HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA 0 �
COUNCILlBOARD CHAMBERS
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 13 WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2000
REGULAR 7:00 P.M.
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
(3-6)
1)
Petition for Street Reconstruction/19"' Avenue NW
(7-12)
2)
Petition to Remove 'Island Curbing" at Intersection of 26t" St. NE and
Viola Heights Drive NE and Installation of Stop Sign on 26t' St. NE
(13-14)
D)
CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
(15-22)
2)
Request for Funding/215t Century Partnership
(23-26)
3)
Subordination Agreement with IBM Credit for PEMSTAR Project
(27-28)
4)
Request to Extend Present Fire Service Contract with Surrounding
Townships
(29-30)
5)
Agreement with Habitat for Humanity for HUD $$Home Program
(31-32)
6)
Revocable PermMandscaping Materials Located within Public Right -
of -Way at 215 - 12t' Street NW
(33-34)
7)
Request to Set Public Hearing for Establishment of Tax Increment
Financing in Valley Side Estates Subdivision
(35-36)
8)
Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts to Prepare
"Record" Drawings & Other Required Information for Airport Sub. #1
(37-38)
9)
Amend Professional Services Agreement with ACSG/McGhie & Betts
for 2,100 Ft. Extension to Runway 02/20 to Include Apron Fill-in Work
(39-40)
10)
Professional Services Agreement with ACSG to Prepare New PFC
Application
(41-42)
11)
Landlord Estoppel and Agreement
(43-44)
12)
Change Order #2 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for Terminal Building
Improvements
(45-46)
13)
State Aid Agreement for Airport Advertising and Promotion
(47-48)
14)
Revision to City Curfew Ordinance
(49-50)
15)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
Council Agenda
Wednesday, July 5, 2000
Page 2
(51-52) 16)
(53-54)
17)
(55-56)
18)
(57-58)
19)
(59-60)
20)
(61-62) 21)
(63-70)
(71-74)
(75-78)
(79-80)
(81-84)
(85-86)
(87-88)
(89-90)
(91-92)
(93-94)
(95-96)
(97-98)
(99-100)
(101-102)
(103-104)
22)
23)
24)
25)
25)
27)
28)
29)
W
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
(105-106) 37)
(107-108) 38)
(109-110) 39)
E) HEARINGS
Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses and Bowling License
for Colonial Lanes
Transfer of 3.2 Beer License from New Magic Wok to Asia Restaurant
Amend RCO 138.05/Residential Parking Permit
Approval of Accounts Payable
Issuance of $10,458,673 Taxable General Obligation Sales Tax
Revenue Bond of 2000
Authorizing Professional Services Agreement w/Government Finance
Officers Assoc. for Contract Negotiations Relating to Enterprise
Systems Software and Implementation Services
Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department
Appointment/Firefighter/Fire Department
Appointment/Firefighter/Fire Department
Quarry Hill Park/Postier Property Acquisition
Modify Conditions for Final Plat Lincolnshire North Third Subdivision
Approval to Enter into State of Minnesota Operation NightCAP Grant
MnDOT/City Cost Share Agreement for Improvements to 415t St. NW
Development Agreement/Kingsbury Hills Development/Bigelow
Enterprises
Development Agreement/Bandel North Development/Bandel North
Development LLC
Development Agreement/Crown Subdivision/Theel Property
Development Agreement/Phone Station Subdivision/Butch
SwarhlCity Auto Glass Property
Stormwater Management Agreements
Award of Contract/Intersection Improvements and Signal System at
415t Street NW and W. Frontage Road
Award of Contract/Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation
Advertise for Bids/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills
Court NE from Northern Hills Drive NE, West to Cul-De-Sac
Passenger/Commodity Loading Zone for Lourdes High School
Permit Parking Petition from Edison Neighborhood
Change Order on ZIPS Bus Purchase
(111-114) 1) Continued Hearing/Permit Parking Petition from Kutzky Addition
Neighborhood
(115-152) 2) Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit by
Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz to Allow Development of Recreational
Vehicle Park with 53 Sites for Vehicles, a Manager's & Asst.
Manager's Unit, and Office/Bath House Facility
Council Agenda
Wednesday, July 5, 2000
Page 3
(153-166) 3)
Final Plat to be Known as Bendel North First
(167-176) 4)
Final Plat to be Known as Circle 19 Plaza
(177-184) 5)
Final Plat to be Known as Phone Station First
(185-190) 6)
Vacation Petition by Rodney Younge to Vacate Portion of Platted
Watermain Utility Easement on Lots 1, 2, 3, Blk 1 & Lot 1, Blk 4,
Eagle Ridge 4t' Sub. & 4"' St. SW, Aspen Place SW & Eagle Ln. SW
(191-196) 7)
Vacation Petition by City of Rochester to Vacate Platted Right -of -Way
for 15°i Avenue SE Adjacent to Lot 1, Block 9 and Lot 6, Block 5 and
Recreation Areas of Homestead Trails First Replat
(197-204) 8)
Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Meryl Groteboer to Annex 60
Acres Along West Side of 18"' Avenue SW, North of 40t' Street NW,
Across from 36t' Street SW
(205-210) 9)
Request to Expand Residential Permit Parking Zone 2 onto 15t'
Avenue SW; 200,300 and 400 Blocks
(211-212) 10)
Hearing for Charter Amendment by Ordinance/Repeal Section 11.05
of Charter Concerning Election Requirements for Development
Projects
(213-214) 11)
Hearing for Charter Amendment by Ordinance/Ordinance Adoption
Procedure During Declared Emergency Disaster
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(215-216) 1) City Administrator- Request to Initiate Annexation of 100%
Surrounded Properties in Cascade Township
(217-220) 2) City Administrator- Memorandum of Understanding Concerning
Certain County Road Improvements and Costs
(221-234) 3) City Administrator- Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related
to General Development Plan #151 (40"' St SW)
(235-246) 4) City Administrator- Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related
to Appeal of Variance Request #00-09
(247-248) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD I CITY ADMINISTRATOR
i i cdl DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
IT NO.
A
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.
uuUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 3
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Letters and Petitions
City Clerk
C
i i cm DESCRIPTION: Petition for Street Reconstruction - 19th Avenue N.W.
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
A petition has been received from the residents on 17 Viand 18111 Streets and 19ei
Avenue N.W.
requesting the City to have 19t' Avenue N.W., between 19s` Street and Valley High Drive,
repaired and upgraded due to deterioration of the surface of the roadway.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition for street reconstruction on 19s'
Avenue N.W. to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study.
4.uJNCIL ACTION: Motion by:fi/ OrynC Second by: /v to:
_ rd.
i
PETITION TO HAVE REPAIR AND UPGRADE TO 19th AVENUE NW
BETWEEN 19th STREET NW AND VALLEY HIGH DRIVE.
Due to heavy traffic flow, 19th Avenue Northwest is deteriorating and is in need
of repair. There are a number of potholes developing and the avenue is degrading
rapidly.
We the undersigned would like to see the following done to 19th Ave NW:
1) Resurfaced between 19th Street NW and Valley High Drive.
2) Curb and gutter installed on same.
Per City Engineer Doug Nelsonoe cost to have this done will be:
A) For those lots bordering 19th Ave which have had the street past the
residence resurfaced, plus curb and gutter installed, the first 1201'
feet will be free. Anything over 120 lineal feet would be assesse $15.00 �w P
per lineal foot. (This includes installation of a concrete drive appro
between 19th Ave and the sidewalk, if required.)
B) For those lots bordering 19th Ave which have not had the street
resurfaced or curb and gutter installed past the residence, the cost will be:
a) $15.00 per lineal foot for the short side of the lot if it fronts 19th Ave.
OR
b) If the long side of the lot fronts 19th Ave, the assessment will be
based on the short side of the lot plus the long side in excess of 120
lineal feet. (This cost includes installation of a concrete drive
approach between 19th Ave and the sidewalk, if required.)
When, in the future, the street past the residence is upgraded, $15.00
per lineal foot (up to 120 lineal feet) will be deducted from the cost
of the street upgrade. There will not be a double charge for both
the avenue and street upgrades.
