I� �. G2�` F� �. MEG". ,��P �E i37L�m4'j „ P�ilrl► osmall � s �_ iil � ■ ���IQJu^7i � � IIYiI�.`f �unew urr 1''ORrml+na K-JaMv -------------------- ------- 0--&-$s-COMMERCIAL CENTER ------------- -_ _ ---------- ----- - I xO 1,�7r 1�'/O IN fq� M 2 J Y) ACID 1OR Y.m,Ne •nxw•n IMl IICTM1I i� C I-L C.� 1 . .yq...•.` I� II C Ix ' 111 - _�. •�::. .•� , � : � �- ; II{III 's ,µul Qv • "J \ � I"I ,G Ilj IESTERO 5 ED ZING DEPARTMENT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY rq? ,•—YY IPI MVNIlwp 14 Yul 0.'naM G/YM YM.Mq YwTy N liwe xwgw.l pMl-.I 9sINn R Nwe. Svl Mnrlw � NI le a . •�011d - Y•111IY rwYrt w • YIYY•1 YYYIY --- IOYa mnn• ---- •�IIY•w uawe ]�IIN .`A..Y°W....� •xe�Mr•W Wm ��1Y9 Y M.ilp QMY•1. W WCI VICINITY MAP 33=N V-107-14 11p Y P Nar ro acui .Ad �III�'1{D�IIIlPt1 �fslo�f���ul1h� go&, Alum ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-B232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING GISIADDRESSING( HOUSINGIHRA FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILDING CODE WELUSEPTIC DATE: May 18, 2000 FAX RE: General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B Commercial Center Planning Department Review: Applicant: Jerry Orr and Kent and Cynthia Billman 6254 34 h Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultants: GGG Engineering 14070 Hwy. 52 SE Chatfield. MN 55923 507/285-B232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 507/285-8345 507/287-2275 Size and Location: The area includes approximately 18.86 acres of land located along the west side of Highway 52, south of 65`" Street NW and allows for the continuation of 34 Avenue NW. Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped. The current use of the property is agricultural. There are 2 billboards located on the property. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to develop the property with uses which are allowed within the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. Land Use Plan: This property is identified for "Low Density Residential" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map. The applicant has filed a petition to amend he Rochester Urban Service Areas Land Use Plan Map from the "Low Density Residential" to the "Commercial" designation. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. The applicant has filed a zoning district amendment to rezone the property to the B-4 (General Commercial) district. The property was �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 of 7 GDP #154 May 18, 2000 annexed in 1998. Prior to the annexation, it was zoned Highway Commercial in Olmsted County, Streets: The plan proposes one roadway which is the southerly extension of 34'" Avenue NW. The roadway is shown as ending as a cul-de-sac. Half of the roadway is shown on the adjacent property. The adjacent property owner will need to be in agreement with the placement of the roadway. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required along the frontage of both sides of all new public roadways serving this development. Drainage: The General Development Plan identifies existing topography. The property generally drains to the east and south. Storm water management is not addressed on the GDP but will need to be addressed when the property is developed. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is platted. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey, no hydric soils exist on the property. Public Utilities: Currently sanitary sewer is available in the southwest corner of the property, which is near the lowest point of the site. The City is planning on the extension of a 12" watermain from the Orchard Ridge development to the Bendel Hills development. This extension will run along the north property line of the parcel. Parkland Dedication: If this property develops with commercial uses, as proposed, there would not be a requirement for parkland dedication. Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department, Planning Dept. - Wetlands LGU, Planning Dept. —Addressing, Long Range Planning Division, RPU Water Division, RPU Operations Division, and Fire Dept. Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of General Development Plan Map 3. Referral Comments (3) 4. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative Summary: This GDP includes approximately 18.86 acres of land and proposes to be developed with uses that are permitted in the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. The applicant has filed a zoning district amendment and a land use plan amendment for this property. The applicant is l Page 3 of 7 • • / (j) GDP #154 May 16, 2000 proposing to designate this property for "commercial' uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area land Use Plan and to rezone this property to the B-4 (General Commercial) district. A neighborhood meeting was held on May 11, 2000. The GDP proposes to develop this parcel with uses that are permitted within the B-4 zoning district and does not identify any density or intensity of uses to be developed on the site. The B-4 zoning district allows a wide range of uses from those that have high trip generators (retail oriented) to those with relatively low trip generators (office, business -industrial). According to the report prepared by the Long Range Planning Division, the majority of the traffic approaching the site from the south would use the 75th St. intersection and the West Frontage Road (located north of 651h St.). A project is programmed for the year 2003 for the construction of an interchange at 751h St. and TH 52. It is anticipated that once this interchange is constructed the direct access to TH 52 at 651h St. will be closed. The current Long Range Thoroughfare Plan identifies an overpass at 6e St. that would connect 651h St. on the west with Bendel Road on the east. No decision regarding if this overpass should be constructed has been made. ROCOG is also in the process of updating and expanding the area covered by the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to encompass the additional 5700 acres recently added to the 25 Year Urban Growth area northwest of Rochester. This study is also evaluating the cost and benefits of considering a full interchange at 65" St. as an alternative to an overpass. The preliminary analysis from this study should be available by mid -summer. The three key intersections that could be affected by development of this site include: • The 651h St. right -in, right -out at TH 52 • The 75'h St. intersection with TH 52 • The intersection of the East Frontage Rd. and 551h St., if an overpass is built in the future to provide access via Bendel Rd to 65 h St. According to the information prepared by the Long Range Planning Division these intersections have limited capacity in terms of handling additional traffic. Because of the limited capacity and the fact that the applicant has not identified the intensity or specific types of uses on the site, a limitation on trip generations should be established for the site which would restrict the development to low trip generators or uses that would compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare system. Limiting the trip generation of the site would maintain trip generation levels similar to what would occur with townhomes or apartment type developments which could be compatible with the street system of the area. Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the criteria for approval of a general development plan (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. A land Use Plan Amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP to designate this property for "commercial' uses and a zone change is also being considered to zone this property B-4 (General Commercial) to allow uses permitted In the S-4 zoning district if the land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are approved, the labeling of the parcel as being designated for "commercial' uses would be consistent with those documents. it may be necessary, however, to Identify land uses and Intensity along with a trip generation limit on the GDP to limit development ! Page 4 of 7 QA r GDP #154 P May 18, 2000 to uses that are compatible with the existing and planned thoroughfare system. 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. There is limited access to the site. No specific uses are shown on the General Development Plan, except for those uses which are allowed within the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. With a wide range of permitted uses in the B-4 zoning district, development of this site could result in uses that are not compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare system and could result in safety concerns. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. No housing is proposed for this development. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. Access to the site will be provided from 34`h Avenue NW, which is currently a township road. Routes to and from the site differ. With the closure of the median access at the intersection of 650 St. NW and TH 52, traffic approaching the site from the south will either access the development by using the 750' St. NW and TH 52 intersection and travel south on the West Frontage Road to 34'h Ave. NW or use a combination of roads including West Circle Drive, 55th St. NW past North Park, 500'Ave. NW and 65`h St. NW. Projects are programmed along TH 52 that will further modify access to the site in the future. The major project is the construction of an interchange at 75'h St. and TH 52. This project is programmed for the year 2003. This will provide a major improvement in safety at that intersection which will have a positive effect on travel to the site from the south once it is completed. When this project is completed it is anticipated that all direct access to TH 52 south of the interchange would be closed, including the right -in, right - out access at 65`h St.. All access absence any other roadway system improvements would need to occur through the 75th St. interchange or other more circuitous routes. The current Long Range Thoroughfare Plan calls for construction of an overpass at 65'h St. that would connect 65'h St on the west with Bandel Road on the east. When this improvement is completed access to and from the site from the south would likely shift to the 551h St interchange in combination with Bandel Road. The construction of this overpass may be completed as part of the 75th Street interchange project, though at this time no decision has been made. Further decisions regarding what additional work will be completed as part of the 75th St. project will need to await completion of the various pre -construction planning and design work that must be completed for the 75'h Street interchange. This work is anticipated to start later this year or next year. Awk Page 5 of 7 GDP #154 May 18, 2000 r ROCOG also has a project underway to update and expand the area covered by the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to encompass all of the additional 5700 acres recently added to the 25 Year Urban Growth area northwest of Rochester. In addition to identifying roadway capacity and location needs throughout this area, part of this study is devoted to evaluating the cost and benefits of considering a full interchange at 65'6 St. as an alternative to an overpass. The preliminary analysis from this study should be available by mid -summer. 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. The General Development Plan does not establish any specific uses or intensity of development for this site other than those uses permitted in the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. With a wide range of permitted uses in the B-4 zoning district, the development of this site could result in uses that are not compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare system and could result in safety concerns. In order to insure that the capacity of the roadways are adequate to safely accommodate trips of this development, the developer and the City should enter into a Development Agreement outlining the trip and use limits of the property. Also see the above response to Criteria "D" 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. This property is within the Northwest High Level System Service Area, which will be available, approximately 1700' to the west with the completion of the Orchard Ridge development. The alignment for the extension of the 12" watermain is proposed to be along the north property boundary. Sanitary sewer is available in the southwest corner to serve this property. Page 6 of 7 GDP #154 May 18, 2000 i 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. Stormwater management will need to be reviewed further for this development. The GDP does not propose any on -site stormwater detention ponds on the property. According to the applicant's consultant, since the exact use of the property is not known at this time, stormwater management will need to be addressed at the time a specific development is proposed for the site. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. 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 site generally drains to the south and east. The site summary submitted with the application indicates that the exact uses of the property are unknown at this time and that stormwater and erosion control methods will need to the addressed at the time a specific development is proposed. 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 General Development Plan does not address any lot or block layout. According to the plan, the site will he developed as one fog with only one roadway serving it. Depending on the intensity or type of use developed on the site, the development of the site may not be compatible with the existing and planned development of the adjacent parcels. Recommendation: If the Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are not approved for this site, staff would recommend denial of this GDP. The applicant could apply for specific uses on the site through the Restricted Development Conditional Use Process if the land use plan and zone change amendments are not approved. If the CPZC and Council approve the Land Amendment, staff would recommend approval enters into a Development Agreement with the trip generation limits of the property. Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District subjected to the condition that the applicant City which outlines the land use intensity and If the applicant enters into a Development Agreement with the City, which outlines the land use intensity and trip generations limits of the property, Staff would recommend the following conditions or modifications to the proposed General Development Plan: f. The applicant enters into a development agreement with the City outlining the land use intensity and trip generation limits of the property. The GDP be revised to ;oqPage 7 of 7 GDP #154 May 18, 2000 identify land use intensity and trip generation limits as established in the development agreement. 2. Storm wafer management must be provided for this development. 3. The 20' utility easement indicated along the north property line must be dedicated at the time of platting or upon written notification from the City that the easement is necessary for a utility extension. 4. The extension of 34f4 Avenue NW is shown to straddle two properties. When this property is platted, partial dedication of the right-of-way will not be acceptable. The Plat will either need to be signed by multiple property owners or the roadway will need to be shifted entirely to the east with access and utilities provided to the abutting property to the west. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS �$:r 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E. ROCHESTER, MN 55904-7996 PHONE 507-285-8232 FAX 507-287-2275 MEMORA-_NDUM DATE: May 17, 2000 TO: .Mitzi Baker Planning Division FROM: Charlie Reiter Long Range Planning Division RE: Comments on Billman-Orr Request for Land Use Plan Amendment, Zone Change & GDP CC: The following provides a summary of information related to the traffic related issues related to the proposed request for a Land Use Plan amendment and Zone Change request on the Billman-Orr property south of 65t" St NW on the west side of TH 52. ACCESS Routes to and from the site differ due to the closure of median access at the intersection of TH 52 and 65"' St NW. This closure was implemented based on the expected impact that will be created in the near term by development along 65`" St, including the Orchard Ridge Subdivision and other residential development to the west as well as anticipated development of this property and the area immediately to the west. Traffic approaching the site from the north or leaving the site to travel south has direct right turn access on or off the southbound lane of TH 52, but traffic approaching the site from the south or leaving to go north must use a more circuitous travel path to access the site. The primary alternative route for trips approaching from the south is to use the CSAH 14 (751' St NW) intersection and travel south on the west frontage road to 34"' Ave. Another alternative would be to use�a combination of roads including West Circle Drive, 55"' St past North Park, 50 Ave and 65 St from the west. However, this route is approximately 20% longer in distance and an estimated 55-60% longer in terms of travel time. Thus, 1 would expect that all the traffic approaching the site from the south would use the 75"' St intersection and the West Frontage Rd to access the site. Projects are programmed along TH 52 that will further modif�r access to the site in the future. The major project is the construction of an interchange at 75 ° St and TH 52. This project is programmed for the year 2003. This will provide a major improvement in safety at that intersection which will have a positive effect on travel to the site from the south once it is completed. When this project is completed it is anticipated that all direct access to TH 52 south of the interchange would be closed, including the right -in, right -out access at 65t° St.. All access absence any other roadway system improvements would need to occur through the 75"' St interchange or other more circuitous routes The current Long Range Thoroughfare Plan calls for construction of an overpass at 65'" St that would connect 65 h St on the west with Bandel Road on the east. When this improvement is completed access to and from the site from the south would likely shift to the 551° St interchange in combination with Bendel Road. The construction of this overpass may be el el M completed as part of the 75". Street Interchange project, though at this time no decision has been made. Future decisions regarding what additional work will be completed as part of the 751h St project will need to await completion of the various pre -construction planning and design work that must be completed for the 75 thSt interchange. This work is anticipated to start late this year or next year. ROCOG also has a project underway to update and expand the are covered by the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to encompass all of the additional 5700 acre area northwest of Rochester that was recently added to the 25 Year Urban Growth area on the Land Use Plan. In addition to identifying roadway capacity and location needs throughout this area, part of this study is devoted to evaluating the costs and benefits of considering a full interchange at 65th St as an alternative to an overpass. It is expected that the preliminary analysis from this study will be available by mid -summer. TRIP GENERATION The proposed change in land use would result in a shift in trip generation patterns from that which would be expected under the current residential zoning. The following table summarizes what the estimated trip generation from the site would be for a variety of uses that would be permissible under existing and alternative residential zoning as well as non-residential zoning. The non-residential uses chosen for comparison are uses not demanding of a high levels of easy and direct access and visibility. These uses are not retail oriented but are more service or industrial in character. Because of the access limitations affecting this site, it was felt that these uses are more likely to be characteristic of the type of development that would occur on the site and should be used for comparison purposes. Use Intensity Daily Trips AM Peak Hr Trips Inbound % ! est # of trips Outbound% ! est # of trips PM Peak Hr Trips Inbound Ieat # of trips Outbound! est # of trips Single Family 56 units 645 49 24%! 12 76°A 137 64 64°/c / 41 36% 123 Townhouse 100 units 965 58 25%115 75%144 71 60°/0 / 71 40% 145 Apartment 225 units 1490 115 16% 118 84% 197 140 67% / 94 33% / 46 Office Park 160,000 sgft 2077 136 89%1121 t1°A115 301 17%142 83F//259 Warehousing 18acres 1064 160 7290t15 28%145 187 350%/39 65%1148 Business Park 160,000 sqn 2467 158 11141113 15% / 25 148 22°/s ( 34 78% /114 Industrial Park 18acres 1459 184 82%/160 18%124 200 21%142 79%/158 General Light Ind 18 acres 1024 186 85%1158 15%128 195 1 25%/49 1 75%/ 146 Two items that should be noted in looking at the data in this table. First, the overall level of trip generation for the types of non-residential uses shown is similar in nature to that which would be expected if the site was developed for a higher intensity residential use. Second, the peak hour trip patterns are highly directional in nature for both residential uses and non -retail types of business uses, and the directionality of trips for these two types of land use will be in opposite directions. Thus, while the large areas of residential use occurring west of the site on 65th St and along Bandel Road will generate primarily outbound traffic in the morning and inbound / ;?0*) traffic in the afternoon, the business uses illustrated will do the opposite (inbound in the morning and outbound in the pm). Thus, the level of conflict and capacity demands created by these types of uses are not expected to have the type of impact that would be expected if the travel routes were in the same direction, or if the overall distribution of traffic was more evenly distributed on the key access roadways such as 65`h St or Bandel Road. TRAFFIC OPERATION IMPACTS The transportation staffs concern with the proposed rezoning of the site relates primarily to the potential that B4 zoning would provide for retail type of development to occur, which generally will be more intense than other types of business uses and will not be as highly directional as the office or business/industrial uses summarized in the trip generation table. There are three key intersections that could be affected by development of this site: ➢ the 65'h St right -in, right -out at TH 52; ➢ the 75'" St intersection with TH 52; D if an overpass is built in the future to provide access via Bandel Rd to 551h St, the intersection of the East Frontage Rd and 55'h St These intersections have limited capacity in terms of handling additional traffic, and it would be staffs opinion that if a rezoning is considered appropriate that as part of the General Development Plan approval process a limitation on trip generation be established for the site which would restrict development of the site to office andlor business -industrial type uses and not provide for retail uses to be developed on the site. This would maintain trip generation levels similar to what would occur with townhouse or apartment type development on the site, and would in our opinion be compatible with the street system of the area. Staff would suggest that this condition could be waived in the future if the Long Range Transportation Plan is amended through agreement with MnDOT to provide for the future development of an interchange at 65'" St and TH 52. Without such an agreement in place, we would have a concern that retail development on the site may lead to operational problems at the above identified intersections. a aay 5/17/00 ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX - 507-281-6216 REVISED 5/15/00 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for LUPA#00-06, ZONE#00-08, AND Revised General Development Plan #154,on the O & B's Commercial Center (Stuve Property) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: There are no new comments based on the revised GDP plan. 1. Storm Water Management must be provided for development of this property. The City's Regional Stormwater Management plan shows a future regional detention facility on the adjoining parcel to the south of this property. 