NAME ADDRESS
41, 7T-�� � zl�66 /7 % '120` iI' C,-/,
ST 106)
yvz� - //zr"� . ��
NAME ADDRESS
1!_ L
lob - 1�i1F N.W.
/603//go7 /y-//)U-e V 0
l$G0 l A ,,�T A1.. Ltd .
>/S 1,71, Ale Ivit)
�brA ITT"' A\Ji N.W.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 1107
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Letters and Petitions
City Clerk
C .Wx
I i cm DESCRIPTION: Petition to Remove "Island Curbing" at Intersection of 26th Street N.E.
PREPARED BY:
and Viola Heights Drive N.E.and Installation of a Stop Sign on 26th Street N.E.
Judy Scherr
A petition has been received form the residents of Northern Heights Townhomes North to remove
the "island curbing" at the intersection of 26`h Street N.E. and Vila Heights Drive N.E., returning
26th Street N.E. to a two-way street, and to place a stop sign at 26th Street N.E.
The residents outlined their concerns in a letter addressed to the Public Works Department dated
June 20, 2000
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to refer the petition to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study.
UjuNCIL ACTION: Motion by: / Second by: to:�R� "
June 20, 2000
Doug Nelson, Assistant City Engineer
Department of Public Works
201 - 4" Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Mr. Nelson:
The residents of Northern Heights Townhomes North request the City of Rochester to consider removal
of the "island curbing' located at the intersection of 26 ° Street NE and Viola Heights Drive NE,
returning 26 s Street NE to a two-way street.
26th Street is wide enough for a two-way street with ample parking on the north and south sides, if
allowed. However, currently the street narrows to one lane at this intersection. This narrowing, caused
by the "island curbing" does not allow for entry from Viola Heights Drive NE to 26th Street NE. Please
note that there is a sign indicating Do Not Enter.
We request the (1) removal of the "island curbing' at the intersection of 26's Street NE and Viola
Heights Drive NE and (2) that a stop sign be placed on 26* Street NE for those entering onto Viola
Heights Drive NE, because:
1. The number of residences and vehicles has grown considerably in the past year on Viola Heights
Drive NE, thus creating more traffic. 26'" Street NE is the only exit off of Viola Heights Drive NE onto
County 22, unless the traveler goes to Viola Road. Please note that even casual attention to the driving
habits of individuals on Viola Heights Drive NE indicates that most residents are exiting off Viola
Heights Drive to 26" Street, even though there is a Do Not Enter sign.
2. We have many children in the area. The increased traffic on Viola Heights Drive NE, and their
respective speeds, is putting the children and adult residents at risk.
3. We believe it would advantageous and efficient to allow traffic to enter and exit from Viola Heights
Drive NE to 26"' Street NE.
Below are signatures of the residents in this area who would appreciate your consideration of this request
and removal of the curbing.
Thank you for your assistance. We look forward to hearing from you on this matter very soon. If you
have any questions concerning this request, please contact: LaVeme or Reva Ann Stuve, 2646 Viola
Heights Drive NE, Rochester, MN 55906.
Cc: Mack Evans
NAMES
cj
42
2 c -�
A
n
dolq Vjb1q O'�-s Dr, �)F`
6 j icl �Q
fib' 8 (, i olci-
4101
CY, Y&2,6� �
0
1,
f
h
t.
I
((
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 13
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D-1-39
maid DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVAL
OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
G. NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers
an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent
agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
D-1.
Approval of Minutes
— D-2.
Request for Funding/2I" Century Partnership
D-3.
Subordination Agreement with IBM Credit for PEMSTAR Project
D-4.
Request to Extend Present Fire Service Contract with Surrounding Townships
D-5.
Agreement with Habitat for Humanity for HUD $$Home Program
D-6.
Revocable Permit/Landscaping Materials Located within Public Right -of -Way at 215 - 12'b Street NW
D-7.
Request to Set Public Hearing for Establishment of Tax Increment Financing in Valley Side Estates Sub.
D-8.
Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts to Prepare 'Record" Drawings & Other Required
Information for Airport Sub. #1
D-9.
Amend Professional Services Agreement with ACSG/McGhie & Betts for 2,100 Ft. Extension to
Runway 02/20 to Include Apron Fill-in Work
D-10.
Professional Services Agreement with ACSG to Prepare New PFC Application
D-11.
Landlord Estoppel and Agreement
D-12.
Change Order #2 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for Terminal Building Improvements
D-13.
State Aid Agreement for Airport Advertising and Promotion
D-14.
Revision to City Curfew Ordinance
D-15.
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-16.
Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses and Bowling License for Colonial Lanes
D-17.
Transfer of 3.2 Beer License from New Magic Wok to Asia Restaurant
D-18.
Amend RCO 138.05/Residential Parking Permit
D-19.
Approval of Accounts Payable
-- D-20.
Issuance of $10,458,673 Taxable General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bond of 2000
D-21.
Authorizing Professional Services Agreement w/Government Finance Officers Assoc. for Contract
Negotiations Relating to Enterprise Systems Software and Implementation Services
D-22.
Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department
D-23.
Appointment/Firefighter/Fire Department
D-24.
Appointment/Firefighter/Fire Department
D-25.
Quarry Hill Park/Postier Property Acquisition
D-26.
Modify Conditions for Final Plat Lincolnshire North Third Subdivision
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to:
Request for Council Action
Approval of Consent Agenda Items
July 5, 2000
Page 2
D-27. Approval to Enter into State of Minnesota Operation NightCAP Grant
D-28. MnDOT/City Cost Share Agreement for Improvements to 41" St. NW
D-29, Development Agreement/Kingsbury Hills Development/Bigelow Enterprises
D-30. Development Agreement/Bandel North Development/Bandel North Development LLC
D-31. Development Agreement/Crown Subdivision/Theel Property
D-32. Development Agreement/Phone Station Subdivision/Butch Swartz/City Auto Glass Property
D-33. Stormwater Management Agreements
,D-34. Award of Contract/Intersection Improvements and Signal System at 41" Street NW and W. Frontage Road
D-35. Award of Contract/Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation
D-36. Advertise for Bids/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills Court NE from Northern Hills
Drive NE, West to Cul-De-Sac
D-37. Passenger/Commodity Loading Zone for Lourdes High School
D-38. Permit Parking Petition from Edison Neighborhood
D-39. Change Order on ZIPS Bus Purchase
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING iS
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D --CZ
ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR FUNDING/21ST CENTURY PARTNERSHIP
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
The 21" Century Partnership Executive Committee is recommending the employment of an individual to pursue
the implementation of the recommendations developed by the seven task forces of the 21" Century Partnership
(see attached).
The City of Rochester is being requested to provide $10,000 of the needed funding for the recommended
position. Olmsted County has approved funding in the amount of $10,000. The requested position would only
be authorized for a one year period.
It has been proposed that the position be supervised by the City and County departments of Administration and
that the individual retained for the position would be housed in the County Courthouse or City Hall.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion approving the requested funding and transferring $10,000 from the 2000 Contingency
Account to assist in the funding of the position.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: semnd brA n MeY to:__
(/
- 7-0
2Is' Century Partnership
Developing a vision and a long range plan for our community's future
May 17, 2000
Mr. Chuck Canfield, Mayor
City of Rochester
201 4`h Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Mayor Canfield:
The 21" Century Partnership Executive Committee has determined that continued
progress on implementation of the recommendations of the seven task forces requires a
dedicated staff position. The original strategy of relying on the Rochester Planning
Department for coordination has proved unworkable. There are significant other demands
on the Planning Department's workload, with dramatic increases in development activity,
new efforts related to affordable housing, and activities related to the DM&E railroad
proposal, among others. In addition, many of the task force recommendations cover areas
of community life that are not part of Planning's purview.
In order to fund the proposed position, the Executive Committee is approaching City and
County government, School District 535, the Chamber of Commerce, and area major
employers for funding to create a temporary position to be shared between City and
County Departments of Administration. The Executive Committee is proposing a full-
time position for a period of one year. The total cost of the position, including benefits, is
estimated at $51,150.
The attachment reviews the Partnership implementation strategies, their current status,
significant responsible parties, and the role of the coordinator as it is currently
envisioned. As the table indicates, there is a significant amount of work that is going on.
However, a significant amount of work also remains. In order to continue the momentum
the community has begun, we need to ensure adequate staff to coordinate the
community's efforts. The City of Rochester's past support, in terms of funding, staff
support, and the initiative and leadership of City elected officials, has been key to the
success of the Partnership process so far. Please consider supporting this proposal with an
additional contribution of $10,000,
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Hirman, Chair
21" Century Partnership Steering Committee
11
KEY ACTIVITIES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATOR
➢ Complete and advertise the 21st Century Partnership Web Site (monitoring
implementation and effectiveness) and the Diversity Plan Web Site and turn over
maintenance to a permanent community organization.
➢ Support the efforts of the Criminal Justice Forum and push for full implementation of
the Crime Task Force recommendations.
➢ Work with area diversity organizations, elected bodies, and organizations serving
minority communities to ensure full implementation of the Diversity Task Force
recommendations related to community education, neighborhood housing
integration, and job training and support.
➢ Work with area housing initiatives on community education regarding affordable
housing.
➢ Work with economic development and utility interests to involve the community in
preparing for utility deregulation issues.
➢ Follow upon other task force recommendations to make sure that key
recommendations are being followed through.
KEY ATTRIBUTES AND SKILLS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATOR
➢ Familiarity with the community strategic planning process leading to the 21 sc Century
Partnership task force recommendations.
➢ Ability to work toward consensus with individuals representing diverse points of view;
excellent `people skills."
➢ Ability to organize and coordinate the work of volunteers and others with sporadic
involvement in Partnership activities.
➢ Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing.
➢ Ability to assemble and analyze materials from diverse sources and to document
clear and effective information assimilating those sources.
FULL DESCRIPTION OF TASK FORCE STATUS AND COORDINATOR ACTIVITIES
IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
STATUS*
COORDINATOR
ROLE**
OTHER PARTIES
Diversity Plan
Adoption/endorsement of the
The plan and
Oversee adoption
Human Rights
Diversity Plan by area governing
web site have
efforts. Publish
Commission for
bodies and community
been developed
text version of
policy and current
organizations. Complete the
and temporarily
Plan. Carry out
effort updates;
diversity plan web site in its
located.
publicity activities
Rochester Olmsted
permanent location, and promote
Planning for
it. Update it periodically
demographic data
especially with diversity policies
and other indicator
from area organizations and
updates
employers
=
x.„,. r ✓ it a.
x,-. t u'.p„
,. aFy z' 'z.. a,r
Complete web site in a permanent
The web site is
Complete web site,
Implementing
location, and promote it. Update it
in incomplete
assemble measures
agencies for status of
periodically with status of
draft form.
of effort and
efforts; various
implementation. Collect
effectiveness, and
community and
indicators of effectiveness and
set up a system for
outside agencies for
update web site periodically.
ongoing
status of indicators
maintenance.
s>i a,; • t
�Cr'iine,Tdskorc�, "..._�
'3q' {"
ssa�
'T
..
r
�w
".t
ski •r ^"o- "s q� °rt�j'
MOO
}.. " d: r"''",w+" .
Synthesize crime data;
The Criminal
Ensure that
Criminal Justice
communicate it to the public;
Justice Forum
initiatives are
Forum members and
update the 1994 survey of public
has been
followed through;
County _
perceptions of security; and
formed and has
evaluate effort and
Administration
develop a coordinated community
begun its work.
effectiveness.
plan to address crime issues.
General community education;
K-12 education
Identify entities
The Diversity
employer education; targeted
underway; also
interested in taking
Council, the Human
education efforts for real estate
employer and
on the targeted
Rights Commission,
professionals, landlords, and
neighborhood
education efforts;
and others.
service establishments.
efforts
evaluate effort and
beginning.
effectiveness.
Integrate housing and
Planning Dept.
Identify entities
Planning
neighborhoods by income class
has met with
interested in taking
Department,
and race.
area builders
on neighborhood
Housing Council
and realtors on
education aspects;
and member entities,
ordinance and
lend support to
area local
incentive
integration efforts;
governments.
approaches.
evaluate effort and
effectiveness.
Work force issues such as
Current
Find implementors
CCRR; Rochester
internships and mentorshi s,
initiatives too
I for any neglected
City Lines; PIC;
11
IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
STATUS*
COORDINATOR
OTHER PARTIES
ROLE**
childcare, and transportation
numerous to list
initiatives and
IMAA; and many
issues.
evaluate effort and
others.
effectiveness
Discrimination relief
HRC mediation
No role.
No other parties.
Increase minority representation
Status unknown
Promote the need
Civic organization
in civic organizations.
for and evaluate
boards.
effort and
e ectiveness.
Eduat}on and kYorkrl�`iarcex
.k'N.[^Rh
€
N
�"flu•�ti" � �-��e��;�,#
Readiness,aasr-t! e . n
Community planning and
Status unknown
Assist in
Originally assigned
investment in information and
identifying a
to Rochester Cable
communication technology
responsible party;
Advisory Committee
evaluate effort and
effectiveness
Technology related work force
RCTC is
Evaluate effort and
RCTC and school
preparation and training
working with
effectiveness-
districts; area
initiatives
area businesses
minimal need for
businesses
to develop
direct involvement
special training
programs
K-12 graduation standards and
Grad standards
Evaluate effort and
RCTC and school
work readiness recommendations
being
effectiveness-
districts; area
implemented.
minimal need for
businesses
direct involvement
UCR initiatives
Master planning
Evaluate effort and
UCR; GRAUC
underway
effectiveness -
minimal need for
direct involvement
Reduce barriers to educational
Several efforts
Evaluate effort and
Childcare Resource
opportunities (accessible
underway
effectiveness-
and Referral;
transportation and childcare);
including adult
minimal need for
Chamber of
provide English language
basic education,
direct involvement
Commerce; UCR;
training.
childcare, and
Community
transit service
Education;
enhancements.
Rochester City Lines
Affordable housing initiatives
First homes
Assist with
Housing Council,
program
community
builders, employers
underway; HRA
education and
neighborhoods,
& CHP funding
evaluate effort and
Rochester Area
expanded
effectiveness
Foundation,
Chamber of
IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
STATUS*
COORDINATOR
ROLE**
OTHER PARTIES
Commerce
Transportation infrastructure
Airport Master
Evaluate effort and
ROCOG and area
Plan complete;
effectiveness-
road and transit
efforts
minimal need for
authorities; airport.
underway for
direct involvement
added funding
for US 52.
Community strategy for utility
Draft plan
Evaluate effort and
RPU and other area
deregulation
completed.
effectiveness;
utilities; local
encourage
governments;
completion and
Chamber of
community
Commerce
involvement
RAEDI and local regulatory
RAEDI
Evaluate effort and
RAEDI; local
environment for business
strategic plan
effectiveness-
regulatory
updated.
minimal need for
authorities.
direct involvement
Availability of business data
Land use and
Evaluate effort and
RAEDI; Planning
employment
effectiveness -
Department
data up to date
minimal need for
and tracking
direct involvement
s stem in place.
iibo"rha'ods�ttsktsrce
l;:`'
.>
Increase participation in
Number of
Track levels of
Extension Service,
neighborhood organizations
neighborhood
participation
City of Rochester,
organizations is
United Way
increasing.
Increase community involvement
Leadership
Track levels of
Extension Service,
and awareness on the part of
training
community
City of Rochester,
neighborhood organization
completed
involvement;
United Way
members
evaluate effort and
effectiveness
Enhance neighborhood role in
Rochester Land
Monitor
Area units of local
local decision making
Development
neighborhood role
government.