2. Access to this property, via the extension of 34th Ave NW, will require the dedication of the entire ROW width at the time of platting. 3. Pedestrian facilities will be required along the entire frontage of both sides of all new public roads to serve this development. 4. Easements will be required for off -site utilities, if applicable. The 20 foot utility easement indicated along the north property line of the GDP shall be dedicated at the time of platting, or upon written notification from the City that the easement is necessary for a utility extension. 5. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure needed to serve this property. 6. With limited access to TH 52, and 65`h St NW being substandard in its current condition, there does not appear to be adequate public facilities to serve commercial development of this property. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Q $1605.50 per developable acre J9265 "Water Tower to Serve High Level Northwest Area" ® $1154.67 per acre plus • 7.5% interest from 4/16196. •A Substandard Street Contribution for future reconstruction of 34'h Ave NW @ $48.00 per foot of frontage plus a proportional share cost for the Capacity Component of the Northwest Area TID. i• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: C:iTEMP1GDP154 Revised 5-11.doc rd we pledge, we deliver May 2, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: General Development Plan #154 by Billmann-Orr LLC to be known as O & B's Commercial Center. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. This property is within the Northwest High Level System service area, which will be available approximately 1700' to the west with the completion of the planned Orchard Ridge Addition Phase I construction. The static pressures will range from approximately 70 to 90 PSI depending on finished site elevations. 3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, "OA "&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 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Phone: 507-867-1666 Fax:507-867-1665 April 24, 2000 Olmsted/Rochester Planning and Zoning 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Site Summary for O & B's Commercial Center General Development Plan SOILS: From the Soil Survey Maps of Olmsted County, the parcel of land at issue has the following soil classifications (SCS classifications): Port Byron Silt Loam, 1-5% Slopes No No 3.9 285B 285C Port Byron Silt Loam, 5-9% Slopes Yes No 3.8 301 B Lindstrom Silt Loam, 2-6% Slopes No No 25.0 322C Timula Silt Loam, 6-12% Slopes Yes No 48.1 322D Timula Silt Loam, 12-18% Slopes Yes No 19.2 No major problems are foreseen in developing this land due to soil limitations. STORM WATER: Approximately half of the land slopes to the east and the other half to the south. Both areas have the potential for detention ponds to handle excess runoff from the development of this land before it could affect off -site properties. Since it is unknown at this time what the exact use of the parcel will be, storm water management and erosion control methods will need to be addressed at a later date. UTILITIES: There is currently a sanitary sewer manhole in the southwest corner of the property, which is near the parcel's lowest point. The City of Rochester is planning an extension of a 12" watermain, which will run along the north line of this parcel. The new watermain will run from the Orchard Ridge First Addition project, across an unplatted parcel of land, then east along the north line of this parcel eventually crossing under Highway 52. This watermain can be used to service the entire parcel. Mark Welch Al rk�" Design Engineer Page 8 - City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 arl , to submittal of the final plat that out to, but not limited to, stormwatgr ma improvements, pedestrian facilities, public lnfras, cture The i)evelopn property shall'toor of 5 07, Avenue h1N v .¢ 3 4 8. StprRtwater Mane The item was tabled earlier in AND ie obligations of the lent, park dedieatior 4-way dedication. ar reement shall also I 3plicant relating Icaffic .contributions for nude that the 01. nd that'the iljd cross section General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B's Commercial Center. The applicant, Billmann-Orr LLC, is proposing to develop approximately 18.66 acres of land with commercial uses. The development may consist of the permitted uses consistent i`. with the B-4 zoning district. The property is located west of Highway 52, south of 65 Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are being considered concurrent with this request. Ms. Baker presented the staff reports, dated May 18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that the applicant is asking for three things: 1. A request for a land use plan amendment to change the designation of the property from low -density residential to a commercial designation. 2. Rezone the property from the R-1 zoning district to the B-4 general commercial district. 3. Approval of a general development plan. CIt Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Baker explained how staff came to the conclusion to use the category and criteria for evaluating the proposal for "Highway Commercial Uses". Ms. Baker stated that the transportation staff is working on a transit study to justify a full interchange at the intersection. However, it could be some time before the findings of the study can be presented to Mn/DOT. Ms. Baker stated that the findings do not support approval of a commercial land use designation for the property. A commercial land use designation opens up the opportunity for a broad spectrum of uses that could go on the site. She explained that there are some limited uses that may be compatible with the site, given its access and location. However, rezoning the property and changing the land use, at this time, could open up a lot of other uses that could be inappropriate for the site and current access. Therefore, staff suggested that the land use plan amendment and zone change not be approved. Ms. Baker stated that the general development plan that was prepared was based on a proposal for commercial land use and B-4 zoning. She indicated that, if the land use amendment and zone change are not approved, staff would suggest that the general development plan not be approved either. Mr. Werven stated that the property to the south of the site is in the B-4 zoning district. He asked why the proposal would not be consistent for the area. Ms. Baker responded that staff recommended against the zone change for that area a number of years ago. She stated that a church has purchased the property and has developed a church campus on the site. She explained that it is a property that will not be commercial in nature. She stated that a church is an area accessory use permissible in a residential zoning district. Ms. Baker stated that, a number of years ago, the Council initiated a land use amendment and zone change to rezone the property to a residential category. The Council tabled the request to allow the property owner to work through some issues. She explained that staff may ask the Council to now take the request off of the table and ask staff to restart the process to rezone the property to residential. Mr. Burke asked what types of business are allowed in the highway commercial district. Ms. Baker explained that the highway commercial designation is a category used in the land use plan to give staff guidelines for the different types of commercial sites. She explained that the B-4 zoning district allows offices, contractors yard, wholesale, retail, fast food restaurants, drive through banks, hotels, motels, auto sales, storage lots, etc. Discussion ensued regarding trip generation. Ms. Petersson asked if an access could be put onto Highway 52. Ms. Baker responded no. Ms. Petersson asked if there are plans for a frontage road along the highway. Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Baker responded no. She explained that, when the property to the south was rezoned and developed, a determination was made that a frontage road would not connect to 65'h Street. Mr. Geoff Griffin, of GGG Engineering Surveying and Planning, addressed the Commission. He stated that that property was previously zoned highway commercial for over 15 years in the county. He explained that the applicant only annexed his land into the city because he was asked to bring the property into the city to help out the neighbors to the west for city sewer and water. He indicated that the applicant did not know that they would not be able to keep their current designation. Mr. Griffin stated that they have been working with Charlie Reiter for the last two years on the proposal, since they did not know what would happen with the intersection at Highway 52 and 65t" Street. Since Mn/DOT made a decision to close the intersection, the applicant brought the request forward. He stated that switching from an R-1 to a commercial district helps Mr. Reiter's peak notes. Mr. Griffin stated that he does not have any problems with working with staff or accepting the limitations on trip generation. Ms. Schultze stated that one of staffs recommendation is an option to encourage the applicant to propose a specific use of the property through the restricted development conditional use permit process. She asked if the applicant would be interested in going through that process. Mr. Griffin responded no. He explained that they want to rezone the property to the B-4 zoning district with the limitations that it can only be used for certain uses. He explained the benefits of this option for marketing. Ms. Schultze asked staff to comment on the fact that the property was zoned highway commercial in the county. Ms. Baker stated that the property was zoned highway commercial in the county. She explained that, when property is brought into the city, it is automatically zoned residential consistent with the land use plan designation for the property. She stated that, when the property was annexed into the city, the county zoning district was not consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan for the area. She stated that the property is vacant, except for two billboards. She explained that the billboards are non -conforming use in a residential zoning district in the City. Mr. Suk asked what the neighbor to the west thinks of the proposal. Mr. Griffin responded that he is in favor of the request. He stated that he would write a letter in support of the proposal. Ms. Schultze asked whether or not the site is appropriate for commercial property. She asked if staff is saying that the site is not appropriate for commercial uses. Ms. Baker responded that the broad spectrum of uses that are allowed in a commercial zoning district are not appropriate for this site. alage 11 ity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Schultze stated that, if the applicant is willing to abide by trip restrictions, which would then have the request fall within a category that staff would think is acceptable. Ms. Baker responded that there may be an opportunity to make the uses work appropriately for the roadway and the existing and proposed uses. Ms. Schultze stated that, if the Commission approved the request and they have restricted trips allowed within the development, it would allow certain things. She asked what the city would gain, if the commission pressed the applicant to go for a restricted development. Ms. Baker responded that there are two different options. These include: 1. If the Commission approved the request with limitations, staff would suggest that the Commission table the request to allow the applicant and staff to work together to come up with some limitations and uses and to allow the applicant to revise the general development plan. 2. If the applicant goes through the restricted development conditional use process, because they do not know what the uses of the property will be, it would provide them the opportunity to consider things that they perhaps would not put on a list of uses. It would allow staff to look at a more specific use and how it works with the roadways and proposed uses of neighboring properties. Mr. Griffin stated that they are willing to work with Ms. Baker and Mr. Reiter on the traffic. They would rather have the property rezoned to BA with a restriction for the traffic count. Ms. Schultze stated that staff is not only concerned about traffic. She stated that, if the Commission tabled or recommended that the applicant come back with a restricted development application, it would not hurt the marketability because people would know that the Commission and/or City Council is likely to support commercial within a restricted development application. Mr. Griffin stated that he believes it would make it harder to market. Discussion ensued regarding benefits of morning and evening traffic. Mr. Burke asked what the appropriate zoning would be, other than B-4, if the property to the west were developed. Ms. Baker responded that the land use plan shows the property to be for low -density residential land uses. It could be zoned R-1, R-1x, and R-2. Mr. Burke asked how it would affect traffic counts. Ms. Baker responded that staff would look at 65t" Street, 501" Avenue, and whether or not improvements to 65t" Street would be made to have an overpass. Mr. Burke asked what the property to the north was zoned. Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 al5- Ms. Baker responded highway commercial in the county. It is not shown in the city land use plan as being designated for commercial uses. She explained that the property would go through the same question of what the appropriate land use would be when it becomes a part of the city. Ms. Baker stated that the Commission could initiate a study of the appropriate land uses for that entire quadrant. Ms. Petersson stated that it would be appropriate for staff to prepare a study. Ms. Baker stated that, if the Commission wishes staff to do a study, a traffic study would need to be completed first. Mr. Griffin stated that, if the property were developed into apartments, there would be 97 outbound trips in the morning. He explained that the applicant is only proposing to have 24 to 28 trips in the morning. Ms. Schultze stated that she would support a restricted development application. Ms. McGowan asked the applicant if he would be willing to submit a restrictive development application. Mr. Jerry Orr responded that he had waited long enough to develop his property. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Sulk closed the public hearing. ((CO 13 Ctty Planning and Zoning Conunission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 The primary alternative route for trips 14 (7SIM St. NW) Intersection and travel Mother alternative would be to use a route P�oje #uiun �proaching from the south Is tq use the CSAH mot li;on the west frontage road to 34'":Ave. =. Page 14 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 917 Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 property located to the south of this site Is designated "commercial" on tliq Land Use Plan and is zoned B-4 {General Commercial) on the City Zoning Map This property will not be,developed as a commerciaj property however. It 1s developed wlth-a - church f d) See response to "a" abave for infor"mati°n ttigar.aip.p access, TRIP �NRi�fiQi�ia``r�: Ar h Therc>o�fchie;,1�t >lse° sulf sta rir�an�rrl§ Tip t at % acted Y #�G`F !JL^„Fri'.{ M t'Qllo> 1" z11 uR1ri1 r 3 +rDef the stl a e �n tla#idrt om# �i'te pu d '. fAr �v r �usl�'t� o�d be perm+ssib�r1� and alternat+vg .! ;ta \`4 5 t'y, Wes.£.. 'Y X.,� ; ✓- t �L reejti� ° elf li as P ri resider 3 0, n eF n res+dent+al uses cho§en z iKfi1Na X s a „+ p. jot c4m arls+}n rfa,+ises,l+ I3�+> landinh n �I��e easy and direst a�cs n acid v75Ehi ��eet�ItStnBtil oriented b se[vace o+rlustriall in firIl+Pre share ai#se'o eaccess iim+tations affectln� is s+te it'1las felt that these usesely to bg character+stic of the type of d)evlairrlavi4o�ulii ocolr Y� i yy. Y y } F' i £1's orithQs eandshauldbev£s,�edtf.ca^gqpar�sorpirrpQs}3=pamxr>s{ x:N1 ld• `� 3•."i .«�. K� !.L -. .ii .f.t vi. 4.w :nf+Y$.1 .r �F 4..Yr ... Ya.,.a.� ..a. Deily AM Peak F„ Inbound % I Outbound% I est PM Peak, Inbound r ast 4 `s 4 Outbound 1'. Lka ;.i'i`.t.t',�s Intens8y ' ,,. fls�.._R ;x,:. Trips ; 'as'`'a�`'�1<��eit'�"•.. HrT _ est # of ,, ass+,' # of trips Hr Tdys " ,a ;c'.n^�?!S # of tops p' est# Of trip - Single F mi - 56units 645 49 �? 24%112 !' 76%137 � 64 �'r..64%141 yP - 36%123 Townhouse "'-' 100 units '" 965 1 58 ". - 25%115 75%144 -.. 71 ' -'60% 771 40%145 A artmanl 225 units v 1490 e : 115 16%118 i i 84%197 `r % 140 .. ". 67%194 t =° 33X N6 OKce Park 160,000s ft ' %� 2077 :R 136 89%1121 11%715 - � ` 3IX '2 17%142 9, 83'61259 Warehousin 18 acres - ' 1064 Y 160 - '. 72%1115 S' 28%145 187 ` a 35%139; 65%1148 ; 1 Business Park 160000s 2467 158 85%1133- 15%125 148 ;`'! 22%134 78%1114 .; . Industrial Park 18 acres 1459 1 B4 e: `. 82%1160 18%124 200 ;: = - 21%142 s ? :79%1158 General Light <er 8 Eeraa ._ ?Ind ..1024 186 a -8�5g%�I158..- r15%120'.� 195 x 25 49� .,.75%e1 r4*`c may. t la'.. .. #t5,..r x axK^ , y "t r �s,,* 1 t.; , ✓a.. �-.+ o+.w� ; wo `noted'+n 1(0o "a `t data: +te�tfiat s os+ n K rv'>rl �`IQ�Y�✓',4."�beh�i vetiof a at o fo o Fre +dentia . ses s tms°A, *ews€of #etisit ipR! en ialr i5e he" }� trip pan r + r n tin,` Ea�h 1 ure"#pr--botwre iapyse�>an" on,reYailt eso neeSSI es M "ectronall�ixo�trt:�s�1�e�'�� �s`i �` !: �. us alv ii th a'ter.: ��r••g• c= 70 n(fnb u. e u a n nct el ofc d` c pa rhea} a ses re ot1 t` l• f bar rl rbi s°'s c 45ri, '?`wT..k"! F k+�t nL .Y.i provaatfta'iand use"Prta a men ' /��{�es (f�nae'' ra °f a a '..y iia9n } u M{y a.-j �+}��•Y33'SxrS y �> �Y tes woutcjilgyir for eoh 1 er #onto r zotpe t[„l p o g t o E4M L: { , x grxGera mom a 1- �� �tr �l'�shs �areth� �1 �Res=tr ct d �o merci�a �� M1xet3 Commercial Industrial dis. ric.s Each Sj_ u, g and ; ofth_sa,zon_p 1di. i �IPage is City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Page 16 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Vr i FINDINGS: t. If Land Use Plan amendment #00-06 is approved, the zoning of this property will be Inconsistent with the Land Use Plan designation for site. ;This property was not zoned erroneously due to a tect�nlcal or administrative error;. U.pgn annezatlon Into the �ity,'the property wes zoned R I -Consistent wlth;the l_a64,Uoe Plan aid the Rochester=Zoning 1Qrc}Inance a.,ia ID $ e74 marl# 1Vlanirai M1 `1 aFb' �A 5 % xr l 2. Although there maybe sgraae 9Ps alloyed slLlihilr tle B_- iDeneral Commerciaij zoning tlistflctoytd 4n aPprp a e"for thlsrAip gr, these is a wide range of uses a11oy►ed wltiilr,s -+L distf�h ould P a oprlafe qn this h f rgpONO)#>tre r�♦'M i.:I Y 3 The adjacent rope ►#pt l4#ovth�il �1 ^lh J f pe'#�y s+ 01 Churcti campus, and Y l }, a �, :.. i .•w fi.2:'J R1, • .r.,.r'+w s 'ai Y d 3 i �.; pry� /loge 17 City Planning and Zoning Comnilssion Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Projects are programmed along TH 52 future. The major project is the consh This protect is programmed. for the yel in safety attha� tntersectioA Whirr wli the south once it is completed When; all direct access to TH 62 south of the will further modify )n of an interchang to the site in the St. and TH 52: l Page 18 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 gar GDP does not propose any on -site stormwater detention ponds on the property, According to the applicant's consultant, since the exact use of the property is not known at this time, stormwatermanagement will need to be addressed at the time a specific development is proposed for the site. sidewalk wits be required en both sides of all new public roadways. The site generally drains to the souO and east+ the site summary submitted with.the application indicates that the exact uses bf the props arse urilrnewn at this time and that stormwater abd erosioft.trof methods wltl nbed to the ectdressed at t►f time a specific r7evelo-0meat is pia io40il . to the Mr. Suk stated that the consensus of the majority of the Commission is that, if an appropriate restricted development plan were to be submitted, that there would be interest in approving such a plan. Mr. Burke asked what the reasoning is to bring all new property into the city with a designation of the R-1 zoning district. Ms. Baker responded that the zoning ordinance states that, upon annexation, properties are to be zoned R-1. She explained that the R-1 zoning district is the lowest intensity. Ms. Baker discussed the ability to put property being annexed into the city into a holding zone. Discussion ensued regarding the process to put property into a holding zone. Mr. Burke asked how often the land use plan is looked at. Ms. Baker responded that the plan is assessed on a regular basis. Mr. Suk asked if the Commission would like to consider having staff prepare a study of the appropriate land uses for the area. Ms. Schultze asked staff to clarify what areas would be included in the study. Ms. Baker responded the area north of 65th Street and west of Highway 52. She explained that planning staff needs to do more extensive study of the entire area up to the northern boundaries of what is now the urban service area. However, a smaller portion of the area could be completed in a more timely manner. Mr. Burke stated that it would help applicants with guidelines. + K2 19 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Baker stated that there is momentum working toward a land use study for the entire area to determine land uses and roadway classifications. Ms. Schultze suggested that the Commission recommend that the study be a priority. Ms. Schultze asked if segments of the area could be adopted at different times. Ms. Baker responded yes. She stated that she would speak with Mr. Wheeler about the goals for completing such a study, what the plan is for identifying land uses, the time frame, and whether or not they will be doing it in phases. Mr. Suk stated that it is the consensus of the Commission that the area is a high impact area and that it needs to be addressed quickly. He asked Ms. Baker to report back to the Commission as to what the results of the conversation were. Discussion ensued what is on the agenda for the Commission's next scheduled meeting. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to hear the presentation on open space at their next meeting. The Commission agreed to listen to the presentation now. A 5-minute break occurred. Ms. Baker a ined that the map in the packet is for an offi ' map to extend 16i° Avenue NW from where it an now to 7`" Street NW. She explained t the adoption of the official map would allow the City identify it as an official right -of- y. Also, it would put limitations on building construction wi 'n that zone. Ms. Baker explained that the)ty is looking at Ms, Schultze asked if this request a project on the site next summer. held up due to the DM&E proposal. Ms. Baker responded that there were om oncerns with the railroad, as the DM&E railroad runs through the property. Howev a decisi has been made to move forward with the map. Mr. Quinn asked what type of fety signals would b used. Ms. Baker responded that a did not know specifically wh would be used but that the City would need to install the inimum required by applicable reg tions. Ms. Schultze stated t t there was a recent article in the systems being cre d for safety. Ms. Baku introduced Jennifer Gamess to the Commission. sophisticated l REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING IRR 3 DATE: 6-19-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING _I j ewl DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-06 by Billman-Orr LLC to amend the PREPARED BY: Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to change the designation of 18.86 acres of Mitzi A. Baker, land from the "low density residential" to "commercial". The property is located west of Senior Planner Highway 52, south of Wh Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A General Development Plan is being considered concurrent with this request. June 14, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commi sion Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2000, to consider the land use plan amendment request for the property. The applicant is requesting to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 18.86 acres of land for "Commercial" uses. The Land Use Plan currently designates this property as appropriate for "Low Density Residential' types of uses. During the public hearing, it was clarified that prior to annexation of this property in 1998, the land was zoned HC (Highway Commercial) in the County. Upon annexation of the property in 1998, this land was zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City, consistent with the City Land Use Plan designation for this property (low density residential). A question was also raised regarding the Land Use Plan designation for the property to the south, which is shown for "commercial" uses on the Land Use Plan. This property has been developed with a church campus. Staff informed the Commission that several years ago, the Council initiated the process to study and possibly amend the Land Use Plan designation and Zoning for that property to a residential designation. It was noted that since the Church has been built and a 'ch campus is now the planned use for that property, it is very unlikely that it will ever develop commercially. Staff also d that churches are permitted area accessory uses within the residential zoning districts. McGowan moved to recommend denial of Land Use Plan Amendment #00-06 by Billman and Orr LLC, with staff suggested findings. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Quinn and Werven voting nay. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 18, 2000. Council Action Needed., 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use Plan as included in the staff report. 2. if the Council wishes to proceed with the land use plan amendment as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Repert dated May 18, 2000 1NCIL ACTION: ,.,,.,,on By: Seconded By: Action: c%vw rc l ya-2� A im 777 771. % U21 2k too GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 0--&--Ys--GOMMERCIAL CENTER ----T 1 I� LOT 1 a0 I S � 4 � I� 1 II I ,.wY a>apxYx i..�.wa Gov x.p, x.�a• I. x.a. a.aw Cwnly. Yan.wl.. N.eiW n Mlwe Cunnw(ry .l p..wp.wl wmv .I M. ,. M .." .[[.n .— . I, aiw4klM::i ..fie 61 t• LEC.E[� oacp-x pR - mux •au • yoaimm v m xY.tu+Y.•o[ - — v.v ao•m — — Y•.a aox.oul. -- paxmr oam otwl¢c9GLe ,p-vrt J.7 o a Inc c mk mm•.� !H. M. W Rslw.�. W HWI = G.1.wpp. W..M14 a w•I.W. YN MVN N.pw •b•., awb.a W „H, IN Wwllw w Nb /w Ow .••.! .n p. IbYwm 4•MW WY•tl C•4m M IYH mx e.up�pbwu. PRPiY a�.N . •-. ILM Lddkq �w0•e� b pp" y b M •sYw •IN ]i •W OIYnYw• vlstt rZL p we "FA mn •.. xw VICINITY MAP "IN CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY , , Il,riu�►�4nn"�� " w��nCa'i�inCii� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPINGESSINGI 507/285-8232 HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 wELusEPTlc 507/285-8345 DATE: May 18, 2000 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-06 by Billman-Orr LLC to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to change the designation of 18.86 acres of land from the "low density residential' to "commercial". The property is located west of Highway 52, south of 65th Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A General Development Plan is being considered concurrent with this request. Planninq Department Review: Petitioner: Jerry Orr and Kent and Cynthia Billman 6254 341h Ave. NW Rochester. MN 55901 Consultant: GGG Engineering and Surveying 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Location of Property: The property is located south of 65th St. NW, west of T.H. 52. Requested Action: The applicant requests to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 18.86 acres of land for "commercial" uses. The property is currently designated for "low density residential" uses. A zoning district amendment and General Development Plan area being considered concurrent with this application. Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped. Proposed Land Use: The applicant has not specified uses for the property other then those allowed within the B-4 (General Commercial) district. Adjacent Land Use and Property to the west is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER i Q 1 Page 2 LUPA 00-06 May 18, 2000 Zoning: Family) district. Property to the north is currently outside of the City limits and is zoned HC Highway Commercial. The property to the south is zoned B-4 (General Commercial) in the City and is developed with a church campus. Transportation Access: Access to this property will be from a township road (34th Ave.) that serves the existing commercial development in the County/Township. This roadway accesses 65th St. NW, just west of T.H. 52. Please refer to the attached memo from Charlie Reiter for detailed information regarding existing and future access to this property. Wetlands: There do not appear to be hydric soils on this property. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department — Transportation 2. Rochester Public Works Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Referral Comments 4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Analysis: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan includes locational criteria for four different types of commercial centers. They are: 1) Neighborhood Shopping Centers (4-8 acres in size); 2) Community Shopping Centers (15-25 acres in size); 3) Regional Shopping Centers (40+ acres retail) and; 4) Highway Commercial Uses. Other types of commercial uses that are less easily classified are also addressed for professional office use, business -serving commercial use, isolated neighborhood -oriented commercial uses, and recreational commercial uses (see attached). After reviewing and discussing these different types of 'commercial" categories, staff has concluded that this property does not fit well within any one of these categories. Additionally, staff reviewed and discussed the locational criteria and definition for each of the four commercial use categories and has concluded that this site (included in this petition) does not meet the locational criteria for the four main commercial categories and does not fit the definition for the "other commercial uses" identified in the Land Use Plan. Although this petition does not fit well within these categories, there needs to be criteria against which this proposal is evaluated. Staff suggests that the commercial category and criteria that are most appropriate for evaluating this proposal is that for "Highway Commercial Uses". The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan states that highway commercial uses, which include uses oriented primarily to serving the traveling public, such as gas stations, drive-in restaurants, truck stops, motels, hotels, and so on, as well as uses requiring large areas of highway frontage, such as automobile dealerships, are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics: Page 3 LUPA 00-06 May 18, 2000 a) On major highway approaches with access to a frontage road (or in the case of lodging establishments, in close proximity to major visitor attractions such as the medical complex). b) Having relatively level terrain. c) Providing for concentration of similar uses. d) Not detrimental to the safety or appearance of the surrounding area. Staff Suggested Findings: a) This property is located adjacent to T.H. 52 but is not located on a highway approach. An existing township roadway (34`h Ave.) serves the existing commercial development located north of this property. This roadway is not, and is not proposed to be, a through street providing access to the south beyond this applicant's property. As shown on the General Development Plan for this property, this roadway is proposed to be a cul-de-sac. ACCESS: Routes to and from the site differ due to the closure of median access at the intersection of TH 52 and 65'h St. NW. This closure was implemented based on the expected impact that will be created in the near term by development along 65'h St., including the Orchard Ridge Subdivision and other residential development to the west as well as anticipated development of this property and the area immediately to the west. Traffic approaching the site from the north or leaving the site to travel south has direct right turn access on or off the southbound lane of TH 52, but traffic approaching the site from the south or leaving to go north must use a more circuitous travel path to access the site. The primary alternative route for trips approaching from the south is to use the CSAH 14 (751h St. NW) intersection and travel south on the west frontage road to 34`h Ave. Another alternative would be to use a combination of roads including West Circle Drive, 551' St. past North Park, 50"' Ave. and 65`h St. from the west. However, this route is approximately 20% longer in distance and an estimated 55-60% longer in terms of travel time. Thus, staff would expect that all the traffic approaching the site from the south would use the 75s' St. intersection and the West Frontage Rd to access the site. Projects are programmed along TH 52 that will further modify access to the site in the future. The major project is the construction of an interchange at 7e St. and TH 52. This project is programmed for the year 2003. This will provide a major improvement in safety at that intersection which will have a positive effect on travel to the site from the south once it is completed. When this project is completed it is anticipated that all direct access to TH 52 south of the interchange would be closed, including the right -in, right -out access at 65`h St.. All access absence any other roadway system improvements would need to occur through the 75M St. interchange or other more circuitous routes. ^a- ' The current Long Range Thoroughfare Plan calls for construction of an overpass at 65th St. that would connect 65'h St. on the west with Bendel Road on the east. When this improvement is completed access to and from the site from the south would likely shift to the 55`h St. interchange in combination with Bendel Road. The construction of this overpass may be completed as part of the 75 h Street Interchange project, though at this time no decision has been made. Future decisions regarding what additional work will be completed as part of the 75'h St. project will need to await completion of the various pre -construction planning and design work that must be completed for the 7e St. interchange. This work is anticipated to start late this year or next year. Page 4 LUPA 00-06 May 18, 2000 ROCOG also has a project underway to update and expand the are covered by the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to encompass all of the additional 5700 acre area northwest of Rochester that was recently added to the 25 Year Urban Growth area on the Land Use Plan. In addition to identifying roadway capacity and location needs throughout this area, part of this study is devoted to evaluating the costs and benefits of considering a full interchange at 65th St, as an alternative to an overpass. It is expected that the preliminary analysis from this study will be available by mid -summer. b) This property has slightly rolling terrain. c) Property to the north is currently zoned HC — Highway Commercial in the Countyrrownship. This property is not, however, shown for commercial types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. This property is shown for "low density residential" uses on the Land Use Plan. Uses in the HC District in the County/Township are much more limited than the uses allowed within the "commercial' land use designations and commercial zoning districts in the City. The property located to the south of this site is designated "commercial" on the Land Use Plan and is zoned B-4 (General Commercial) on the City Zoning Map. This property will not be developed as a commercial property however. it is developed with a church campus. d) See response to "a" above for information regarding access. TRIP GENERATION: The proposed change in land use would result in a shift in trip generation patterns from that which would be expected under the current residential zoning. The following table summarizes what the estimated trip generation from the site would be for a variety of uses that would be permissible under existing and alternative residential zoning as well as non- residential zoning. The non-residential uses chosen for comparison are uses not demanding of a high levels of easy and direct access and visibility. These uses are not retail oriented but are more service or industrial in character. Because of the access limitations affecting this site, it was felt that these uses are more likely to be characteristic of the type of development that would occur on the site and should be used for comparison purposes. Use Intensity Daily Trips AM Peak Hr Trips Inbound % I est # of trips Outbound% I est # of trips PM Peak Hr Trips Inbound I est # of trips Outbound I est # of trips Single Family 56 units 645 49 24%112 76%137 64 64%141 36%123 Townhouse 100 units 965 58 25°%115 75%144 71 60%171 40%l45 Apartment 225units 1490 115 16°%11B 84%t97 140 67%194 33°%146 Office Park 160,000s ft 2077 136 89%1121 11%115 301 17%142 1 83%1259 Warehousing 18 acres 1064 160 72°%1115 28°%i45 187 35%139 65°%1148 Business Park 160,000s ft 2467 158 85°%1133 15%125 148 22%134 78%1114 IndustnalPark 18 acres 1459 184 82%1160 18°%124 200 21°%142 79°%1158 General Light Ind 18 acres 1024 186 85%1158 15°%128 195 25°%149 75%1146 Two items that should be noted in looking at the data in this table. First, the overall level of trip generation for the types of non-residential uses shown is similar in nature to that which would be expected if the site was developed for a higher intensity residential use. Second, the peak hour trip patterns are highly directional in nature for both residential uses and non -retail types of business uses, and the directionality of trips for these two types of land use will be in op osite directions. Thus, while the large areas of residential use occurring west of the site on 65 St, and along Bandel Road will generate primarily outbound traffic in the morning and inbound traffic in the afternoon, the business uses illustrated will do the opposite (inbound in the morning and outbound in the pm). Thus, the level of conflict and capacity demands Page 5 LUPA 00-06 May 16, 2000 created by these types of uses are not expected to have the type of impact that would be expected if the travel routes were in the same direction, or if the overall distribution of traffic was more evenly distributed on the key access roadways such as 65th St. or Bendel Road. Approval of a land use plan amendment to designate this property for "commercial' uses would allow for consideration to re -zone this property to one of three zoning districts. They are the B-1 (Restricted Commercial), B-4 (General Commercial) and M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) districts. Each of these zoning districts include land uses that vary in intensity and trip generation, and each district allows for retail development. The transportation staff identified concerns with the proposed rezoning of the site relating primarily to the potential for retail type of development to occur, which generally will be more intense than other types of business uses and would not be as highly directional as the office or business/industrial uses summarized in the trip generation table. There are three key intersections that could be affected by development of this site: ➢ the 65`h St. right -in, right -out at TH 52; ➢ the 75 h St. intersection with TH 52; ➢ if an overpass is built in the future to provide access via Bendel Rd to 55' St., the intersection of the East Frontage Rd and 55'h St. These intersections have limited capacity in terms of handling additional traffic, and it would be staffs opinion that if a rezoning is considered appropriate that as part of the General Development Plan approval process a limitation on trip generation be established for the site which would restrict development of the site to office and/or business -industrial type uses and not provide for retail uses to be developed on the site. This would maintain trip generation levels similar to what would occur with townhouse or apartment type development on the site, and would in our opinion be compatible with the street system of the area. Staff would suggest that this condition could be waived in the future if the Long Range Transportation Plan is amended through agreement with MnDOT to provide for the future development of an interchange at 65'h St. and TH 52. Without such an agreement in place, we would have a concern that retail development on the site may lead to operational problems at the above identified intersections. Zoning Districts and land uses that may be established in a "commercial" land use designation vary in intensity and trip generation. There may be limited commercial uses that could be considered for this property, which could be compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare system. A broad stoke approval of a "commercial" land use designation and commercial zoning district, however, could result in the establishment of uses that are not compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare system and which could result in safety concerns. Regarding the appearance of the surrounding area, an aesthetic design review committee is working on developing design criteria for the T.H. 52 corridor and for construction that may occur adjacent to the corridor. The City Council has acknowledged that the aesthetics of this major travel corridor need to be considered carefully. Reconstruction of T.H. 52 through the City of Rochester will be a considerable investment that should result in a functional and aesthetic benefit to the community. Changing the land use designation of this property to a "commercial' designation may impact the aesthetics of the corridor. Staff Recommendation: Staff suggests that the findings and referral agency comments (i.e. from Charlie Reiter and Public Works) do not provide strong support for approval of a "commercial' land use designation for this property. If however, the Commission and Council conclude that some limited amount of commercial development should be considered, there would need to be a upper trip generation limit set for i 0?31 93 Page 6 UPA 00-06 May 18, 2000 this property through the GDP and also through a Development Agreement. The GDP presented concurrent with this petition is based on a "commercial' land use designation and B-4 zoning of the property and provides very little information regarding the intensity or types of uses proposed. If the GDP were revised to identify commercial uses and trip generation limits compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare systems, and the applicant were to enter into a Development Agreement with the City outlining the trip and use limits of the property, a "commercial' land use designation for this property could be considered. The other option would be to encourage the applicant to propose a specific use of the property through the Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit process. This process would allow the staff, Commission and Council to evaluate the appropriateness of a specific use/group of uses for this property. GGG 935 Engineering Surveying & Planning 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MIN 55923 Phone: 507-867-1666 Fax:507-867-1665 May 12, 2000 Brent Svenby Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: O & B Commercial Center Neighborhood Meeting Dear Mr. Svenby: A neighborhood meeting was held at Government Center in Room 104 on May 1 Ith, 2000 at 7:00pm. In addition to myself and the two owners of the property, only three neighbors attended. In attendance: Mark R. Welch - consultant 867-1666 ext 105 Jerry Orr - owner 287-6123 Kent Billman - owner 280-6727 Mr. & Mrs. Darold Baumgard neighbor 289-0915 Delores Erickson neighbor to the north 288-0819 None of the neighbors expressed any strong concerns, opposition or support. They attended to gain information and ask questions. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at any time. Mark Welchh� n I Aj G( dk Design Engineer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION f MEETING DATE: 6-1??"5 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING e re DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment petition #00-08 by Billman-Orr LLC to PREPARED BY: amend the Zoning Map to re -zone 18.86 acres of land from the R-1 (Low Density Mitzi A. Baker, Residential) district to the B-4 (General Commercial) district. The property is located Senior Planner west of Highway 52, south of 65th Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A General Development Plan is being considered concurrent with this request. June 14, 2000 " City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2000, to consider the land use plan amendment request for the property. The applicant is requesting to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 18.86 acres of land for "Commercial" uses. The Land Use Plan currently designates this property as appropriate for "Low Density Residential" types of uses. During the public hearing, it was clarified that prior to annexation of this property in 1998, the land was zoned HC (Highway Commercial) in the County. Upon annexation of the property in 1998, this land was zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City, consistent with the City Land Use Plan designation for this property (low density residential). Motion by Petersson, seconded by McGowan to recommend denial of Zoning District Amendment #00-08, with the finding suggested by Staff. Motion carried 5-3. Werven, Quinn, and Burke voting nay. ling Staff Recommendation: attached staff report dated May 18, 2000. Council Action Needed: The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision on this zone change. If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the Zoning Districts. Distribution: 1. City Clerk M� 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached "` 4. Planning Department File A 5. GGG Engineering 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 19, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. INCIL ACTION: ...