Manual
in local decisions
amended to
include
neighborhood
meetings.
r ltlti} t
�O
_ y
5'
Ir.Y..
fi
Aye 4i.Yg, "H1K`1'law„'
y,,,k
it vb i q✓fi' Fi b ,.M`t .v�'.. Ru1I
s+
x. YK' e 1
yw, }MyS!{,
Y .Ct IkjY �� �i
Evaluate effort and
� �..e �
ROCOG; Olmsted
Improve information and
ROCOG and
planning for rural infrastructure
County Public
effectiveness-
County Public
A
IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
STATUS*
COORDINATOR
ROLE**
OTHER PARTIES
Works have
minimal need for
Works; small cities
prepared 20
direct involvement
and townships.
year road
program;
several cities
have recently
completed or
are now
updating water
and sewer
plans.
Improve access to planning and
Planning
Evaluate effort and
Rochester Olmsted
economic development
Department
effectiveness-
Planning
information on the part of small
working on
minimal need for
Department;
cities and townships
proposal for
direct involvement
RAEDI; agencies
GIS server and
that maintain real
Internet access
property data and
to planning data
economic data.
Improve coordination among
Coordination
No role at this
Area units of local
entities involved in and affected
efforts still
time.
government.
by local infrastructure and land
derailed.
use planning specifically and
local governance
Carry out water quality protection
Sewer extension
Promote the need
City of Rochester;
program, particularly including
to address
for and evaluate
area units of local
restructuring of the
septic problems
effort and
government;
Environmental Commission
proceeding; no
effectiveness
Olmsted County.
other proaress.
Implement feedlot committee
Implementation
Evaluate effort and
Extension Service
recommendations.
underway
effectiveness-
(lead); other local
minimal need for
land use agencies.
direct involvement
Support agriculture and ag-related
Land use
Evaluate effort and
Extension Service
industries with land use
protections in
effectiveness-
(lead); other local
protections and sensible
place; status of
minimal need for
land use agencies.
regulation, infrastructure, and
other unknown.
direct involvement
training proams.
lug
YY ",^
`
RW' IRA
l c'.,"'�Fi�' Wfl
:i'iC rte a.
%;J ,�,-: vs
v'
'�-,..i3'+?6"r_..<,d..
rt
Y, .a,
is
Adopt "family -friendly" policies
Status unknown
Identify entity to
Chamber of
and opportunities for full
promote concepts;
Commerce; RAEDI
employment at the training level
evaluate effort and
effectiveness
Improve transit availabilit off
Commuter lines
Evaluate effort and
Rochester City
IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
STATUS*
COORDINATOR
ROLE**
OTHER PARTIES
peak availability, employer
expanding; bus
effectiveness-
Lines; small cities;
financial assistance, small city
system
minimal need for
employers
availability).
enhancing
direct involvement
service.
Implement recommendations on
Status unknown
Evaluate effort and
Human service
parenting, chemical dependency,
effectiveness
agencies; Olmsted
and neglect and abuse.
County; United Way
Improve awareness and delivery
Community Net
Evaluate effort and
Community Net and
of human services at time of need
& First Call for
effectiveness
supporting agencies.
Help in place
Promote intergenerational
Status unknown
Evaluate effort and
Senior Citizen
relationships and increase
effectiveness
Center, FACES,
developmental assets for all age
Community Youth
levels
Mentorship, and
others.
Reduce administrative overhead
Work is
Support efforts;
Family Action
and promote development of
proceeding on
evaluate effort and
Collaborative,
collaborative programs.
streamlining
effectiveness.
United Way, County
requirements
Social Services;
and promoting
other granting
collaboration.
I
agencies
* The reported status of efforts is based on initiatives brought to the attention of the Planning
Department and may not adequately reflect the progress of all efforts.
** The most significant roles for the coordinator are presented in italics.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING a3
DATE: 7/5/00
i
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D - 3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH IBM CREDIT FOR
PREPARED BY:
PEMSTAR PROJECT
G. NEUMANN
In 1994 the City entered into a Development Assistance Agreement with PEMSTAR, Inc. which resulted in
their start-up operations in Rochester. At that time the City also entered into agreements with PEMSTAR and
the Department of Trade and Economic Development of the State of Minnesota to provide some funding
assistance to PEMSTAR. The agreements included Promissory Notes and State Economic Recovery Fund Loan
Notes setting forth the conditions for the repayment by PEMSTAR, Inc. of the $1 million in State funds
provided for the project.
The City also entered into three different "Subordination Agreements" with PEMSTAR, Inc. and US Bank
starting in 1994 as the lender to PEMSTAR which stated that the City's and the State's financial interest for the
repayment of debt was "subordinate" to the interest of US Bank as the primary lender for the project. This
related to the funds loaned to PEMSTAR for equipment, inventory, and line of credit. These subordination
agreements were subsequently amended in 1995 and 1997. The City continues to have a loan of TIF funds to
PEMSTAR in the amount of $875,000, which is secured by a third mortgage on the real estate of PEMSTAR in
the Rochester Technology Park.
PEMSTAR is currently in the process of securing a line of credit from IBM Credit in addition to the line of
credit that they have with US Bank. Their line of credit with US Bank was reduced moderately and an
additional line of credit with IBM Credit was agreed upon. PEMSTAR and IBM Credit are requesting that the
City approve a subordination agreement with IBM Credit on the same terms for the subordination agreement
with US Bank. The City will still retain its mortgage on the real estate of PEMSTAR as security for the
$875,000 loan. It would be anticipated that with the new line of credit, there will be additional loans to
PEMSTAR from IBM Credit to which our repayment will be subordinate. However, the growth of the
company is a positive for the community and their continued strong operations in Rochester is our best security
for the loan.
Approval is recommended.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of the Subordination Agreements with IBM Credit for the PEMSTAR project.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by. to:
aqDORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNEAPOLIS
201 FIRST AVENUE S. W., SUITE 340
WASHINGTON, D.C.
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55902
LONDON
TELEPHONE:(507) 288-3156
BRUSSELS
FAx:(507) 288-6190
HONG BONG
W. CHARLES LANTZ
(507) 529-2203
DES MOINES
Imtz.chuck@domylaw.com
ROCHESTER
COSTA MESA
June 22, 2000
Mr. Gary Neuman
Assistant City Administrator
City of Rochester
201 Fourth Street SE
Rochester MN 55904
Re: PEMSTAR Subordination Agreements
Dear Gary:
NEW YORK
DENVER
SEATTLE
FARGO
BILLINGS
MISSOULA
GREAT FALLS
Historically the City has agreed to subordinate its claims under the 1994 and 1995 ERTL
Agreements and the 1994 DAL Agreement to payment of PEMSTAR's line of credit with US
Bank. Most recently this was evidenced by the execution, on or about June 4, 1999, of three
Amended and Restated Subordination Agreements, which covered then -existing and future loans
from US Bank. Since that date, PEMSTAR has been evaluating various increases in its loans, and
has concluded that rather than simply increasing its borrowing from US Bank, it would be more
desirable to obtain another line of credit from IBM Credit.
Last month PEMSTAR, US Bank and IBM Credit entered into agreements whereby the
US Bank line of credit was reduced moderately and an additional line of credit was granted by
IBM Credit. In connection with those agreements, IBM Credit has requested that the City enter
into subordination agreements with IBM Credit on substantially the same terms as the US Bank
Subordinations. If PEMSTAR had elected to increase its line with US Bank, the subordination of
the City loans would have been automatic under the existing agreements, but with a new lender
involved, additional documentation is needed.
I enclose herewith three proposed Subordination Agreements, which we request that the
City execute and return at its earliest convenience. In order to make your review of these
documents easier, I have obtained an electronic copy of the previous US Bank subordination,
have run document comparisons and enclose those three comparisons as well. As you will see,
the new subordination are essentially the same as the US Bank subordinations, with changed
names and dates, simplified to eliminate references to the syndicate banks, which are not involved
in the IBM Credit loan, with an acknowledgment of the pre-existing US Bank subordination.
as
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Mr. Gary Neuman
June 22, 2000
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding these documents, please feel free to contact me, or in
my absence, Frank McAnulty in this office, or to discuss the matter with your usual contacts at
PEMSTAR.
Very truly yours,
. Aarte&sL/agntz
WCIJem
cc: Phil Jernielita (w/enc)
Bob Murphy (w/enc.)
Frank McAnulty (w/enc.)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 07/ /
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Administrator
L)_ q
i i rm DESCRIPTION Request to extend present Fire Service Contract with surrounding
PREPARED BY:
townships
T. Spaeth
At the April 10, 2000 Committee of the Whole meeting, the Council discussed the proposed fire service contract
renewal with the 4 surrounding townships. The Council determined that they would approve a new township
fire protection agreement under the following conditions:
1. The term of the proposed contract would be limited to 4 years.
2. The cost formula for years 2001 & 2002 would be based upon 5 firefighters.
3. The cost formula for years 2003 & 2004 would be based upon 6 firefighters.
4. The fire department would be limited to providing fire emergency service only. Other emergency services would
not be provided for in the township fire protection contract.
The agreement has been prepared and signed by the respective townships at this time.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council authorization for Mayor and City Clerk to execute new fire protection agreement with the 4
surrounding townships.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING o?q i
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda City Administrator D . 5
j i cn1 DESCRIPTION Agreement with Habitat for Humanity for HUD $$Home Program PREPARED
T. Spaeth
As the Coucil may recall, HUD recently announced its $ Home Program wherein HUD -owned homes that have been
on the market for greater than 6 months may be sold to a local government for $1. The program became effective
on May 1, 2000. As was indicated, staff feels this provides an opportunity for the City to turn around and provide
the home to Habitat For Humanity for rehab and occupancy.
The City Attorney's office has prepared an Agreement that provides for this transfer of property from the City to
Habitat For Humanity. On a lot where an existing structure is to rehabbed it will be required to be available for
occupancy within one year of acquisition, and for new construction on a vacant lot, a 2 year time frame for occupancy
will be required under the terms of the Agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council authorization for Mayor and City Clerk to execute $ Home Agreement on behalf of the City.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motonby. Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDASECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
City Administrator
ITEM NO.
a
i i t:M DESCRIPTION Revocable Permit -- Landscaping materials located within public right -of-
PREPARED BY:
way at 21512th Street NW
T. Spaeth
The City has received a revocable permit request from Mr. Brad Piens to have landscaping timbers encroach
within the public right-of-way adjacent to the property located at 215 12d' Street NW.
Public Works staff has no objection to the above mentioned request.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED
Approval of a revocable permit for landscaping timbers encroachment into the public right-of-way using the
standard language and conditions.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Administrator
71-q
ITIMIDESCRIPTION Request to set a public hearing date for the establishment of a Tax
PREPARED BY:
Increment Financing in Valley Side Estates Subdivision
T. Spaeth
The City staff has been working with the developer of the Valley Side Estates Subdivision housing project to establish
a TIF district in conjunction with the First Homes Program. This project was selected by First Homes for financial
assistance upon 50 lots within the subdivision. This is the property located along the east side of 40d' Avenue SE, east
of the Eastwood Hills Subdivision.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
Adopt resolution to set a public hearing date of August 21, 2000 to consider the establishment of a Tax
Increment Finning District for 50 lots within the Valley Side Estates Subdivision.
•
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING =
DATE: 7/5/00
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
W
i i rM DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts to prepare PREPARED BY:
"Record" drawings and other required information for Airport Subdivision #1. Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts to prepare "Record" drawings and other
required information for specifications for all existing physical plants or facilities for Airport Subdivision #1.
Agreement is not to exceed $17,566.00
Funding: Local — Airport Reserves
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.
_JUNCILACTION: MoNonby: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA I Rochester International Airport
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Amend Professional Services Agreement with
for a 2,100 foot extension to Runway 02/20 to now also include apron fill-in work.
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
MEETING 3? /
DATE: 7/5/00
ITEM NO.
Z>, q
Steven W. Legve
Amend the professional services agreement with ACSG/McGhie & Betts for a 2,100 foot extension to Runway 02/20
to include apron fill-in work between the Air Cargo Ramp and the Terminal Ramp. This project was included in the
CIP.
The apron fill-in work that will be added to the project represents an estimated $731,000 in construction costs to be
added to the project.
Changes professional agreement from a not to exceed $711,309 to a not to exceed $781,309.
Funding: Local (sales tax)
Passenger Facilty Charges
Federal
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.
.. IJINCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING3�
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
ITEM NO.
D.W to
i i cdl DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with Airport Consulting Services
PREPARED By:
Group, Inc. (ACSG) to prepare a new PFC application..
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Airport Consulting Services Group,
Inc. (ACSG) to prepare
a new PFC application and implement a new rate of $4.50 vs our current rate of $3.00.
Along with a new rate
we will also include in the application several new projects.
Agreement is not to exceed $35,000.00
Funding: 100% PFC
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement.
, ,XNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l
DATE: 7/5/0
AULNUA
CONSENT AGENDA
i i =WI DESCRIPTION:
Agreement
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Rochester International Airport D A
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Execute the Landlord Estoppel and Agreement to allow AGD, Inc. to refinance the building that Federal
Express is occupying. This building located on airport property. This agreement will not change the terms of
AGD's lease agreement with the City of Rochester. This document has been reviewed by the City Attorney's
Office.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the agreement.
. ,.MNCIL ACTION: m.timby: Second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING '3 '
DATE: 7/5/00
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING q S Z
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Rochester International Airport
j)- 13
ITEM DESCRIPTION: State Aid Agreement for Airport Advertising and Promotion.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Accept the State Aid Agreement for 60% funding for approved Airport advertising and promotion. The State will pay
60% of approved advertising expenses up to a maximum of $50,000.00 through June of 2001.
Funding: 60% State
40% Local
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the State Aid Agreement.
. JUNCILACTION: motfanby: Second by: EG:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ,
DATE: 7/05! 0
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
JSENT
CITY ATTORNEY' S OFFICE
D . i q
ITEM DESCRIPTION: REVISION OF THE CITY CURFEW ORDINANCE
PREPARED BY:
TER hDKINS
The city curfew ordinance has a built in "sunset" provision. In other words, the ordinance is set to
expire on September 1, 2000, The City Attorney's Office previously recommended adding this
provision to the ordinance because our research showed that curfew ordinances were more likely to
withstand legal challenges if they had a limited duration. This allowed the City Council to review
the ordinance at regular intervals to insure that it remained appropriate for the problems which the
city was trying to address by having a juvenile curfew.
Since the Council will be examining the curfew ordinance again, it is appropriate to see if any other
changes need to be made to its provisions. From our conversations with Captain Ron Thompson of
the Police Department, the Police Department feels that the ordinance is working fine in its current
form.
We are aware that curfew ordinances around the country continue to be challenged in court. Some
of those challenges have been successful. However, the ordinances that have been upheld have
generally contained the primary features which our curfew ordinance contains. As a result, the only
change we believe that needs to be made is to extend the current expiration date of the ordinance
M September 1, 2002.
,—uuncil Action Requested
Amend R.C.O. Section 85A.19 to create a new sunset date of September 1, 2002.
COUNCIL ACTION: motionby: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING yq
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
As CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
a- 1S
RM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNAIICHOTT
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.
ON -SALE 3.2 BEER — TEMPORARY
Downtown Business Association
4d' Annual Blues Festival 8/19/00
Central Park
Rochester, Mn. 55901
DANCE —TEMPORARY
Aviary Restaurant
4320 Hwy 52 north
Rochester, Mn. 5501
Annual Malibu Mania Event 7/28/00
• Restaurant Parking Lot
GAMBLING — PREMISE RENEWAL
Bear Creek Services
620 1 gt St. SW
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Premise at Knights of Columbus
2030 Hwy 14 E
Rochester, Mn. 55904
SOUND AMPLIFICATION
Aviary Restaurant
4320 Hwy 52 north
Rochester, Mn. 5501
Annual Malibu Mania Event 7/28/00
Restaurant Parking Lot 8:00 PM To 12:00 Midnight
(Please Waive 8:00 Time Period)
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
�I ICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS
PAGE 2
JULY 5, 2000
Dr. Glen Smith & Dr. Jennifer Fisher
4902 Wood Ln NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Wedding Reception 7/29/00
Back Yard 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM
(Please waive 8:00 Time Period)
MISCELLANEOUS
Ironwood Springs Christian Ranch, Inc.