__.on By: Seconded By: 0460_�4c -CA Nin1Cl I . A�3 A -a ctoux � II, M-i �-1 =�1 ��111111111► '���' ������ ®► �i�11111111: C� �►�: Illllllll:.lu k ��ae►a••a.n•� i ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING TO: CityPlanning d Zoning Commission GIS/ADORESSING/ anng anongomm 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071205-8345 DATE: May 18, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment petition #00-08 by Billman-Orr LLC to amend the Zoning Map to re -zone 18.86 acres of land from the R-1 (Low Density Residential) district to the B-4 (General Commercial district. The property is located west of Highway 52, south of 65 Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A General Development Plan is being considered concurrent with this request. Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Jerry Orr and Kent and Cynthia Billman 6254 34 h Ave. NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: GGG Engineering and Surveying 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Location of Property: The property is located south of 651h St. NW, west of T.H. 52, Requested Action: The applicant requests 18.86 acres be rezoned from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the B4 (General Commercial) district. A Land Use Plan amendment request is being considered concurrent with this zoning district amendment. Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped. Proposed Land Use: The applicant has not specified uses for the property other then those allowed within the B-4 (General Commercial) district. Adjacent Land Use and Property to the west is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Zoning: Family) district. Property to the north is currently outside of the City limits and is zoned HC Highway Commercial. The property to the south is zoned B4 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER r Page 2 May 18, 2000 (General Commercial) in the City and is developed with a church campus. Transportation Access: Access to this property will be from a township road that serves the existing commercial development in the CountylTownship. This roadway accesses 65t' St. NW, just west of T.H. 52. Wetlands: There do not appear to be hydric soils on this property. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department —Transportation 2. Rochester Public Works Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Zoning Map 3. Referral Comments 4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Analysis for Zonin_n 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. 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: r Page 3 aQ May t 8, 2000 a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Staff Recommendation; Staff suggest that the findings do not support re -zoning this property to the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district at this time. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING O� / neTF• F_to_nn AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS- Continued Item PLANNING 9 I DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as PREPARED BY; au"' Street General Development Plan. The Plan proposes to develop approximately 16.40 Brent Svenby, acres of land with low -density residential dwellings. The property Is located along the Planner south side of 401h Street SW, east of 111h Avenue SW. t e June 15, 2000 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 22rd, April 261h 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 Manual. Mr. Breda made a motion to approve General Development Plan #151, to be known as 401h 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. titions: 1. The GDP be revised to include the following: • 50 feet of right-of-way shown as being dedicated for 401h St. SW and 11'h Ave. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, • Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 111h Ave. SW and the south side of 401h 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 40`h Street SW, with exception of the private street access that Is shown across from Willow Heights Drive SIN, and along 11h' 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 40M 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. IL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: A Page 2 RCA 01 June 15, 20 0 5. If the development of this property occurs prior to the reconstruction of 40rh 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' 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 filed 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. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council t 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 26th 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 Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. on Monday, June 19, 2000 in the Council/Board 6. McGhie & B tt , It A,,, o a*r �L <�•-4�' lam' " G�� ROCHESTER - OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN.55904-7996 PHONE (507) 285-8232 FAX (507) 287-2275 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: Charles Reiter Senior Transportation Planner Rochester — Olmsted Planning Department RE: Long Range Thoroughfare Plan Designation of 40th St SW In order to address questions related to the designation of 40th St SW on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan that have arisen during deliberations on Zone Change Request #00-04 and General Development Plan #151, I have been asked to prepare an illustrative history of the roadway classifications that have been assigned to 40th St SW at different points in time over the last 10 years. Attached are two illustrations that show how the designation of different sections of 401h St SW west of TH 63 in the Willow Creek area has changed during this time. Exhibit 1 illustrates the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan that was in effect prior to October 31, 1995. It illustrates that: y beginning at TH 63 and extending west to the approximate location where Willow Creek and a platted right of way extension of Enterprise Drive intersect 40th St, the designation of 40th St was as a local street; west of Willow Creek to 11`h Ave SW, which corresponds to the frontage of the property under consideration as part of GDP #151, 40`h St was designated as a collector street; west of 11`h Ave SW extending up the steep grade on 40`h St to 18th Ave SW, the designation again reverted back to a local street; and west of 18th Ave the corridor was designated as a collector street The classifications that existed on different sections of 401h St were in effect since September of 1977, which had been the last comprehensive update of the Thoroughfare Plan prior to 1995. As can be seen by examining Exhibit 1 further there were plans to replace the connectivity provided between 18th Ave and 11th Ave by 401h St with a proposed arterial street that would have been located north of 401h St. It should also be noted that this plan proposed only one interchange on TH 63, which was to be located at 48th St SW. TH 63 was designated as a freeway on the plan in effect between 1977 and 1995, a designation that was retained after the October, 1995 amendments. Relative to comments included in a letter from Mr. Arnold to the City Planning and Zoning Commission dated May 2, 2000, this exhibit illustrates that the property which the Council considered under Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 in September of 1995, which lies to the south and east of where Willow Creek crossed 40`h St, fronted that section of 40`h St which was designated as a local street at the time, with no interchange planned for the intersection of 40`h St SW and TH 63. On October 31, 1995, ROCOG adopted Resolution #95-8 (see Exhibit #2) which amended the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to make some significant changes to the planned major street system in the vicinity of 401h St, which are illustrated in Exhibit #3. These amendments included: The addition of a second interchange at 40`h St and TH 63; modification of the designation 40`h St, which was reclassified as a collector beginning at TH 63 and extending westward for its entire length to 18`h Ave SW; and Inclusion of a proposed future extension of 40`h St east of TH 63 to CSAH 1. This action did not change the classification of the corridor along the frontage of the property included in GDP #151 which is now before the Council for consideration. E Exhibit }| Thoroughfare Plan Bee prior to mal s \� \ CL � /§ } . -��_ \ �«=33>I .� \ - { �- � 2%«��I■ V � \§e�|E2 \ _ O � ^ > ' `moo f z \ . � CL -- § }0< �\ � _ § = 5 •< - /r � \� /■}!Q ■ : ! �k, \-L...}i ^} \� , - _�-_ ± : ,we :§4§ I MROM, qkrn"~ ^ / �1 ROCHESTER—OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION 95 - 8 RESOLUTION of the ROCHESTER - OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ea WHEREAS, the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments, by enactmeta of a resolution on October � 24, 1977, duly adopted the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Rochester and the Townships of Cascade, Haverhill, High Forest, Marion and Rochester as part of the Comprehensive Plan i for Olmsted County; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan for the T.H. 63 corridor between T.H. 52 and Interstate Highway 90 and the adjacent area known as "Willow Creek" have been prepared by the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Olmsted County, and the City of Rochester; and WHEREAS, development of the proposed plan recognized the need for public participation and provided public participation opportunities through organization of a Corridor Committee composed of residents and business interests in the corridor, a Technical Committee composed of affected highway and environmental agencies, through community forums held on Thursday, November 3, 1994, Wednesday, May 31, 1995 and Thursday, August 31, 1995; and through periodic publication and distribution of project newsletters to all property interests within the corridor study area; and WHEREAS, The Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments, upon notice duly published, held a C public hearing at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, October 10, 1995 in the Council Chambers of Rochester City Hall, for the purpose of considering the recommended policies and amendments to the map element of p the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Rochester and the Townships of Cascade, n Haverhill, High Forest, Marion and Rochester, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments, that the Thoroughfare Plan as adopted on October 24, 1977 and subsequently amended in July of 1982 and July of 1985, is hereby further amended to: C adopt a revised map element for a portion of the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan for the .. City of Rochester and the Townships of Cascade, Haverhill, High Forest, Marion and Rochester (� attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part of this resolution by reference, which includes •� a) the addition of future interchanges in the vicinity of 40th St. S.W. and T H. 63, 60th St. S.W. and T.H. 63, and 85th St. S.E. and T.H. 61 '~ b) the deletion of future arterial corridors 1) between CSAH 16 and CSAH 8 lying generally between I Ith Ave S.W. and 31st Ave S.W., and 2) beginning at the intersection of I lth Ave S.W. and 40th St. S.W. and extending northwesterly toward and intersecting CSAH 8; Wc) the deletion of collector corridors 1) along the 60th St. SW alignment between I lth Ave S.W. and C.R. 104; 2) along C.R. 104 south of C.R. 117; 3) and a future conidorparallel to T.H. 63 between 40th St. S.W. and 60th St. S.W.: 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E., ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 (507)285-8232 Page 11 — 7 ROCHESTER - OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION 95 - 8 PAGE 2 d) the addition of collector corridors 1) along C.R. 117 from C.R. 104 to CSAH 8; 2) from the vicinity of 3rd Ave S.E. and 20th St. S.E. to the vicinity of 40th St. S.E. and T.H. 63; 3) from the vicinity of 40th St. S.W. and T.H. 63 eastward to CSAH 1, 4) from the intersection of CSAH 20 and C.R- 101 to the interchange area in the vicinity of 40th St. S.W. and T.H. 63; and 5) uninterrupted along 40th St. S.W. between CSAH 8 and T.H. 63. • adopt the policy language relating to access within the limits of the T.H. 63 Corridor study area attached hereto as Exhibit B. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments requests the Minnesota Department of Transportation appoint a Policy Advisory Committee to work with the Department of Transportation during the environmental and preliminary design phase of the corridor improvement project, which would provide the opportunity for representation from the cities of Rochester and Stewartville, the townships of Rochester and High Forest, Olmsted County, ROCOG, residents, business interests and other property owners in the affected area of the T.H. 63 Corridor. Upon motion by Ms. Michaels, seconded by Ms. Wickre this 31s t day of October, 1995. ROCHES - MS COUNCIL F VERNMENTS F cha�els,,�C]hairm�an ATTEST: / W--1[l� \ d'� Philip H. Wheeler, 6ICP, Executive Director, ROCOG DATE: 10011 F5 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E., ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 (507)285-8232 Page 11 — 8 Exhibi T A N U Lb w ar a i` 9 U Q W 9 0 nN Z �44b r 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 0 1{11t l 1 � 1 I�I�}. M. ROCHESTER - OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN.55904-7996 PHONE (507) 285-8232 FAX (507) 287-2275 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: Charles Reiter Senior Transportation Planner Rochester — Olmsted Planning Department RE: Long Range Thoroughfare Plan Designation of 40th St SW In order to address questions related to the designation of 401h St SW on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan that have arisen during deliberations on Zone Change Request #00-04 and General Development Plan #151, I have been asked to prepare an illustrative history of the roadway classifications that have been assigned to 401h St SW at different points in time over the last 10 years. Attached are two illustrations that show how the designation of different sections of 40`h St SW west of TH 63 in the Willow Creek area has changed during this time. Exhibit 1 illustrates the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan that was in effect prior to October 31, 1995. It illustrates that: ➢ beginning at TH 63 and extending west to the approximate location where Willow Creek and a platted right of way extension of Enterprise Drive intersect 40th St, the designation of 400 St was as a local street; ➢ west of Willow Creek to 11`h Ave SW, which corresponds to the frontage of the property under consideration as part of GDP #151, 40`h St was designated as a collector street; ➢ west of 11`h Ave SW extending up the steep grade on 40h St to 18th Ave SW, the designation again reverted back to a local street; and ➢ west of 18th Ave the corridor was designated as a collector street The classifications that existed on different sections of 40h' St were in effect since September of 1977, which had been the last comprehensive update of the Thoroughfare Plan prior to 1995. As can be seen by examining Exhibit 1 further there were plans to replace the connectivity provided between 18'h Ave and 11th Ave by 40`h St with a proposed arterial street that would have been located north of 40th St. It should also be noted that this plan proposed only one interchange on TH 63, which was to be located at 48`h St SW. TH 63 was designated as a freeway on the plan in effect between 1977 and 1995, a designation that was retained after the October, 1995 amendments. Relative to comments included in a letter from Mr. Arnold to the City Planning and Zoning Commission dated May 2, 2000, this exhibit illustrates that the property which the Council considered under Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 in September of 1995, which lies to the any south and east of where Willow Creek crossed 40'h St, fronted that section of 40`" St which was designated as a local street at the time, with no interchange planned for the intersection of 40'h St SW and TH 63. On October 31, 1995, ROCOG adopted Resolution #95-8 (see Exhibit #2) which amended the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to make some significant changes to the planned major street system in the vicinity of 40`" St, which are illustrated in Exhibit #3. These amendments included; ➢ The addition of a second interchange at 40a' St and TH 63; ➢ modification of the designation 40`h St, which was reclassified as a collector beginning at TH 63 and extending westward for its entire length to 18`" Ave SW; and ➢ Inclusion of a proposed future extension of 40w St east of TH 63 to CSAH 1. This action did not change the classification of the corridor along the frontage of the property included in GDP #151 which is now before the Council for consideration. 2 Ps Exhibit 1: Thoroughfare Plan in effect prior to 10/31/95" = o 0 r.. - a - O o w �offiW — W m 2tZp 01 /V� li F. Z chi s'ppyZ2 V U= Ga uiu I Il W p� O R i + O 2 8 _—%j 3 T N SO g: 8 JLn i a W LnUl ROCHESTER—OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION 95 - 8 RESOLUTION of the ROCHESTER - OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS WHEREAS, the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments, by enactmem of a resolution on October 24, 1977, duly adopted the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Rochester and the Townships of Cascade, Haverhill, High Forest, Marion and Rochester as part of the Comprehensive Plan for Olmsted County; and WHEREAS, proposed amendments to the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan for the T.H. 63 corridor between T.H. 52 and Interstate Highway 90 and the adjacent area (mown as "Willow Creek" have been prepared by the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Olmsted County, and the City of Rochester, and WHEREAS, development of the proposed plan recognized the need for public participation and provided public participation opportunities through organization of a Corridor Committee composed of residents and business interests in the corridor, a Technical Committee composed of affected highway and environmental agencies, through community forums held on Thursday, November 3, 1994, Wednesday, May 31, 1995 and Thursday, August 31, 1995; and through periodic publication and distribution of project newsletters to all property interests within the corridor study area; and WHEREAS, The Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments, upon notice dulypublished, held a public hearing at 7:00 PM on Tuesday, October 10, 1995 in the Council Chambers of Rochester City Hall, for the purpose of considering the recommended policies and amendments to the map element of the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Rochester and the Townships of Cascade, Haverhill, High Forest, Marion and Rochester, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments, that the Thoroughfare Plan as adopted on October 24, 1977 and subsequently amended in July of 1982 and July of 1985, is hereby further amended to: Lti adopt a revised map element for a portion of the Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan for the .. City of Rochester and the Townships of Cascade, Haverhill, High Forest, Marion and Rochester N attached hereto as E.,dtibit A and made a part of this resolution by reference, which includes i.� •� a) the addition of future interchanges in the vicinity of 40th St. S.W. and T.H. 63, 60th St. r.Q S.W. and T.H. 63, and 85th St. S.E. and T.H. 63; �y b) the deletion of future arterial corridors 1) between CSAH 16 and CSAH 8 lying generally between I Ith Ave S.W. and 31st Ave S.W., and 2) beginning at the intersection of I Ith Ave S.W. and 40th St. S.W. and extending northwesterly toward and intersecting CSAH 8; Wc) the deletion of collector corridors 1) along the 60th St. S.W. alignment between 1 Ith Ave S.W. and C.R. 104; 2) along C.R. 104 south of C.R. 117; 3) and a future corridor parallel to T.H. 63 between 40th St. S.W. and 60th St. S.W.; 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E., ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 (507)285-8232 r ROCHESTER-OLMSTEDCOUNCIL OFGOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION 95 - 8 PAGE 2 d) the addition of collector corridors 1) along C.R. 117 from C.R. 104 to CSAH 8; 2) from the vicinity of 3rd Ave S.E. and 20th St. S.E. to the vicinity of 40th St. S.E. and T.H. 63; 3) from the vicinity of 40th St. S.W. and T.H. 63 eastward to CSAH 1; 4) from the intersection of CSAH 20 and C.R. 101 to the interchange area in the vicinity of 40th St. S.W. and T.H. 63; and 5) uninterrupted along 40th St. S.W. between CSAH 8 and T.H. 63. adopt the policy language' relating to access within the limits of the T.H. 63 Corridor study area attached hereto as Exhibit B. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Rochester - Olmsted Council of Governments requests the Minnesota Department of Transportation appoint a Policy Advisory Committee to work with the Department of Transportation during the environmental and preliminary design phase of the corridor improvement project, which could provide the opportunity for representation from the cities of Rochester and Stewartville, the townships of Rochester and High Forest, Olmsted County, ROCOG, residents, business interests and other property owners in the affected area of the T.H. 63 Corridor. Upon motion by Ms. Michaels, seconded by tIs. wickre this 3ist day of October, 1995. ROCHES - MS COUNC F VERNMENTS jj F chaels, Chairman ATTEST: Philip H. Wheeler, 61CP, Executive Director, ROCOG DATE: �OJ / Iles 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E., ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 (507)285-8232 Page 11 — 8 zVe x £9 ibit 3: .=d m _ y a � � ¢ W 3� z7 7Raa5 71�. LLLL z Z T o_ �o N ,�� F Q `o x T m • C X N N O y lL i + Wxi Ln15-D J W I I v d v Y o 1 � l C� oz HVSO y W Lam% ��F A•`k wo lkw Wo sr SW SSTL M-� 'R-1 T* 5T S R-1 I B-4 5-4 11 r ,�►- M- I K-1 C ZDAIWft MA ASO T '�1� 3 nINT H i [ av Memo To: City Planning and Zoning Commission From: Brent Svenby, Planner Date: 05/10/00 Re: GDP #151 After meeting with the applicant's consultant, staff has revised the recommended conditions for General Development Plan #151 as follows: (removing the stricken language and adding the underlined language) 1. The GDP be revised to include the following: • 50 feet of right-of-way shown as being dedicated for 400' St. SW and 111h Ave. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, • Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 11'" Ave. SW and the south side of 40" SG 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, Storm . Z Storm water management must be provided for this development. The City has idefitfaed possible myleivai siwmwaler pond in this area. Me elyner and the City should jbk#4 paWripate In the GA" proposed Regional Stann"ter Management Plan k, sizing an GOIISITUGURg the detentiGn pond to serve as a regional faoMAV. 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 110 Avenue SW, with the exception of the private roadway shown in the southwest comer 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 6. 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 proCle and cross -sections being proposed for the 40b' St SW reconstruction in the Street Layout Plan. The private roadway connections to public streets must meet City intersection sight line standards. Y. The applicant agrees to dedicate a total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerfine of 400 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 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 unitslacres. 