7291 Co. Rd 6 SW
Stewartville, Mn. 55976
National Wheelchair Race 7/10/00
2 Blocks Around Lourdes High School 12:00 Noon to 2:00 PM
Rochester, Mn. 55902
American Cancer Society
All Night Relay Walk 5:00 PM, 7/14/00 to 12:00 PM 7/15/00
University of Minnesota Rochester Center
855 30th Ave. SE
Rochester, Mn. 55904
Mayo High School
1410 11' Ave SE
Rochester, Mn., 55904
Annual Homecoming Parade
9/29/00 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM
Rochester Area CROP Association
1636 9th Ave NE
Rochester, Mn., 55906
Fundraiser Walk for Hunger
10/14/00 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses, permits and miscellaneous activities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Clerk
DESCRIPTION: Transfer of On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses and Bowling License
BY:
for Colonial Lanes
:PREPARED
Scherr
Application for the transfer of an On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor, Sunday Liqubr and Bowling
Center licenses for the Colonial Lanes/Brass Lantern Restaurant located at 1828 14`h Street N.W.
has been received from Michael J. Anderson. The new name for the establishment will be
Colonial Company DBA Colonial Lanes & Brass Lantern Restaurant. Chuck Leon is the present
owner of the Colonial Lanes.
Mr. Anderson is requesting transfer of the licenses as of August 1, 2000. Transfer is pending the
required fees and insurance certificates. A confidential investigative report on the applicant has
come back satisfactory.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the transfer of the On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor, Sunday Liquor and Bowling
Center licenses for the Colonial Lanes/Brass Lantem from Chuck Leon to Colonial Company.
uu JNCIL. ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 5 3
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
D .1 7
ITEM DESCRIPTION: TRANSFER OF 3.2 BEER LICENSE FROM NEW MAGIC WOK
PREPARED BY:
TO ASIA RESTAURANT
DONNA ] SCHOTT
Application for the transfer of the On Sale 3.2% Beer License for New Magic Wok restaurant located
at 121 17'b Ave SW has been received from Cecelia Vo. The new name of the business will be
Asia Restaurant.
Mrs. Vo is requesting transfer of the license as soon as possible. The transfer would be pending the
Required fees, insurance certificates and completion of all departmental approvals.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the Transfer of the on sale 3.2% beer license from New Magic Wok to
Asia Restaurant.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 164T .1/
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
City Clerk
11M DESCRIPTION: Amend R.C.O. 138.05 - Residential Parking Permit
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
We are requesting that Rochester Code of Ordinances 138.05 be amended to allow for the
residential permit sticker to be displayed on the inside of the back window rather than the outside
rear bumper of the vehicle. We have found that people are able to remove the permits from
legitimate users and affix them to their own vehicles and have found, in some cases, the weather
to also be a deterrent to the stickers adequately affixing to the bumper. The Police Department
has indicated that the window location will be easier for their patrol officers to check as well.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to amend RCO 138.05 Residential Permit Parking Zones to allow for display of the
permit sticker in the inside of the rear window rather than the bumper of the vehicle and instruct
the City Attorney to prepare the required ordinance for adoption.
•
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING KEPT:
ITEM NO.
ANk Consent Agenda
Finance Department
b _r9
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Approval of Accounts Payable
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $2,420,380.82,
Less: Any exceptions
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
I I CMt
Consent Agenda / Routine Business Items I Finance Department I D —go
Revenue Bond of 2000 1 Dale Martinson
At its last regular meeting, Council authorized contribution of $10,458,673 in sales tax funding for the
Sports Complex to be located at the University Center Rochester. The State of Minnesota will be funding
$5.0 million of the project costs through State bond sales. In the course of finalizing documents related to
this project, we have determined it is in the best interest of the City to officially issue taxable bonds for
our contribution amount and subsequently purchase these bonds with our own Flood Control reserve
funds.
An interesting provision of State statutes relating to facilities constructed with State bond monies requires
that any net revenues (operating revenues over operating costs) be returned to the State in proportion to
State vs. other public debt issued for the facility.
I had intended to use our cash reserves to fund our contribution and repay those reserves through this
year's sales tax receipts. This was important to avoid arbitrage rebates or penalties since the State will
control project payments and the project will take a substantial period of time to complete. Doing so,
however, would mean that we had issued no debt for the project and the State would then receive 100%
of the net operating revenues from the facility until their bonds are paid in full. This would occur despite
the fact that we had contributed over 2/3 d' of the cost.
Through issuance of this taxable bond, the City will be able to retain 2/3rds of its net revenues from the
facility. Thataxable feature will preclude us from having to worry about any arbitrage concerns, and the
Flood Control fund will continue to earn an equivalent investment rate of return. The law states that this
calculation of return of net revenues is without regard to amount of bonds outstanding on the date of
calculation, so we will be able to pay these monies back quickly with sales tax receipts as I had originally
intended.
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution providing for the issuance of the City's General Obligation Sales Tax
Revenue Bond of 2000 and its subsequent sale to the City's Flood Control Fund.
_ _ IINCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
6�/
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda / Routine Business Items
Finance Department
T 4U
i i cidl DESCRIPTION: Authorizing professional services agreement with the Government
PREPARED BY:
Finance Officers Association for contract negotiations relating to enterprise systems
Dale Martinson
software and implementation services.
The 2000 — 2005 Capital Improvement Program authorized a multi -year project to purchase and install
enterprise financial and human resources system software to replace our existing in-house developed
applications (J#1971). A project team of City accounting, purchasing, human resources and information
system employees has been reviewing and analyzing vendors' systems and setting functional
specification requirements for about one year now and has narrowed its search to two vendors.
We would like to begin developing a contract for software and services but due to the complexities of
these enterprise systems and their installation, believe it important and cost -beneficial to begin dual
negotiations with these vendors using consultants that have much expertise in this area.
The research division of the Government Finance Officer's Association (GFOA) has had much
experience in the trials and tribulations of governments' enterprise systems selection and installations.
Due to the requests of many finance officers, they decided to establish a consulting arm to assist cities,
counties and school districts in this complex process. We believe we have done much of the groundwork
to date in this selection process but do not want to be fooled in the all-important contracting phase. The
consulting group of this educational, non-profit, professional association would assist us in final
specification review, development of negotiation strategy, advisory assistance in terms and conditions,
cost analysis and negotiations and review of draft and final documents for both the software and the
implementation team. Estimated budget for these services is $15,000. We would also be seeking the
assistance of the City's legal department in final review.
Assuming these negotiations went well, we would be coming back to the Council for approval of
contracts for enterprise system software and implementation services. Our current project milestone
dates suggest a "go -live" date for payroll of July 1, 2001 and January 1, 2002 for financials. It remains to
be seen whether we can actually make that happen.
Based on some of the experiences of other entities that I have listened to and read about regarding these
enterprise systems, I believe some outside expertise in this phase is extremely important and well worth
the estimated $15,000 expenditure.
Recommendation:
Authorize execution of the professional services agreement with Government Finance Officers
Association for contracting services
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
3
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Organizational / Consent
Human Resources
D -VIA
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointments - Police Officer - Police Department
PREPARED BY:
L Gilsrud
The resignation of Steven Harvey, Police Officer, effective May 17, 2000 and the
retirements of Rodney Brouwers, Police Officer, effective May 31, 2000 and Wayne
Berg, Police Sergeant, effective June 16, 2000 created three (3) vacancies for the position
of Police Officer.
COUNCIL ACTIONREQUESTED:
Section 9.00 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter states that the Mayor appoints all
members of the Rochester Police Department. Pursuant to that authority, the Mayor has
appointed Daniel W. Swanson, Leslie A. Tannahill, and Jay J. Clemens to the
position of Police Officer in the Rochester Police Department effective July 17, 2000.
This information is given to the Council so that Council members are aware of the
appointments.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Mayor Chuck Canfield
201 4th Street SE - Room 281
Rochester, MN 55904-8782
Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax:(507) 287-7979
TO: City Administrator
RE: Appointment to Police Department
Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Officer, I
am appointing Daniel W. Swanson to the position of Police Officer effective
Mayor Ch es Canfi d
City of cheater
Cc: Director of Human Resources
6/1/00
Date
Mayor Chuck Canfield
201 4th Street SE - Room 281
Rochester, MN 55904-3782
Phone:(507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979
TO: City Administrator
RE: Appointment to Police Department
w"w
ALL-AMERICa CITY
111!
Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Officer, I
am appointing Leslie A. Tannahill to the position of Police Officer effective
7/17/00
Mayor Charles an Le d
7� LAG
City of Roch ter
Cc: Director of Human Resources
Date
6/1/00
r.
ift
W > v'v
Mayor Chuck Canfield
201 4th Street SE - Room 281
Rochester, MN 55904-3782
Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979
TO: City Administrator
RE: Appointment to Police Department
bad
ALL-AMERICA CITY
411 [,.►
Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Officer, I
am appointing Jay J. Clemens to the position of Police Officer effective
6/1/00
Mayor Charle anfield Date
City of Roe ster
Cc: Director of Human Resources
�
• Uameatca can ROCHESTER
WoeG✓Z/TiPfID�CG
POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BOB MOORE JOY FOGARTY MICHELLE LEAK
May 31, 2000
Honorable Mayor Canfield
City Hall
Rochester, Minnesota 56904
Dear Mayor Canfield,
The resignation of Police Officer Steven Harvey effective May 17, 2000 and the
retirements of Police Officer Rodney Brouwers effective May 31, 2000 and Police
Sergeant Wayne Berg effective June 16, 2000 creates three (3) vacancies for the position
of Police Officer.
We respectfully request that you make the appointments to the position of Police Officer
from the following list of three (3) names which stand highest on the Police Officer
Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates:
1. Daniel W. Swanson
2. Leslie A. Tannahill
3. Jay J. Clemens
Police Chief Roger Peterson requests that these appointments be effective July, 2000
conditional upon the candidate's successful completion of an indepth background
investigation, medical and psychological examinations.
Respectfully Submitted,
KfJoy
Secretary
Police Civil Service Commission
An Equa(Opportunity S7 p yer
A
�Oi11 F.iTE R. 1efVV
oy
ROCHESTER
ROGER PETERSON
Chief of Police
Rochester Police Department
101 4th St. S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904-3761
May 17, 2000
Mr. Robert Moore, Chairman
Rochester Police Civil Service Commissioners
201 SE 4 h Street
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Chairman Moore:
We are requesting that the Civil Service Commision provide the Mayor with a list of the
top three candidates from the Police Officer's eligibility list for selection and
appointment for a vacant entry level position. This request is due to the resignation of
Officer Steve Harvey, May 17, 2000.
It is our desire that this appointment be effective July 1, 2000.
Thank you for your prompt assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
i�
Rog r Peterson, Chief
:An 'L4.a( 0pportwmy'Lrnp(nyer
Nt�C HEiTER•}! � �
ROCHESTER _ ^-
r/I/li (ii�%�i��%�a ,�R IfEU.AL'GL'ST•5•�
ROGER PETERSON
Chief of Police
Rochester Police Department
101 4th St. S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904-3761
May 4, 2000
Mr. Robert Moore, Chairman
Rochester Police Civil Service Commissioners
201 SE 4'h Street
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Chairman Moore:
We are requesting that the Civil Service Commision provide the Mayor with a list of the
top three candidates for each vacancy from the Police Officer's eligibility list for
selection and appointment. This request is due to the retirements of Officer Rodney
Brouwers, May 31, and Sergeant Wayne Berg, June 16, 2000.
It is our desire that this appointments would be effective July 1, 2000.
Thank you for your prompt assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Roger Peterson, Chief
.in Zyaal Opporlunay'Cmp(oyn
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
Organizational / Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Human Resources
ITEM NO.
D � 923
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointment - Firefighter - Fire Department
PREPARED BY:
L Gilsrud
The retirement of Kenneth Middendorf, Fire Captain, effective June 7, 2000
resulted in a vacancy for the position of Firefighter.
The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the top three (3) certified
candidates for the position of Firefighter from the established eligibility roster
and recommends the appointment of one (1) of the three (3) candidates to the
position of Firefighter.
COUNCIL ATIONREQUESTED:
Appointment of Joseph J. Minis to the position of Firefighter in the
Rochester Fire Department conditional upon successful completion of an
indepth background investigation, medical and psychological examinations.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
qoa,-
AU'AMERK A C1T1'
June 28, 2000
ROCHESTER
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
GREG WALTERS NORB RYAN HILLA CLINE
Honorable Council Members
City Council
City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Council Members:
The retirement of Captain Kenneth Middendorf effective June 7, 2000 resulted in a
vacancy for the position of Firefighter.
We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of Firefighter
from the following list of qualified candidates:
1. Joseph J. Minnis
2. David G. Beagle
3. David B. Goodyear
Fire Chief David Kapler desires to have this appointment effective as soon as possible
conditional on successful completion of an indepth background investigation, pre-
employment medical and psychological examinations.
Respectfully Submitted,
Irk X/ot..�
Norb Ryan
Secretary
Fire Civil Service Commission
An EgwlOpporeudfy Empfayer
?3
ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 2000
TO: Fire Civil Service Commission
FROM: Chief Kapler bbL
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO HIRE TWO FIREFIGHTERS
Due to the retirement of Captain Kenneth Middendorf June.7, 2000
and the retirement of Firefighter Kenneth Bee June 30, 2000,
there exists two vacancies for the position of Firefighter. I
request that we fill these two vacancies as soon as possible.
Thank you.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Organizational / Consent
Human Resources
T _ a
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointment - Firefighter - Fire Department
PREEPARED BY:
L Gilsrud
The retirement of Kenneth Bee, Firefighter, effective June 30, 2000 created a
vacancy for the position of Firefighter.
The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the top three (3) certified
candidates for the position of Firefighter from the established eligibility roster
and recommends the appointment of one (1) of the three (3) candidates to the
position of Firefighter.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Appointment of David G. Beagle to the position of Firefighter in the
Rochester Fire Department conditional upon successful completion of an
indepth background investigation, medical and psychological examinations.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: tc:
ALI-AMERICA On
V't
June 28, 2000
ROCHESTER
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
GREG WALTERS NORB RYAN HILLA CLINE
Honorable Council Members
City Council
City Hall
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Council Members:
The retirement of Firefighter Ken Bee effective June 30, 2000 results in a vacancy for the
position of Firefighter.
We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of Firefighter
from the following list of qualified candidates:
1. David G. Beagle
2. David B. Goodyear
3. Eric S. Moreland
Fire Chief David Kapler desires to have this appointment effective as soon as possible
conditional on successful completion of an indepth background investigation, pre-
employment medical and psychological examinations.
Respectfully Submitted,
Norb Ryan
Secretary
Fire Civil Service Commission
An Equal Opportunity Employer
17
ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 2000
TO: Fire Civil Service Commission
FROM: Chief Kapler b�L
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO HIRE TWO FIREFIGHTERS
Due to the retirement of Captain Kenneth Middendorf June.7, 2000
and the retirement of Firefighter Kenneth Bee June 30, 2000,
there exists two vacancies for the position of Firefighter. I
request that we fill these two vacancies as soon as possible.
Thank you.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
IDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PARK & RECREATION
ITEM NO.
D 4 S
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Quarry Hill Park • Postier Properly Acquisition
PREPARED BY:
Roy Sutherland
For a number of years there has been a desire and effort to acquire all of the private land west of Circle
Drive that borders Quarry Hill Park. The goal has been to protect this valuable resource from further
development. Over the years, the City has bought some of this property from Harvey Ratzloff and Harold
Payne. The last piece of private property - 23.6 acres - belongs to Dr. Postier.
Dr. Postier desires to sell his land at this time and is willing to work with the City to make this happen. The
Park and Recreation Department applied for a DNR Acquisition Grant to help with the acquisition. We did
not receive any money this year, but stand a good chance next year with the federal money the DNR will
receive.