11. A revised GDP shall be riled with the Planning Department reflecting all required modifications. 0 Page 2 R53 ' Memorandum To: Brent Svenby CC: Mike Nigbur, Charlie Reiter From: Richard W. Freese Date: May 10. 2000 Re: General Development Plan GDP 400-151 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 #00-151. 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 geometrics, construction easemetns, project schedule and wetland replacement. The information that W. 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 (41 feet 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. 1 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 MIRY-10-2000 17:48 PRNRFRX 95072BIG216 P.01i01 5 V/ May 10. 2000 roadway width. It is not intended to be the sole basis for determining right-of-way and roadway design standards. The City Land Development Manual (LDM) at Section 64.230, 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 fonnule 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 ofThmugb Lanes A = Width of Auxiliary Lanes (includes such items as parking lanes, 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 40m Sum SW corridor from 11 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 11m 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 lanes 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 entrance to 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) M0, 2000 Under the provisions of Section 64.231 the City could have requested a right-of-way dedication of 63.5 feat for the General Development Plan 000-151: Instead the Public Works Department limited the right-of-way impact in this section ofthe 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 Bendel North First Subdivision along Bendel Road NW East Wood Hills Subdivision along Eastwood Road and 40th Avenue SE Southern Hills Subdivision along 1Ith 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 — 149 feet. The Boulevard Width, B, increases from 16 feet to at least 30 feet to accommodate the open srormwater 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 9,000 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 roeds. 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 preparea. Site Grading Plan and Final Plat that is compatible with the fill slopes and profile ofthe proposed 40th Street and 1 I 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 east right -of --way line of 11th Avenue SW. The amount of right- of-way that will need to be acquired by the City, in addition to the dedication requirements, `n i-•u-cuC1G in• JC rmji"rn As� TOU 2tl16216 r.evies May 10, 2000 will be determined during the Development Agnxment negotiations and Incorporated into the Final Plat for the property included in GDP #00.1 S 1. McGhie Betts Environmental &";M Services, inc. 1648 Third Avenue S.E.. Rochester. MN 55904 507.229.3919 fax 507-289.7333 May 10, 2000 Mr. Franklin Kottschade North American Realty 3800 Hwy 52 North Rochester, MN 55906 Re: 40`' Street Plans Dear Mr. Kovschade: Last week during an encounter with an official from Rochester Township the subject of the City's planned reconstruction of 40°i Street SW was discussed. I was told that a neighborhood meeting was held at the Rochester Township Hall where officials from the City and their design consultant invited residents and Township officials to review detailed drawings of the planned reconstruction from US 63 west to 147• The comment was made that City Planning staff later called the Township offices to specifically ask who had released copies of the plan to you. It is my undemanding that the plans were presented to the Rochester Township landowners as public infonnnrion: yet, thcrc was an apparent concern from the Planning staff that you received copies "without authorization". if we can be of any assistance in the procurement of public information concerning 40te Street please contact me directly. Sincerely: McGhic & Setts Environmental Services, Inc. JS rg: LPG. REIv[ Vice re dent Minnesota Licensed Pmfe Registered Environmental William r Tolnlon. C.t. r Plseieent Jama: E S-anmm. A L.S. Secretary David L. Momil. P F Thou^uWr araco campball Carllllad Environmental Auditor An Cn.•+r /lnnnih •nib• CMnrn11Y/ Jellrey S 8roaerg, C P.G. vies Praaccrn nLei::ordn Envirnnmental Managar Gaerga Pocn CaiireJ Son Srisnliat d56 Mc Ghie Betts, Inc. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors TM� Planners 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 Fax 507-289-7333 1604 Riverview Lane, Northfield, MN 55057 507-645-0964 Fax 507-645-2842 April 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 & I Ith Avenue SW roadway reconstruction project adjacent to your property, which fronts both of these roadways On April 6, 2000,1 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 Ith 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. Kortschade) 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 (W. Kottschade) until the pending lawsuit with the State was settled. Therefore, I was not able to obtain any specific information 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 hearing on your project - If you have any additional questions, please contact me. Yours very truly, McGhie & Betts, Inc. William E. Tointon PC: Mr. John Arnold K. M. McGhie, PE, LS. 1904-1975 William E. Tointon, CET. President James E. Swanson, LS, Vice President David L. Morrill, PE, Nce President Oauglas N. Bens. PE, LS, Vice President Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E. Gowin, PE, LS Mark E. Severtson, LS Oaniel J. Zemke, PE Gregory R. Bond. PE An Ecual O000rtunity Emolover i ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION! 5071285-8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPINGESSING/ 507/285.8232 HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 DATE: April 20, 2000 - Revised RE: General Development Plan #151 to be known as 40'h Street GDP Pianninp 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 401h 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 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER APPage 2 of 8 GDP #151 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 40th Street across from Willow Heights Drive SW. This private roadway extends westerlM parallel with 401h Street SW and intersects with 11 Avenue SW approximately 500 feet south of 401h Street SW. The existing public streets adjacent to the site (401h St. SW and 111h 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. Sidewalks: The plan provides no pedestrian facilities along the adjacent public roads. The ROCOG Long Range Bicycle Plan shows a future bicycle path along 401h Street SW and 11'h 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 401h 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. 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. shoreland Regulations: The shoreland regulations are applicable to any 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, fled 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 OI�j�DP #151 LL pril 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 111h 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'h Street SW is scheduled for bid letting in November 2002. A total of 50 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of 40'h Street SW and 11 Ave. SW will need to be dedicated to the City at the time of platting. The GOP 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 40th Street SW and 111h 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 401h 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-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) district may suit the proposed density better. The R-1X district allows townhome developments up to a density of 5.5 units per acre as a type 1 use with densities between 5.5 — 8.71 as a type 11 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 qualifies 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. Page 5 of 8 GDP #151 p( 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 40`h Street SW and 11fh Avenue SW The adopted Thoroughfare Plan designates 40'h St. SW and 11'h Ave. SW as collector roadways. According the City's current 6-year Capital Improvement Program, 40'h 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 centerfrne) needs to be dedicated for this reconstruction of 400 St. SW. and eventually 11'h Ave. SW. A contribution will be required for the future reconstruction of 40" 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 40'6 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 Q(� GDP #151 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 40" Street SW. 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 11 t° Ave. SW and 4d St. SW. Since 40r" 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 floodfringe and is subject 10 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. 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'h Ave. SW consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 11'h Ave. SW and the south side of 40tb 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'h Street SW, with exception of the private street access that is shown across from Willow Heights Drive SW, and along 14'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 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'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. 7. 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. Page 8 of 8 GDP#151 April 20, 2000 8. 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. R*OCHESTEt a4� 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'h 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 f"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 401h St SW, with the exception of the private street access that is shown across from Willow Heights Dr SW. the existing access to 40"' 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 401h St SW as a collector street. An additional 17 feet of ROW shall be dedicated. Dedication of the 401h 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 401h St SW & 11'h Ave SW. The pedestrian facilities should be shown on the GDP plan. Since 40'h 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:ITEMPIGDP151.doc �4 R )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 5. A contribution will be required for future reconstruction of 40'" 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'" 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:%TEMPIGDP151.doc KUCHESTEK Minnesota 3/14/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur M 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): :• 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.) = $1,788.8150 Per developable acre. Willow Creek J8868 Watermain Connection Charge in 40` St SW @ $30 per foot of frontage, plus 7.5% interest from 2/22/89 (10 year maximum) = $52.50 per foot of frontage on 40th 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:%TEMPIG0P151.doc 1' park d recreation DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM April 4, 2000 Suzanne LaPalm Planning Denny Stotz General Development Plan # 151 4d' 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 units/acre. Dedication should be in the form of cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to recording of the final plat. Trails along 4& Street and 11 Avenue should be shown on the plan. \\ CITY_OF_ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\40TH STREET SW GDP.DOC pledge, we 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 "40`s 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 40s' Street SW, east of 11`s 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, 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 a facsimile 507.280.1542 go March 8, 2000 Suzanne LaPalm Planning Department Dear Suzanne: The Public Works Department has reviewed General Kottschade to be known as the "40" Street' General following comments: rl PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMEI 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 Plan #151 by Frank Plan and has the Interchange at T.N. 63 South and 40 Street SW is scheduled for bid letting in November 2002. This segment of 40'h Street SW is included with the project. Sincerely, v/ Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:ss Attachment t%englndoclplanzone.doc ,.x.a. Administration AN EOt1AL OPPORTIINITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste rpu d13 we pledge, we deliver March 2, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as the 40`h Street General Development Plan. The property is located along the south side of 40`h St. SW east of I 11h Ave. SW. Dear Ms. LaPalm: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. This area is within the Main Level Service Area, which is available for connection in 40th St. SW. 3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, �.. "04 1 "'� l Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention McGhie & Betts, Inc. Franklin P. Kottschade Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 4b 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. U•�1 i rl I}I U 0 • PIT Criteria 4: The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. Response: The City of Rochester's current Capital Improvement Program and Currently Held Thoroughfare Plan have outlined an improvement along 41P. 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 the 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 l is within the City boundaries and will move forward as approvals within the City allow. Phase if 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. Q 18 Page 2 �1 City Planning and Zoning C Hearing Date: r4AIU L. Minutes Mr. Staver moved to continue minary Plat #00-01, to be known as Northern Heights East Commercial Park, ind tte until the applicant submits a request to proceed. Mr. Werven seconded the niorlon, whic rried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade to re -zone 14.40 acres of land from R-1 (Mixed Sinale Family) to R-2 (Low Dancity Ro¢iriontinn General Development Plan #151 by Frank Kottschade to be known as the "401h Street" ,General Development Plan. The Plan or000ses to develop annrnwimataiv 1a dd m�ro= 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-1 x 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 8:71 units per acre would be allowed in the R-1x 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 II I 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 111h Avenue and 401h Street SW, which are designated as collector roadways, but are currently only constructed to local standards. He noted that 40'h 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 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: 2000 MAW-W Z 2- a�q, 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-1x 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-1x zoning, and she got the impression that Mr. Kottschade felt that with the R-1 x 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-1x and R-2 zoning districts. Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Fe§wa '13, 2000 MARc t1i t L Mr. Staver 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 400 Street SW and f 1th Avenue SW. Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: FoLgiacy—U 2000 MARC 2 j, Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 4dh Avenue SW and the south side of 401h 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 40'h 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 111h Avenue, and that the right-cf-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 Hearing Date: Feb a,y 2 , 2000 t%ARaN It 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 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Febmaiq,1d, 2000 OnARctl 2 Z al93 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 401h Street and 11 u 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 40`h 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. AVPage 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: �, 2000 MA2c 11 ty Mr. Arnold stated there is currently an approved access for Keystone Management on 401h 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"' 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 40"' 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 l Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: �3, 2000 PIACLU ZZ ags� 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 401h 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 Y� City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes �V! rrr Hearing Date: 2000 MAR( W t 2. 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 401" Street. He got a letter of reply, but not a map. Brad Nelson, 1105 40'h 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 40" 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 401" Street, as proposed. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Stayer moved to table General Development Plan #151, to be known as 40'h Street, until such time that the issues raised by staff can be resolved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn. Mr. Stayer 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. Page 11 �] g, l City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Q Hearing Date: feLRewr} 2000 MAVO U 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 20h. 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 40th 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. J" l K Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes O Hearing Date: Febwag-13, 2000 MOO O Z 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. Staver moved to table Condgionar lse Permit #00-03 by Mathy Construction to the April 12, 2000 meeting. Mr. QuinIk sqf 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 an 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 Respectfully Philip H. Wheeler, sml Mr. CharlesYames Suk, Chair Page 2 0 0 � el C1-/ ity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes / ]vf He�ing Date: April 26, 2000 1 Ms. Pe sson moved to approve Annexation Petition #00-07 Schoenfelders Southstar, c. The motion was seconded by Mr. Brede d carried 5-0. Mr. Svenby presented the s report, dot pril 18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the R ester -Olmsted Plan ' Department. He stated that staff recommends approyar Ms. Peters5od moved to approve Annexation Petition # 8 by Larry Goodman. Mr. Burke saeoncled the motion, which carried 5-0. CONTINUED ITEMS: Type III, Phase 11 Zoning District Amendment #00-04 by Frank Kottschade to re -zone 14.40 acres of land from R-1 (Mixed Single Family? to R-2 (Low Density Residential}, orooerty is located alona the south side of 40` 5t. SW. east of 11` Ave. SW. 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 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 thex 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 Aa Page 3 • �n City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 11 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 40a' Street and 11a' 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 40'" Street SW at $30/foct, 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 401" 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 40t" 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" Avenue SW. Mr. Arnold stated that the proposed map for 40a' Street and 111" 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 40`" 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 0 0 City Planning and Zoning Commission. Minutes 7 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 401h 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 Mn/DOT 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 401' 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 Pages 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 400 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 40t" Street SW. Discussion of this plan ensued Mr. Nigbur referred to the Thoroughfare Plan, which outlines typical sections on typical right-of- 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 50t" Avenue NW, and noted that at the time of the first proposed GDP, the study of the 501" 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 481h Street SW. He explained that roadway is also classified as a collector roadway; and in that section it is a rural roadway, which requires 100' 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 • a9 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. Suk 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-1x 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 5.5 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-lx 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 40`h 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 40th Street GDP. The motion died for lack of a second. Onak-1qPage l — City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 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 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes %&g Date: May 10, 2000 AT fr Olmsted County will be required for the pond structure to be built within the nigh way or the applicant will need to obtain the property or relocate the pond to be outs of the right-of-way. This stormwater pond location has been identifie as a site fo regional basin. All required private stormwater facilities mu be constructed current with the initial stages of development. 2. Controlled acres xists along CSAH 22. Additional controlled ac s will be required within 200 t from the intersection of any new street with AH 22 at the time of platting. 3. Pedestrian facilities are rakired along both sides of all new blic roads, and will also be required along the th side if CSAH 22. The eloper and staff shall mutually determine the locatio itable Ithlrian f lity along CSAH 22, prior to submittal of the first prellmtna !at frt4. Prior to submittal of the first final pla y, the developer shall execute a development agreement with the City fDP that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but notstormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedeses, 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 G! al1 be revised to identify any Wetlands that may exisIthe erty. 6. This development is supper trip generation lim f 1,300 trips per day, which has been noted oDesign improvements th a!I be provided by the developer include: ➢ An inboundIght turn lane an eastbound Circle Drive ➢ On the no ound (outbound) approach to East Circle Drive tw es or a wide fla hall be provided to allow right turning traffic to turn at inters ion without delay from left turning vehicles ➢ Ynt and left turn lane on wesfbound Circle Drive ➢ pplicant will be required to share the cost of installing a permanent an crossing with the developer of the property on the norfh side of Ci rkland dedication for this development shalt 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 111 Phase ll 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 6At_ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes _rp 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. Sulk 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'h 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 40"' 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 q City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes `1 Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 Mr. Werven asked if the information about 401h Street SW is new information since the last meeting. Mr. Svenby explained that the plan for 400 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 40th 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 6 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 400 Street & 11th 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 r}[ fPage 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes vv 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 40'h Street from 11"' 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 40'h Street, they could have it. With no others wishing to speak, Mr. Sulk 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 11e Ave. SW and the south side of 401h 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 40h' Street SW, with exception of the private street access that is shown across from Willow Heights Drive SW, and along 11'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 and contributions for public infrastructure improvements, contributions 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. Page S / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 10, 2000 5. If the development of fhls property occurs prior to the reconstruction of 40th 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. 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 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 report, dated May 4 00, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olm%000 g De ment. Ms. Fogarty stated that staff is recommending approval with en Ms. Schultze asked if the note from Mr. Nigbur affects anything. Ms. Fogarty stated they are notygmmendlA�umber 15 on his memo. Mr. Nigbur expl/that f in the City limits they cannot plat something in the Township. Ms. Fogarty mee of the conditions addres the alignment and the applicants are proposing te up with the subdivision to t est. Mr/Nigbu ated they had a conversationwith the consultant tod d there are some limwhere the proposed right-of-way through the township will go and how it lins the street. They will work with the applicants on how to b r accommodate theem. a :: I ROCHESTER ,�i2nedota March 8, 2000 Mr. Franklin P. Kottschade 3800 Highway 52 North Suite 130 Rochester, MN 55901 RpCNESTEp. 7I l.1• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41h Street BE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 (507)287-7800 FAX (507) 201-6216 RE: Ciry Policy Requiring Contribution Agreements to Substandara Streets for 40th Street SW from Broadway to I Ith Avenue SW and, I lth 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 lth 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 #00151 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, I 1 th 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 propoied 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 I 1th 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 lth 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 1Ith Avenue intersection and at the TH 63 interchange overpass bridge. I met with Yaggy Colby Associates staff on February 24th and An Ef-tOpp rWaity E,V&ya 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-aay 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 Environmental 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 11th Avenue SW is concerned, it appears that the entire west frontage of your property along 11thAvenue 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 1 lth 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 462358 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 oftru is 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 1 lth 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 M 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 #00-151 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 arc 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 MuDOT Share $ 61000,000 minus OImsted 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 $ 11800,000 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 26.4 % of the total weekday peak hour trips taking access to 409 Street SW. Resultantly, the estimated Substandard Street Capacity Charge for the former Cote Property, based on the above hypothetical example would 363 be 26.9 % of the Substandard Street Capacity costs of $1,800,000 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 availaable 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 Nighur W1 Memo To: City Planning and Zoning Commission From: Brent Svenby, Planner 4/ 1 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 worts 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'h 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 10"' 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 (2/23100). 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. q) LAW OFFICES DuNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. RONALD L BEEOER MILTON A. ROSENBLAD 208 SOUTH BROADWAF. SUnX 606 PAULA. FINSETH MARQUETPE BANK BUILDLVO DANIEL E. BERNDT PO BOX "0 JOHN B. ARNOLD ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 66909-0649 PETER C. SANDBERO TINA L MOHR TELEPHONE: (607) 288.9111 KENNETH IL MOEN FAX- (607) 28848842 WILLIAM J. NY" FAX (WI) 2884812 PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLAS A. BOESE ROBERT R. DUNLAP THOMAS W. JACOBSON (1916-1992) May 2, 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTN MITZI BAKER 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 MANY It DUNLAP WILLWd P. VOLKMAR MARK E. FOSSE KEN D. SCHUELER GREGORY J. GRIFF THS MICHAEL S. DIM ERIC D. LARSON SHARON C. ZEHE d Covmal FAANKLIN M[CHAWA A.M.'SANDY'EETTH RE: Cote General Development Plan (GDP #151), Zoning District Amendment #00-04 40th Street and 11 th 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, .cam JBA/ck Enclosures M LAW OFFlCE9 RONALDL SEEGER DuNup & SEEGER, P.A. MMTON A. ROS£NBLAD 206 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUn-E 505 PAUL A. FINSETH MARQUE77E BANK BUILDING DANML E. BERNDT PO BOX 649 JOHN B. ARNOLD ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA 66903-0649 PETER C. SANDBERG TINA L MOHR TELEPHONE: (507) 288-9111 KENNETH R MOEN FAX (507) 288.9842 WnJJAM J. RYAN PAX (607) 2"12 PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLAS A DOERS ROBERT R. DUNLAP THOMAS W. JACOBSON (1916.1992) May 2, 2000 CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTN MITZI BAKER 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 MAW B. DUNLO WnSSAM P. VOLRMAR MARK E. FOSSE KEN D. SCIIUELER GREGORY J. GRIF£rni9 MICHAEL S. DIETZ ERIC ➢. LARSON SHAM14 C. WME of Counw FRANKUN MICHAELS A.M. 'SANDr KRXM RE: Cote General Development Plan #151/Zoning District Amendment #00-04 40th Street and 1 lth 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. 0 307, 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 VLVYours, ld 1ARNOL; LJNLAPLAW.com 7BA/ck DUNLAP & SEEGER, PA LAW OFFICES DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. RONALD L SEEGER MARY H.DUNLAP MMTON A. ROSENBLAD 208 SOUTH BROADWAY,, SU1rE $08 Wn.LIAM P. VOLRMAR PAUL A. FINSETH MARQUET7E BANX BUILDMC MARK E. FOSSE KEND. R�� DANIEL E. BERNDT PO BOX 849 REGORY J. GRIFFTTHS GRE JOHN S. ARNOLD ROCHESTER, UUMES07A 88903-0549 MICnAEL S. DIM PETER C. SANDBERG TINA L MOHR TELEPHONE: (W7) 288.9111 ERIC D. LARSON RENNETH R. MOEN FAX (507) 288-9342 SHARON C. ZEHE WUIJAM J. B N FAX (507) 298.0812 e/ Counad PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLAS A. BOESE ROBERT IL DUNLAP FRANALI i MICHAELS THOMAS W. JACOBSON (1916-1992) A.X'SANDr KETrH May 1, 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY RICHARD FREESE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OLMSTED COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 201 FOURTH STREET SE, ROOM 108 ROCHESTER MN 55904 RE: Cote General Development Plan (GDP #151), Zoning District Amendment #00-04 40th Street and 1 lth 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 department 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 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 31- 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. 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 yo 7 Jo . Amold JARNOLD@DUNLAPLAW.com JBA/ck cc Franklin Kottschade, via fax 288-0658 Planning & Zoning Commission DuNLAP & SEEGM PA 31D i BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA In Re: Revised Future Land Use Plan Amendment 094-6. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order On April 17, 1995, the Common Council of the City of Rochester conducted a public hearing, with notice to the public (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A), to hear the application of North American Realty, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") concerning 97.69 acres of land on the south side of 40th Street S.W. between lath Avenue S.W. on the west and U.S. Highway 63 on the east (hereinafter referred to as "Site"). The applicant originally made two requests: (1) amend the Rochester Future Land Use Map so as to redesignate the Site from "low density and medium density residential" to the "commercial" land use category; and, (2) rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage from the R-1 designation (Mixed Single Family Residential) to the B-4 designation (General Business). At the March 8, 1995, Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, Applicant amended its first request by removing from consideration that portion located north of Willow Creek. Applicant also asked that its rezoning request be tabled until June 14, 1995. Thus, the only issue before the Council is the amended request to change the Rochester Future Land Use Map so as to designate that portion 4 Of the Site lying south of Willow Creek as "commercial" land use. Applicant appeared at the April 17, 1995, hearing and its President, Franklin P. Kottschade, spoke in favor of his request as amended. During the hearing, the Council received and considered the March 24,3�' ' Planning and Zoning Commission's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of L..r, and Recommendation with respect to the Future Land Use Map requested cange. The Council also received and considered the Planning and Zoning Department's staff reports, an official letter from the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and an official letter from the City of Rochester Public Works Department. Following the April 17, 1995, -public hearing, the Council closed the hearing and tabled the matter until June, 1995, to await the results of the ongoing ROCOG study of the Highway 63 south corridor. on June 5, 1995, the Council removed the issue from the table, directed the city attorney to prepare for its consideration proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the Planning and Zoning C issionts recommendations, and gave the Applicant and all other adjacent property owners the opportunity to prepare proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the Council's consideration at the June 19, 1995, council meeting. At its June 19, 1995, meeting, the Council considered and discussed the entire matter, including all submitted findings of fact. In addition to the proposed findings of fact prepared by the city attorney, the Council received and considered proposed findings of fact submitted by the Applicant. The Council determined that the public hearing on this issue should be reopened to give all parties,' including the Applicant, an opportunity to respond to the issues in light of the updated information concerning the Highway 63 South Corridor Study. The Council set the reopened public hearing for July 17, 1995. At its July 5, 1995, meeting, the Council considered the Applicant's request to postpone the July 17, 1995, reopened public hearing until August 21, 1995. The Council agreed with the Applicant's request for a continuance of the reopened public hearing and scheduled the hearing for August 21, 1995. On August 21, 1995, the Common Council of the City of Rochester conducted a public hearing, with notice to the public to hear this matter. Based upon that evidence which was presented at the August 21, 1995, hearing, the Council made the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On November 28, 1994, Applicant requested the amendment of the Rochester Future Land Use Map as to 218.64 acres of land located on the south side of 40th Street S.W. between 11th Avenue S.W. on the west and U.S. Highway 63 on the east. At that time, the request was to change the designation of the west 120.95 acres of the subject property from the "low density residential" land use category to the "medium density residential" category and to rezone the 109.06 acres of the 120.95 a acreage which lays within the city limits from R-1 (mixed single family residential) to R-3 (medium density residential). The applicant requested that the Future Land Use Map for the remaining easterly 97.69 acres be amended from "low density residential" and "medium density 3(3 residential" to "commercial" and to rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 eage from R-1 (mixed low density residential) to B-4 (General Business). 2. On February 8, 1995, the Applicant amended his request by removing from consideration the 120.95 acre portion of the site originally proposed for land use map designation as "medium density residential" and the 109.06 acre portion of the Site originally proposed for rezoning to R-3. As amended, the Applicant's request was to change the Future Land Use Map to designate the easterly 97.69 acreage to the "commercial" category and to rezone 74.32 acres of the 97.69 acreage from R-1 to B-4 (general business). (The Applicant's President indicated at this time that the 23.37 acres at 40th Street and Highway 63 has been sold by the applicant and will remain zoned R-1.) 3. During the March 8, 1995, Planning and Zoning commission public ring, Applicant for the third time amended its request. Applicant asked that its rezoning request be tabled until June 14, 1995. Applicant also asked that its request to change the Future Land Use Map so that 97.69 acres be designated as "commercial" be further amended so as to remove from the 97.69 parcel all of that land lying north of willow Creek. Attached and identified as Exhibit C is a map showing the revised boundary of the Applicant's request for a change to the commercial land use designation. 4. The Applicant's President testified as to the intent to build a.shopping center on the Site. 5. The Land Use Map reflects the policies and goals of the Land Use Plan. 30 6. Chapter II, Policies and Recommendations, of the Future Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area recommends ten Growth Guidelines as part of the Recommended Growth Pattern which constitute the general policy basis of the Plan. The applicable guidelines are as follows: a) growth should occur in conjunction with community services and facilities and existing growth centers and should be exemplified by the illustration of the Multiple Growth Center Concept. b) all municipal service areas should be well defined and developed to accommodate and encourage new development. c) medium and high density housing should be developed in close proximity to commercial, industrial, and institutional centers and public facilities and services. d) commercial development should be concentrated in growth centers, with regional, community, and neighborhood shopping facilities provided in the Rochester area and community commercial activities in the smaller growth centers. e) strip commercial development should be prohibited; commercial development should be concentrated in clusters. f) where possible, growth patterns should be structured so as not to interfere with residential neighborhoods, prime agricultural land, and significant environmental areas; prime agricultural land should be preserved. 7. The text of the Future Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area lists four location criteria applicable to a regional shopping center to be considered in determining whether to apply a commercial land use designation to the Site. Those criteria are: a) location at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets; a b) having level terrain; c) having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access; and d) having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. 8. With respect to the specific location criteria, the "-_,licant's President and staff testified that the Site had level �w�rain and consisted of at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. Thus, the specific location criteria issues remaining for determination were whether the Site was located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets and whether the Site had good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. There also remained the issue of whether the Applicant satisfied and complied with the ten Growth Guidelines for Recommended Growth Pattern contained in Chapter II, Policies and Recommendations, Rochester Future Land Use Plan. 9. The construction of retail shopping at this site would involve and affect the intersection of 40th Street S.W. and Highway 63. During the Planning and Zoning Commission's public hearing, Applicant's resentative, Mr. Uban, stated that*Applicant intended to build a shopping center of about 450,000 square feet in size. He also stated there was a need for a frontage road parallel to Highway 63 to accomplish the Applicant's development plans. 10. The ROCOG ("Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments") Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan designates Highway 63 as a future "freeway"; 40th Street S.W. and Highway 63 is not given the status of a highway interchange; 11th Avenue S.W., between 40th Street and 48th Street S.W. (which is presently a gravel road) is given the status of an "arterial street"; a planned north -south road between 40th Street S.W. and 48th Street S.W. (running through the Site) is designated as a collector street; 40th Street S.W. west of the planned north -south r-".ector is designated as a collector street to llth Avenue S.W.; and 40th Street S.W. east of the planned north -south collector road is designated as a local street. 11. Applicant's Site has one sixty-six foot wide access opening to Highway 63 at the median opening at St. Bridgets Road. At the very southeast corner of the Site, there is a shared access to Highway 63 with the adjacent property to the south. The property has access potential to 40th Street S.W. Access east of the bridge over Willow Creek from 40th Street can be extended into this Site. Access west of the bridge cannot serve the site unless a bridge is built over Willow Creek. Access to the south on 48th Street S.W. is not available as there are no access agreements with the relevant property owners. The City will be installing temporary traffic signals at the 40th street S.W. and Highway. 63 intersection sometime this year. 12. Assuming that a B-4 zoning district is ultimately approved for the Site, and assuming a conservative floor area ratio of 0.30, there is the potential for 1,127,115 square feet of commercial building on this site. Applicant's President testified that the intention was to build a smaller shopping center of less than 500,000 square feet. Although the actual size of the commercial building ultimately built' upon the Site may be smaller depending upon the developer's plans, there remains the potential for a 1,127,115 square feet commercial building located upon the Site should the Site's designation on the Land Use Map be changed to commercial. f. 13. Designation of the Site as commercial would allow the construction of a regional shopping center. Based upon information published in the 5th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers information report "Trip Generation", and upon verification of 3107 those traffic numbers which occurred at Rochester's Apache Mall, a >onable traffic generation rate is 40 trips per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This results in an estimated daily traffic generation potential for this site of 45,000 trips. For comparison purposes, the estimated daily travel for 1990 on Highway 63 between 36th Street S.W. and 40th Street S.W. is 27,000 trips. 14. During the Common council's public hearing, Applicant's representative, Mr. Uban, testified that he anticipated the need for a frontage road. All of the City, State and Minnesota Department of Transportation corridor plans anticipate a frontage road, parallel to Highway 63 so as to provide access to the Site. Mr. Uban stated that currently there is no frontage road in place parallel to Highway 63 providing access to the Site. In response to a question from the Council President, Mr. Uban indicated that the Applicant would be willing to I : with the interested parties to put a frontage road in place, but that no frontage road arrangement currently is in place. 15. During the Common council's public hearing, Applicant's representative, Mr. Uban, testified that the City needs to manage and control the growth and traffic along the Highway 63 South Corridor. 16. During the Planning and Zoning Commission's public hearing and the Common Council's public hearing, Applicant did not present any evidence or testimony which showed that: a) anticipated growth resulting from a change to a commercial land use map designation for the Site would occur in conjunction with community services and facilities, and existing growth centers; b) municipal service areas were well defined and developed to accommodate and encourage the new commercial development; or c) the requested change to a commercial land use map designation for the Site would not interfere with residential 092 neighborhoods, prime agricultural land, and significant environmental areas; 17. During the Planning and Zoning Commission's public hearing, Applicant's President testified that the requested change to a commercial land use map designation for the Site should be approved because the commercial designation results in a higher tax base for the City as compared to the current residential designation. He testified that a residential development for the Site would provide $190,000 a year in property taxes (assuming 3.5 homes per acre with an average value of $90,000) while commercial development would provide from $875,000 to $1,250,000 a year in property taxes (assuming 450,000 square feet to 525,000 square feet of commercial development). is. During the Common Council's public hearing, Applicant's representative, Mr. Uban, testified that it was appropriate to apply the commercial designation to the Site because the Site was adjacent to the highway, has little wetlands, is inappropriate for residential, and may be subject to excessive noise. 19. ROCOG, with support of MNDOT, is studying the Highway 63 south corridor from Highway 52 to Interstate 90 to determine: a) the long term character of the corridor relative to the type of travel service that should be provided (e.g., free flow or interrupted flow using either a freeway, expressway, arterial street design); b) a long term access management plan for the length of the corridor, considering potential development patterns within the area adjacent to the corridor as well as external travel growth;,, c) under a free flow freeway or expressway design, the number and location of interchanges needed to accommodate the crossing of major east -west roadway corridors and to provide adequate access to lands in the Willow Creek area; and d) verify or recommend changes to the ROCOG Currently Held Valid Thoroughfare Plan as it relates to the local collector or 3(q K arterial street system serving the local access needs of the Willow Creek area. 20. Minnesota Department of Transportation testified by letter, with respect to Applicant's requests, and stated the following: a) although changing the zoning and the land use plan would have no immediate effect on the use of Highway 63 for transportation, subsequent activities as a result of these changes could create problems in implementing a long-range plan for Highway 63; and, b) the subject property lies at the intersection of Highway 63 and 40th Street S.W. (a major access point to Highway 63) and is in an area that will be addressed in the upcoming corridor study. Therefore, any steps taken toward development of this property may be premature in the fact that they may actually conflict with the corridor plan and hinder the development of the long-range plan for Highway 63; and, c) for these reasons, MNDOT believes any actions to develop land within the bounds of the Highway 63 corridor study should be postponed until completion of the study. 