At this time, it is the desire of Dr. Postier to sell the City 5 acres of land at $20,000 per acre. In addition, we
-.'Id sign a purchase agreement for the remaining property to be acquired next year after the DNR grant
is completed. It is our hope that in 2001 we will receive a grant from the DNR that will cover 50% of
the remaining acquisition costs.
I do not know how much the Quarry Hill complex is worth, but its value to the community is priceless. This is
the only chance we will have to protect this valuable resource from further development.
Sources of funds for this acquisition include the Future Acquisition Fund, the Park Reserve Fund, and a
DNR Grant. Total cost for the acquisition is $100,000 in 2000 and $372,000 in 2001.
At its June board meeting, the Board of Park Commissioners approved the acquisition of this last piece of
private property that borders Quarry Hill Park.
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
APPROVAL OF THE 5 ACRE ACQUISITION FOR THE YEAR 2000 AND THE APPROVAL FOR THE
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR 2001.
COUNCIL ACTION: M.Wnby Sa dby:
mwrsiucuow
/
�0
SEA
N
y VnY
pyntl
i 7,t
� \♦fir\\ �����������������.
a
r
JCL I IVN:
CONSENT AGENDA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ING DEPT:
PLANNING
M DESCRIPTION: Modify conditions for Final Plat #99-22, Lincolnshire
North Third Subdivision.
MEETING
7-5-00
ITEM NO.
D -X0
PREPARED BY:
Mitzi A. Baker,
June 28,2000
SummaN:
The City Council approved the final plat for Lincolnshire North 3rd Subdivision (#99-22) on June 5, 2000. Since that time,
the applicant requested approval to modify the Plat approved by the Council.
Staff is agreeable to the modification as proposed. The modification reduces the width of an Outlot that will be dedicated
to the City and increases the depth of the single family lots abutting the Outlot. A copy of the previously approved, and
newly modified Plats are enclosed.
Council Action Needed.
1. If the Council wishes to proceed, the Council should rescind the June 5, 2000 motion
to approve Final Plat #99-22 Lincolnshire North Third Subdivision under Robert's
Rules. This will require a 213 vote (5 of 7 minimum).
2. if the Council wishes to proceed, the Council should re -approve Final Plat #99-22
Lincolnshire North Third Subdivision subject to the mutually agreed upon
modification.
Attachment.
I. Staff Report dated June 28, 2000
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. CityAttomey
3. Planning Department File
4. Planning Department GIS Division
5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m.
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
6. Yaggy Colby Associates.
'UNCILACTION: Mo6onby: second
on Wednesday July 5, 2000, in the
r--
Ill rf
n:
NO
e•
Sy teo.0o U
y€
r
Oq ♦ 7 �.• n
O � a NOSn • � � '\ \\ i- +� ry O� •' � �
\\ a N \ 'KOSWAin
il
N k " d toL ro
qg `{ � \ 1~ .� r; r •e
Z 11 ~
1 ;
Z �
co
ili 8 / yr \ \\ � /'d , •' 6lr 1 i
f
•J V' .4 7
J d\ m in I
i \
ro� \\. N g w
1' 11 Y t
IN
15
2.1
.1
{F
i
y
qpq
3
ct
t
,'I
I l
ll
il A���O��TJ
p�W�lpEp
ONEI
��G���"IERling
o
al
�9���6�O�@9A
MO;
OC1O»»�
Rb� 1p �l� i A• o �o
i s
.[deg a •.w•_' o$
drys �
w
z�
n J Vl
u'_Xj1
LD
c
'Crg Q�'g
W
a\ a
to
ggaRa�aaa�^xc:-
wimimmom,
x
xaaa
xflax. Bx
Gj•.Q n
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 95 1-1
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Police
ITEM NO.
D -�tj
EM DESCRIPTION: Approval to enter into a State of Minnesota
PRE✓PARED BY:
Operation NightCAP Grant
Roger Peterson
Officers from the Rochester Police Department have been asked to participate in a local alcohol saturation
program designed to arrest impaired drivers (Operation NightCAP). The State of Minnesota has a grant
available to reimburse agencies for overtime expense up to $1200.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The Rochester Police Department would like approval to apply for and a resolution authorizing execution of a
grant for reimbursement of overtime expense through a MN Department of Public Safety Operation
NightCAP Grant.
I'MUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
, cM DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Street NW
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
MEETING 57
DATE: 7/5/00
ITEM t
.
D� $
PREPARED BY:
R. Freese
The City and Ryan Companies US, Inc. entered into a Development Agreement on January 3, 2000 for the
Rochester Marketplace Project. The Develoment Agreement is subject to a condition that the City and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) execute an agreement for the street improvement work
within MnDOT's 41st Street NW right-of-way and for cost sharing for MnDOT's obligations,
The City and MnDOT staff have negotiated of a Municipal Cost Share Agreement for the portion of this project
that is within the existing MnDOT right-of-way on 41st Street NW. MnDOT has agreed to make a lump sum
contribution in aid of construction for improvements to 41st Street NW between the TH 52 southbound ramps
and the West Frontage Road.
The City has now received and reviewed the formal Mn/DOT Agreement No. 80314 which provides for a lump
sum payment of $110,000 by MnDOT to the City for the State's share of the cost of intersection improvement
construction and other construction to be performed at the West Frontage Road and 41 St Street NW adjacent to
TH 52 within the corporate limits of Rochester under State Project No. 5508-98.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Municipal Cost Share
Agreement with MnDOT for improvements to 41st Street NW.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Municipal Cost Share Agreement No. 80341 with MnDOT in the
amount of $110,000 for the MnDOT share of improvements to 41st Street NW between the TH 52 southbound
ramps and the West Frontage Roads.
1UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
31
r
DATE:
7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
it EM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Kingsbury
Bigelow Enterprises.
ITEM NO.
p? ;tq
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigburx+ /,
The Owners/Developers of the Kingsbury Development and City Staff have had discussions relating to
the impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a
development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items
covered in the agreement include the following:
Grading Conformance with future street profiles on 55" Street
Pedestrian facility construction
Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Parkland
Dedication, Substandard Street/Transportation Improvement District, and
participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed
the agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Bigelow Enterprises
for the Kingsbury Hills Development.
)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6,
DATE: 7, 100
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
i i EM DESCRIPTION:
North Development LLC
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works
— Bandel North Development — Bandel PREPARED BY: /
M. Nigbur sty' i
The Owners/Developers of the Bandel North Subdivision and City Staff have had discussions relating
to the project and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for
a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items
covered in the agreement include the following:
• Dedication of road rights of way for Bandel Road and Overland Drive (651 Street NW
extension).
• Access control along the abutting roadways
• Pedestrian facilities along Bandel Road and Overland Drive..
• Contribution toward the High Level watermain link between NW Tower and the
Bandel Reservoir. The contribution amount is $18,000.00
• Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Substandard
Roadway, Transportation Improvement District, and parkland.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed
the agreement
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Bandel North
Development.
—JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1119
DATE: /5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
i i eM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement —Crown Subdivision - Theel
ITEM NO.
b- 31
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur
The Owners of the Thee] Property, known as the Crown Subdivision, and City Staff have had
discussions relating to Platting of the property and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on
the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been
created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following:
• Construction of pedestrian facilities.
• Dedication of right of way.
• Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Substandard
Roadway, Transportation Improvement District, and participation in the City's Storm
Water Management Plan.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed
the agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Theel Property,
known as the Crown Subdivision.
_ JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f S `
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
EM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Phone
Swartz/City Auto Glass Property
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works 8 - 3A
— tjutcn PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur;
The Developers of the Phone Station Development, lying north of Super America along 37th Street NW,
and City Staff have had discussions relating to construction of the subdivision and impacts on the
surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has
been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include
the following:
Dedication of an 8 foot right of way easement to the City.
Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Parkland
Dedication, and participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan.
37th Street NW I---
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed
the agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement with Butch Swartz/City
Auto Glass for the Phone Station Subdivision.
)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENTAGENDA Public Works
.. EM DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
MEETING t%J
DATE: + 7/5100
ITEM NO.
Do 33
PREPARED
M. Bat
The Department of Public Works has received requests on four (4) 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. Owners of the following properties have requested voluntary participation