21. The City of Rochester Department of Public Works testified by ter and, with respect to the Applicant's request, stated the following:. a) this request should be tabled pending completion of the T.H. 63 South Corridor Study currently being conducted by ROCOG. The study will define transportation needs and plans in this area. The land should not be rezoned until a plan for transportation is adopted; and, b) the alignment of future rights -of -way and alignment of the existing roadways should be determined prior to determination of a zoning change; and, c) right-of-way for 40th Street S.W. realignment with St. Bridgets Road should be officially mapped and reserved on plat map for highway purposes. 22. The study should result in final recommendations later this year. Results of the study could be the basis for the development of land use controls in the Highway 63 corridor such as official maps or overlay zoning regulations. r 23. The Highway 63 Corridor study is not yet complete. Although not complete, it has reached some preliminary conclusions. The Council received an update on that study on August 21, 1995. That update indicates that the freeway design for Highway 63 South is most appropriate. The study will recommend interchanges at 40th Street and 48th Street, and that 40th Street will remain as a'collector street although it may be upgraded to arterial, street standards. The study will also indicate that a north -south collector street or frontage road between 40th and 48th Street S.W. is critically important .for any commercial development at that site so as to provide a second access at 48th Street to serve the proposed commercial area. 24. Tom Hexum, representing R.L. Hexum and Associates, Inc., testified that his company owns the 80 acres to the south of the Site. He stated his company was satisfied with the underlying residential land use designation and was not willing 'to grant any easement to the Applicant or the city so as to construct a frontage road or continuous collector street along the west side of Highway 63 South connecting 40th Street and 48th Street. 25. Mr. Hexum testified that his company opposed the Applicant's request as commercial development on the site would be incompatible and in conflict with the residential development north of the Site in the Willow Creek area and any residential development which might occur South of the Site. He also stated there is insufficient road access to x and from the Site for commercial development. 26. Several neighbors from the Willow Creek area appeared and testified in opposition to the Applicant's request. They stated that commercial development on the Site would be incompatible with the existing residential development and that there would be insufficient omen space and bufferyard between the residential and commercial velopment. They stated the appearance of commercial development and the resulting increase in traffic would interfere with their present enjoyment of residential lifestyle. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to Minn. Stat. 9462.355, subdivisions 2 and 3. 2. The Common Council of the City of Rochester determines that the Land Use Plan and Land Use Map should not be amended, upon consideration of the goals, objectives, strategies and policies of the current Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The proposed Land Use Plan amendment is :onsistent with the existing Land Use -Plan. 3. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that Applicant failed to satisfy the four location criteria provided by the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area in determining whether to apply the commercial land use designation to the Site and has failed to satisfy and meet the applicable Growth Guidelines established by the Land Use Plan (guidelines 1, 21 3, 51 61 and 7). 4. By the Greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the criteria for a regional shopping center —Mies to this Site, although the Applicant may intend to build a smaller shopping center, because the "commercial" designation would allow a regional shopping center to be built on the Site. 5. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the property does not meet the location criteria for a regional shopping center according to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan 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 S.W.), which has been recommended for redesignation to "collector street" status in the Highway 63 Corridor Study, and a freeway (Highway 63). 6. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the roadway system in the area currently does not provide the site with good pedestrian, vehicular, or transit access. ORDER The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.355, subdivisions 2 and 3, does hereby order that the applicant's request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Map for the Rochester Urban Service Area so as to designate as commercial a portion of 97.69 acres lying south of 40th Street S.W., south of Willow Creek, west of Highway 63 and east of lith Avenue S.W. be in all things denied. Fes+ Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this ay of Sep ember, 1995. 4oVff Hu zike , esident, Common Council ZONMOTMCC.FOF ExWiBtT - A 3 "I COUNCIL NOTi F OFAl G. Notice is hereby given by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that all persons interested in Urban Service Area Future Land Use Plan Amendment #94-6 by Franklin P. Kottschade on vacant land bounded by 40th Street SW on the north, Tli 63 on the east, one quarter mile north of 48th Street SW and approximately 2,070 feet east of 11th Avenue SW. This property is proposed to be designated "Commercial" on the Future Land Use Map. The plan presently designates the majority of this property far "low density residential" land use and a small area of "medium density residential" at the southeast corner of the property may be heard at a meeting of the Common Council to be held in the Council Chambers in City Hall in said City at 7:00 a.m. on April 17. 1995. For further information or if you have questions regarding this matter please contact the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department at (507) 285-8232, 2122 Campus Drive SE, Rochester, MN 55904. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota, this 4th day of April, 1995. Carole Grimm City Clerk DIST MIMON: Rochester Post Bulletin City Clerk Planning Dcpament r-1µI6Ir, K 3;jPR0P(jSED RE-ZJNING R -1 T30 B - 4 EXHIBIT to C$ u 3 n 1i N m co N (� t (n DESCRIPTION: ro '?000 R, SEE ATTACHED: �� QOpOr �<'S64'SO r. w 74.32 ACRES 2637.74 _ 343'S0" w = sill ,Jjj. � �03 I I Iron uL KftGs As"UUM. a HE $ �= SCALE 1" = 4C0' u erase i 324.38 ' N 89'24'45 itmnuJ ♦ � ! }I}N t W b I "nor comfy that this slrvey. pion, or roped .ee prepared by me ar wWer my anal eap"sion are Nat I am a duty Registered Lana Surveyor under the Io.e of the stale et 4lnneeola. DATE REC No. _ ----- _.at 1• . 400' mew or. "c McGhie Betts,tlx rwfr: 11-23-94 SJC PROPERTIES r � � t009/25IX ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA W t I 2 9 cee■ .e 2500EY l0 Cl A D t7 n M A D C7 m i 1 � d A m N N z M _F U57 r D z m N M a � mc: <70 m x a z r C4 A collector is a st = that serves Local traffand p>rao Odirect private acre to abutting land 'uses. T system channe the local traffic to and from the arterial syst_,,, and is capable serving a minimum amount of through traffic. The Currently Held valid Thoroughfare Plan calls for a number of "new" collector roads to be constructed when the needs arise, based: on land use and traffic considerations. It is in the community's best interest to plat these new collectors to also relieve the congestion on existing streets. In large scale developments in which the average daily traffic level on the collector becomes excessively high, it may be necessary to construct the road to higher design standards than that of a collector. A 3000 ADT level has been identified in the publication, Residential Streets (ULI, 1974) as the bottom figure for an arterial classification. 80, I 414 '. 13' 22 i I G I 10' 12 22, 12. m URBAN CROSS .SECTION— 44' RDWY ON 80' R.O.W. A rural arterial i two-lane roadway -which of ides service for both inter and int&a-county trips at a moderate :vel of travel mobility. The at -grade intersections should be fully or partially regulated by traffic control devices to ensure safe and efficient conditions for the arterial traffic. Direct private access onto the street will be permitted but regulated. Under certain circumstances, a frontage road may be needed. Additional right-of-way would be required for the frontage road. I too' 30' — 410' 30 1 I � e I - I t i RURAL i ROSS SECTION-40' RDWY ON IOO'R.O.W. SCALE = 1":20' The 10 foot outside lanes are used for emergency stopping or right turning movements. Parallel parking may be allowed in some cases. ARTERIALS Urban Arterial Cross -Section with Median. 6' �-10, 12. 10 0' I 26' 16� 26' 10' r, , i q. 68' ' I 1 ' 12 TYPICAL LEVEL SECTION— 68' RDWY ON 100' R.O.W. SCALE: C a 20' 13R'� A four lane urban arterial with a 16 foot median. The median would allow for a 12 foot left turn lane and 4 feet of signing. outside lane would be used for through traffic as well as right turning movements. r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: b-19- AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS- Continued Item PLANNING t ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase 11 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. June 14,2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held public hearings on March 22n° 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. :il 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 22nd, April 26u' 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 19, 2000 in the Council / Board Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. �& 1 Ze ¢. CPz3C 6pp Q INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to: 1 CP 330 Zone Change #00-04 Kottschade ' q 550' Notification Distance Ward 1 (Hanson) 02/24/00 40 ST �A 3 U LTON ST SWI ZONE NE CORNER NY 1/4 SEC 26-106-14 - 0 CHANGE J�= /j j N.A. REALTY, INC. 3800 HWY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901 AKHIBIT33c( Z I SCALE 1" = 400' DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED: N.W. SA184. 31'17" W r 73 1/4 yt U m MCGhie C. n.whq Upim•n onn. 160 a.e •vc. sue. am,..l... u" ss•u BeSu B.. c. Land Surv.yon sot -sea -saga scvr.- 1 " = 400' Mxte at BwC DATE: 02/21/00 AXT,, NO.: 1009/2501 CAW No.: 2500EX03 6E sw Comm sac a-106- R-2. M-� 'R-1 4 5TI ST SST S W B -4 R-� I K-1 M-► M- 1 M ZpNtN(i MA '��iii+►a��4n4� �I wi7i IHiiii� , ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPINGESSING/ HOUSING/HRA FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILDING CODE WELVSEPTIC DATE: March 17, 2000 FAX 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 401' Street SW, east of 11th Avenue SW. The applicant is proposing to 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 3 d Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55901 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 507/285-8345 5071287-2275 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 2 Z�Page 2 Zone Change 00-04 March 17, 2000 Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: Transportation Access: 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. North: Across 40th Street SW, R-1 (Mixed 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. 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 401h Street SW and intersects with 11th Avenue SW approximately 500 feet south of 401h Street SW. The existing public streets adjacent to the site (40'h 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, 40th Street SW is scheduled to be reconstructed in the year 2002. 11th 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 March 17, 2000 at the time of platting. Referral Comments: None of the agencies had comments on the zoning district amendment. Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. General Development Plan Map 3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary y, wl:w�cj a !fie Morc4 �l,o�oo C�2G AN 4!!5 r�f4.4i to s40 +c", Analysis forZoning District Amendment: Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.336 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 3 Page 4 S , Zone 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 4dh 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 11 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 11 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. McGhie&—TI: Betts, Consulting EngineersLand Surveyors Planners 1648Third 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. K. M. McGhie, PE, LS, 1904-1975 William E. Tointon, CET, President James E. Swanson, LS, Vice President David — Morrill, PE, Vice President Douglas N. Betts, PE, LS, Vice President Andrew J. Masterpole. ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E. Gowin, PE, LS Mark E. Severtson, LS Danlel J. Zemke, PE Gregory R. Bond, PE An Equaf Opportunity Employer 33� McUhie Betts C. Consulting Engineers i Land Surveyors .,f_.-i TLv1a 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 1. 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 SW7 A 2. The access to the proposed townhome project from 4dh 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. 0 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, 1904-1976 William E. Tointon, CET, President James E. Swenson, LS, Vice President David L. Morrill, PE, Vice President Douglas N. Betts, PE, LS, Yoe President Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E. GoWn, PE, LS Mark E. Sevenson, LS Daniel J. Zemke, PE Gregory R. Bond, PE An Equal Opportunity Employer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Mtt-19-UU DATE: 44) AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS I GRANT APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THE PREPARED B FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) A KNAUER This is a public hearing to consider an application to the U.S. Department of Transportation /Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for financial assistance for 2000 operations and the purchase of 4 buses for the regular route system and two buses for the dial -a -ride system. The projects are consistent with the City's adopted budget for 2000 and the 2000-2005 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The federal funding includes $958,600 from the FTA and $544,400 from FHWA. Filing of the application has been held until this time to include 2001 and 2002 year bus purchases. The application will probably not be approved until the start of the federal 2001 fiscal year beginning 10101/00. Actual expenditures for buses will not take place until well into 2001 and 2002 depending on production lead times. The attached exhibit summarizes the projects and funding being requested in the application. The total amount needed for the local share for the capital projects is budgeted. Approximately $270,000 of the $304,000 in local share for the capital portion is in reserves. The remaining portion will be levied in 2001. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing submission of the grant application to the Federal ransit Administration and execution of the subsequent contract. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: sqo / / / to § 0 § � VLL \ 61) to \ \ \ co \ S z _ §§ \( / $ \ $ ƒ § z § m _ ° 22IZ - \$§k )COLL §3°§ S§\§ 2z#c , ; ±2w ' §Rz | 2 2 7)§2 § � ) �w Cl) cwC) . A� g u $gg2 �§ 2§ ( / \ §§§k �� ui CL Gz § / LU \�§� m$2� k /2 \ j [ IL § § to 0 0 LL \ & § en z LU § a- � & & k A \ UJ _ 0 �\ z ,� 0 0 0 � N N F —0 R g !z �K 2 2 / 7 \ i -i �Lu +$ d 04 � CN § .0 qt NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING MASS TRANSIT PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota at 7:00 p.m., Monday, June 19, 2000 in the County/ City Board Room at the Government Center at 201 4th Street SE to consider an application to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for transit assistance funds for the projects described below. FTA Apportionment for FY 2000: $750,719 FTA Carryover Funds from Previous Years: 208,550 FHWA (STP) Funding 544,400 Total Federal Funds Available: $1,503,669 APPLICATION DESCRIPTION LOCAL(1) FEDERAL TOTAL 1. OPERATING ASSISTANCE A. Operating Assistance for CY2000 Regular Route and Dial -A -Ride Transit Service $1,945,001 $287,000 $2,232,001 2. CAPITAL A. Purchase of 4 Buses for Regular Route Transit $214,400 $857,600 $1,072,000 B. Purchase of 2 Buses for ZIPS Dial -A -Ride $89,600 $358,400 $448,000 TOTALS $2,249,001 $1,503,000 $3,752,001 (1) Local includes State of Minnesota, City of Rochester, Olmsted County and program revenues including fares and advertising revenue. SERVICE LEVELS: The proposed funding will provide for a slight expansion of services for both regular route and dial -a -ride. A description of these expanded services is included in the applications for State transit assistance. RELOCATION: No persons, families, or businesses will be displaced by this project. ENVIRONMENTAL: It is expected that this project will impact the environment favorably by supporting mass transit services thereby reducing the number of private automobile trips. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING: The proposed project is in conformance with the City's Transit Development Plan. The projects are also included in the 1999 and 2000 Transportation Improvement Program for the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) and the City of Rochester's Capital Improvement Program. 3p'w ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED: Concurrent with this project fares for persons with disabilities and persons 65 years of age and over will be no more than half the regular cash fare during off peak hours on all regular routes. Currently off peak fares for persons with disabilities and persons 65 years and over are S.50 for a single ride or 10 rides for $4.00. A regular adult cash fare is $1.00. I CHARTER BUS OPERATIONS: The operators to be assisted and under contract do provide charter service outside the Rochester service area. This service is considered to be incidental and unrelated to their contracts to provide of mass transit services within the Rochester area. The assistance being requested is not to support charter service. SCHOOL BUS SERVICE: The operators to be assisted and under contract do not engage in school bus operations exclusively for the transportation of students or school personnel. The assistance being requested is not for support of school bus transportation. FINAL PROGRAM: Unless amended at the hearing this program of projects shall be considered the final program. In case that it is amended a final program of projects will be published. At the hearing opportunity will be provided for persons to be heard with respect to the project. Interested individuals may also submit comments in writing to the address below. A copy of the application is available for public inspection at the following location. Rochester Department of Public Works Transportation Division 201 4th street SE Rochester, MN 55904 Judy Scherr, City Clerk Printr96d Ca/091o0 06/16/00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 513 / DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS & RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR F- I i i trA DESCRIPTION: Resolution of support for 2001 Housing Tax Credits and use of TIF PREPARED BY: Funds for Park Side Townhomes T.SPAETH Staff has met with representatives of Freedom Development to discuss Year 2001 Housing Tax Credits and the use of tax increment financing for the construction of 28 rental townhomes that are part of the Valley Side Estates development, which is located along the east side of 40th Avenue SE, south of TH 14. The Council recently approved the General Developmet Plan and a preliminary plat for the development. As the Council may recall, the proposed development consists of 50 single family lots, for which the City has committed the use of TIF as part of the First Homes program. In addition, the development also has an owner occupied garden townhome component and the 28 unit rental townhome component. The developer is requesting a Council resolution of support for the Housing Tax Credits and the use of TIF to facilitate the construction of the 28 rental townhomes. Of the 28 units, 8 of those will be 2 bedroom units and 20 will be 3 bedroom units. With the approval of Housing Tax Credits and the use of TIF, the rents would be $599 for 2 bedroom units and $699 for 3 bedroom units. These rents are affordable for persons at 50% area median income. Without the use of TIF, the rents would be $640 for 2 bedroom units and $740 for 3 bedroom units. These rents are comparable to other similar rental townhomes projects that the City has utilized TIF and tax credits for and the rents would be tied to 60% median income guidelines for a period of 30 years. The developer's total cost estimate for the rental townhome part of the project is $3.3 million. The developer is requesting "pay as you go" TIF assistance in the present value amount of $130,000. Although the rental townhome portion of the Valley Side Estates project has not received funding from the First Homes program, staff feels it is an integral part of the overall Valley Side Estates mixed residential use development, and the amount of TIF assistance / unit is considerably less than some of the recently TIF assisted rental townhome projects. This part of the development would be a "quallified" housing district, and therefore not subject to an LGA / HACA penalty or local contribution. Staff recommends the Council adoption of a resolution of support for the use of the 2001 housing tax credits and consideration of the use of "pay as you go" tax increment financing subject to adoption of a tax increment financing plan after the required public hearing. If the Council is so inclined to consider tax increment financing assistance for the rental townhome project, the staff would prepare an RCA for the July 5, 2000 meeting to schedule a public hearing to consider the establishment of a tax increment financing district and plan. Council Action Requested: Council adoption of a resolution of support for the use of the 2001 housing tax credits and consideration of the use of "pay as you go" tax increment financing for the 28 unit rental townhomes subject to adoption of a tax increment financing plan after the required public hearing. %,uUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: Seoond by: to: VALLEY SIDE ESTATES A MIXED RESIDENTIAL USE HOUSING SUBDIVISION IN ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Parkside Townhomes of Valley Side Rental Townhomes Project Narrative Freedom Development and Consulting LLC, and Podawiltz Development Corporation, would like to present to the City StaffvHRA, City Council, and its Honorable Mayor our proposal for Parkside Townhomes of Valley Side, a twenty-eight (28) unit affordable housing rental townhome project. Parkside Townhomes is legally described as Outlot B of Valley Side Estates preliminary plat containing approximately 3.77 net acres. This parcel within the subdivision abuts the proposed city park to the South, 40s' Avenue Southeast to the West, the newly proposed public roadways of Eagle Drive to the North, and Trumpeter Drive to the East within Valley Side Estates subdivision. The intent after the city and staff approval of the performance residential plan. is to finalize the plat of the land as one parcel under one ownership entity. The project is comprised of twenty-eight (28) townhomes within six (6) buildings. There will be four (4) five (5) plex buildings and two (2) four (4) plex buildings within the R-2 zoning within the subdivision. The townhomes will be a combination of one (1) and two (2) story designs within each building. The majority of the six (6) buildings will have the one-story rambler, two (2) and three (3) bedroom units are on each end of each structure and the two (2) story units within the center area of each building structure. The two- story units are also both two (2) and three (3) bedroom units. The individual units within each building all have attached garages with direct access into each townhomes. The one-story rambler units range in size from 975 square foot for the two (2) bedroom to 1100 square feet for the three (3) bedroom townhomes. The two (2) story units range in size from 1075 square feet for the two (2) bedroom open loft units to 1215 square feet for the three (3) bedroom two (2) bath townhomes. This square footage is for livable space only and doesn't include the garage square footage. Each unit will be fully applianced with electrical ranges, self defrost refrigerators, dishwashers, garbage disposals, electric dryers, and washing machines. All windows throughout each unit will have matching mini -blinds to maintain an exterior continuity within the complex. Each townhomes also has exterior glass -sliding doors exiting to the rear of each home to a private concrete patio. The exterior of the individual townhomes and the four (4) or five (5) plex building structures have maintenance free steel siding and maintenance free vinyl windows with integrated window grilles. All exterior entry doors are raised panel steel cladded with integrated windows or sidelights. The garage doors are also raised panel steel pre finished. The exterior lighting on each townhome garage and on posts throughout the Courtyard pathway system will be HPS (high pressure sodium) for better efficiencv and will be controlled by time clocks and electric eyes. The building and site lighting will be coach like in design and white in color. The entire grounds will be irrigated and be covered with sod or seed in the remote areas. A lighted pathway system runs throughout the complex connecting each home to the equipped playground areas and or the proposed City Park to the south. At least 2.5 parking stalls per unit is proposed. One (1) being within the attached garages and 1.5 stalls surface exterior stalls for tenant and quest parking. There will be only one (1) exit or driveway for the two (2) four (4) plexes exiting directly onto 40t° Avenue Southeast, all other driveways exit onto public roadways within the subdivision and outside of the controlled access onto Eagle Drive. The landscaping will include exterior building perimeter lawn edging and decorative stone with assorted shrubbery. Trees will also be added throughout the open spaces within the complex. The proposed mixture of units will be comprised of eight (8) two (2) bedroom units and twenty (20) three (3) bedroom units. The proposed rents with garages and heat will be approximately $599 for the two (2) bedrooms units and up to a maximum of $699 for the three (3) bedroom two (2) bath units. The density of the project is within compliance of the city's R-2 zoning at only 7.4 units per acre. This rental townhome project is targeted to the affordable middle income tenants of Ohnsted County. This is directed to persons making $24,300.00 for one (1) person to $40,200.00 per household income, depending on size of family. The incomes represent the 60% income bracket of our county. The funding sources for this project comes mainly from privately -bank funded loans and the sale of the tax credits allocated if approved by MHFA (Minnesota Housing Finance Agency). This is similar to other previously approved projects within the City of Rochester. As you already know, GMHF (Greater Minnesota Housing Fund) has already selected our subdivision as a candidate for the affordable housing For Sale First Homes program. One of the main reasons, Mike Brown and Warren Hanson from the Agency liked our subdivision was it focused on not only the for sale units, but also the greatly needed rental affordable housing needs of the Rochester area. Because the Rental Affordable Housing program is tied to receiving a tax credit allocation from 1N1HFA it is inparrative for the city and developer to work closely as to ranking as high as possible to receive not only the city's sub allocation portion of tax credits, but also a needed portion of the states' pool of additional credits. For this reason we are requesting a resolution of support from the city council and HRA that we can submit to MHFA in July for the year 2001 allocation of Tax Credits. In previous years, the City of Rochester in aiding previous tax credit projects used TIF (Tax Increment Financing) up to 20 percent of the Total Developed Costs of other projects. Parkside Townhomes project is also requesting your help financially in the 5q� i form of Pay -As -You -Go TIF plan. which doesn't encumber or Pxnosp 0— c;,, ,,, financially. The targeted affordable housing districts also by state law allow a qualified housing status on the district, which exempts the city from any LGA or HACA penalties. Our request is for a much less amount of TIF reimbursement valued at less than 7 percent of the total value of our project or a present value of $130,121.00. This equals approximately 15 years of only 15,510 of net Tax Increment after the city receives the approximated frozen land value of $500.00 plus an administrative fee of $1,000.00 per year to service the district. The total amount would be $232,650.00 over 15 years. The eligible expenses for TIF are shown on page 6 of the Proforma, lower right comer, as $644.523.00 is approximately 500 percent greater than the present value of the TIF payments. The highest ranking is based on the land contribution, which again is $130,000.00. Therefore, we are requesting a TIF Resolution of support by a land dunativa. Titc intention would be to provide to the city a clear and marketable title for the parcel of land described above, and then which the city can contribute back to the development. The Net Tax Increment will then help to pay for the value of the contributed land with again no exposure or financial risk to the city. This is a win -win situation for both the city and the development because the city is getting a First Homes For Sale development as well as communities that financially participate in Tax Credit projects, MI-IFA ranks the project and community with additional points, therefore, greatly improving the odds of being selected by the agency for the development of affordable rental housing units, which as we all know, is needed and wanted by both the city, GMHF and the Mayo Clinic. We hope you feel in your hearts this development. on this site, is for and has the bettennent of Rochester ":-I mind. Once again timlll_ is Of esseac� i Y iltc .vi[ir applications are next month for the year 2001 allocations of Tax Credits. Thank you very much for your time, consideration and support of our proposal. On Behalf of the Development Team, David D. Bell Freedom Development & Consulting LLC J. Vlicha/ Podaw tz PodaW'I& Development Corporation Arl-lb-ec JU .-U II:Vd A, YI:U4WI..'4 Uty 'fll, riU. oz.e000ieu Ud F�zorn GF�RTF'.-71M 1hIG.FiJND PatONE ty7. 651 2211934 sun. 15 2M 09t43fr1 P13goT GREAT1;R MINNtSUTA HOUSING FUND ® 332 r frneinla 5t,eee. Smte 1310fmt swt vas, MI rw&'.la 55*i 651-22i 199.' June i5, 2000 r>}t*rszsa Fu 65t•r21-t9pr Michael Podawiltz q rn asm rm Podawiltz 17welopment Company St. Cloud MN 56301 Re; LfHTC Devdoptmeei Prajut Rochester, Minnesota SENT BV FAC$j 320-255-5t_Z� Dear W. Podawiltzr This letter is written in response to your request for a letter of interest regarding the proposed Low Income Housing Tax Coedit development to be built adjacent to the Valley View Estates subdivision in southwest Rochester. The Cheater Minnesota Housing Fund is committed to providing development capital im the form of permanent flap financing to cmbence the affordability of housing for working familios with limited incomes in communities throughout Greater Minnesota. There are, without doubt, urgent needs for affordable rental housing in the Rochester area market and your proposed dcveloPinent would help meet pent-up demand for affordable units. The Crreater viirmcsota'Housiug Fund, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Rochestcr sma First Homes initiative - as well as the City of Rochester - will all proaida 6naacial assistiulce to the single-family subdivision portion of Valley Vicw Estates. AS such, our agency is both familiar with and supportive of the overall development plan. The addition of on -site rental units would add housing altertl4 ivas for households with incomes too low to quali15' for purchase of the singic-family homes. As a source of gap finaocing, ON funds arc typieelly the "Iasi monoy in". Fur this reason, we cannot commit our Ands until there is a commitment for the other debt and equity financing for the project, GMHF stands willing to consider participating in the financing of the project once other funding commitments have beet mado to the project Good luck with your project. Y' V' anon on Presidanc 3q8 3 � F � i 'a • • 5 j is E 1 yy. s 6 dl' E'ad n �jtp 4 sss (SL r_ � f ipsle sna�w REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3tid 1-16119(00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS and RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works DESCRIPTION: Traffic Signal Agreement with Olmsted County at CSAH 22 and PREPARED BY: TH 52 West Frontage Road j C R. Freese 1[ The intersection of CSAH 22 (West Circle Drive) and the TH 52 West Frontage Road meets the warrants for a traffic signal. On May 23, 2000, the Olmsted County Board and the City Council met to discuss the signal justification and schedule for installation. Traffic volumes and accompanying delays have increased at this unsignalized intersection. Several new businesses have openned in the Northwest Plaza in the last year. Wal Mart has received approval from the City Council to enlarge the store in the Northwest Plaza by approximately 100,000 square feet in size this year. The north leg of this intersection is Clearwater Road and serves the Harborage Subdivision. The Harborage Subdivision Plat approved by the City Council provides a dedicated public right-of-way for an extension of Villa Road to connect to the adjacent 55' Street Estates Subdivision. This connection between the two subdivisions was never constructed by the subdivision developer. The plan for West Circle Drive reflects this connection as a part of the overall traffic management and circulation plan for the residential zoned land north of CSAH 22 and 55'" Street NW. County and City staff have discussed this situation for many years and recently reached a compromise solution that was presented to the joint County Board and City Council meeting on May 23, 2000. The compromise proposed would provide for the County's approval to immediately proceed with the installation of the warranted traffic signal at CSAH 22 and the TH 52 West Frontage Road intersection this year in exchange for the City agreeing to construct the Villa Road connection between the Harborage and 55' Street Estates Subdivisions by September 2005. If the Villa Road connection is not constructed by September 2005, then the County is authorized to proceed with the construction of the Villa Road connection and have the City pay the actual cost for engineering and construction. This same compromise was introduced to the County Board on June 13, 2000. The County Board amended the County staff recommendation and on a 7-0 vote approved the Traffic Signal Agreement with the completion date for the connection of Villa Road being September 2001. The September 2001 date is not realistic for several reasons. The first reason is the fact that the 55t" Street Estates subdivision is not in the City and the timeline for annexation of the subdivision has not been discussed with Cascade Township. The second reason is that funding for the next several years for street maintenance projects and reconstruction projects will fall short of existing and projected needs. The construction of this new segment of roadway would mean that a series of existing City street projects would need to be delayed over the next 5 years. City staff was in agreement with the 2005 timeline because it allowed the City to work with Cascade Township on the annexation issue and it would also allow some additional time to schedule that project in the City's Street Program Budget. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Traffic Signal Agreement with Olmsted County for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of CSAH 22 and the TH 52 West Frontage Road and for the construction of the extension of Villa Road between Chateau Road and Longboat Road by September 2005. AM 4 & / ,-.W. « WJ �, taA✓L COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 06/08/00 11:23 FAX 507 287 2320 OLKSTE GO. PUBLIC WORKS -+ CITY PUB WORKS 9 002/002 Jaw 0 REQUEST FOR COUNTY BOARD ACTION AGENDA DATE: June 13, 2000 ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: Michael Cousino, Public Works Director STATE ITEM OF BUSINESS WITH BRIEF ANALYSIS AND ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNTY BOARD: Traffic Signal Agreement with City of Rochester at CSAH 22 & West Frontage Road of T.H. 52 The intersection of CSAH 22 (West Circle Drive) and the West Frontage Road of T.H. 52 meets the warrant for a traffic signal. On May 23, 2000, the Rochester City Council and County Board met to discuss the signal 'justification and schedule for installation. Schedule: Complete Construction Plans & Specification June 23 County Review June 30 Send Plans to Mn/Dot for Review & Approval July 7 Mn/DOT Review & Approval July 7 — August 25 Approval to Advertise for Bids August 21 Order Poles & Mast Arms August 21 Bid Opening September 13 Council Award September 18 Construction Starts September 25 Construction Completion November 15 The -north leg of the intersection is a city street, Clearwater Road. The local street system north of CSAH 22 had planned for but did not construct a street segment to serve and connect subdivisions and provide access for emergency vehicles. The Villa Road Street segment between Chateau Road and Longboat Road shall be constructed by the City by September, 2005, If the street is not constructed by that date, the County is authorized to proceed with the street construction and have the city pay for the actual engineering and construction costs. Board Action Requested Board approval of intergovernmental agreement between Olmsted County and the City of Rochester to install traffic signals at the intersection of CSAH 22 and West Frontage Road of T.H. 52 and to construct Villa Road between Chateau Road and Longboat Road by September 2005. V0adm4n\Trarflc Signal Agree - Ruch FORM #1535-38 REVIEWED WITH ADDITIONAL MATERIAL PROVIDED: County Administrator REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/19/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 46 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR r � 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY1and AGREEMENT WITH WESTERN WALLS AND LECESSE DEVELOPMENT G. NEUMANN The City is currently in litigation with Western Walls to secure ownership of the 300-foot strip of lakesh on the south side of Cascade Lake for future recreational development by the City. During the process of preparing for the court case, Western Walls received an offer to purchase and develop this property from the Lecesse Development Corporation of Florida. Their plans were to utilize the land for the construction of a rental townhome project of approximately 380 units. In order to resolve the pending lawsuit to permit their development to proceed, they offered to dedicate a 50-foot strip of lakeshore land to the City to resolve the condemnation action. From the City's perspective, the fifty feet was not going to provide a sufficient lakeshore corridor. However, as a result of this opportunity to have discussions concerning the development of this property, other avenues were explored to provide Lecesse with a sufficient amount of land to undertake their proposed development while still providing the City with a wider corridor along the shoreline for the major recreational development that is contemplated in this area. The key to addressing the concerns of both Lecesse and the City was the adjacent soccer field lands of approximately 10 acres in size. Park and Recreation department officials agreed that these facilities could be replaced at other locations such as the new soccer complex being created at the UCR, if this would lead to the development of a wider recreational lake shore corridor on the south side of Cascade Lake. In addition, Lecesse needs access to 23 d Avenue which is provided by the land trade of the soccer field lands in order to have two accesses as required under the LDM. In the final result, the agreement reflects that the City agrees to trade the soccer field lands to Lecesse in return for an additional 100 feet of width for the lakeshore corridor, for a total corridor of 150 feet, and reserving a net buildable area of 1.75 acres on the west side of the Western Walls property to the City for the potential relocation of Fire Station No. 3. In essence, the City receives approximately 8 acres in land from the transaction in the form of 5.3 acres of additional lakeshore, 1.75 acres for the fire station site and 1 acre for the future extension of 23`d Avenue, in comparison to the 10 acres of soccer field area that is transferred to Lecesse. There are two agreements involved. A settlement agreement between Western Walls and the City and a development agreement between Lecesse Development, Western Walls and the City. There are several contingencies to the development agreement under which the transaction would not be able to be completed unless the contingencies are satisfied. The main items in the agreements are as follows: 1. Settlement Agreement - the litigation is dismissed if the transaction is completed. - Western Walls conveys the entire developable property to the City for the payment of $3.21 million and payment of deed tax. - City reimburses Western Walls for $87,500 in legal and appraisal costs. - City allows Western Walls to complete the mining of the lake bed adjacent to the 150 foot corridor during the term of Western Walls mining permit plus any extensions that night be granted. No mining in the 150 foot corridor. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: RCA Western Walls Settlement Agreement pagetwo 2. Development Agreement - Lecesse provides payment of $3.21 million to the City for the developable area minus the 150-Lakeshore corridor to be retained by the City - Lecesse agrees to enter into owner contract for the project. - Lecesse agrees to storm water requirements - Lecesse agrees to dedicate right of way for 23rd Avenue extension. - Lecesse agrees to WAC and SAC provisions. - Lecesse agrees to provide turn lanes from 2"d St. - Lecesse agrees to access control where required - Lecesse agrees to its share ($20,000) for existing traffic improvements at 23`d Avenue - Lecesse agrees to pay a share of 23rd Ave. extension costs if they utilize access. - Lecesse agrees to install pedestrian facilities. - Lecesse agrees to pay parkland dedication fees. - Lecesse agrees to dedicate 50 feet wide lakeshore corridor and receive parkland dedication - Lecesse agrees to convey an additional 100-foot wide corridor. - Lecesse agrees to provide a net buildable 1.75 acre site for the potential relocation of Fire Station No. 3. The City has 18 months to reach a decision on the relocation after which Lecesse can obtain this site by payment of $105,000 to the City. - Lecesse and the City jointly agree to prepare a landscape plan for the 150 corridor plus 25 feet on the Lecesse property side. - Lecesse indicates its intention to apply for B-5 zoning on a 2.0 acre parcel at the intersection of 23`d Ave. and 2"d St. - City agrees to transfer the soccer field site to Lecesse. - City agrees to involve Lecesse in the review of the Fire Station exterior and landscaping. - City agrees to grant a revocable permit to allow the construction of a dock and gazebo on the lakeshore and boat storage area. The following contingencies need to be satisfied in order for the transaction to be completed: - Lecesse obtaining approval of the rezoning, EAW, and site plan approval. - Shoreline ordinances not being applicable. - City acquiring property from Western Walls by virtue of the settlement agreement. Staff believes that this settlement and agreement is beneficial to all parties involved. It provides funding to Western Walls for the land acquisition. It allows Lecesse to undertake a quality rental townhome development on the buildable property. It provides 4 r ri RCA Western Walls Settlement Agreement page three a 150 corridor along the lakeshore for all future generations to create a corridor similar to Silver Lake on the south side of Cascade Lake. It provides a site further to the west for the City to relocate Fire Station #3 to provide improved fire response times to outlying areas and better positioning of stations. The out of pocket cost to the City is only for the agreed upon litigation costs of Western Walls and for the lake bottom area. The loss of the soccer field land area is more than made up for by the creation of the 150-foot lakeshore corridor. Approval is recommended. Council Action Requested Approval of the settlement agreement with Western Walls and the agreement with �kpf Lecesse and Western Walls, conditioned upon the specific documents reflecting these terms of the agreement as determined by the City Attorney and City Administrator's offices. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 S I DATE: 6/19/2000 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G Y EM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ADKINS G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). Q a) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property from the R-1 District to the R-2 District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located South of 60"' Street Southwest West of Highway 63. b) An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Chapter 45B of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Regulation of Parks and Parkways in the City of Rochester, and Repealing chapter 45 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. 7 � c) An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Chapter 48 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Regulation of Tall Grass and Weeds, and Repealing Sections 72.07, 72.08 and 72.09 of the • Rochester Code of Ordinances. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS OUNCIL ACTION: Modonby: second by: to: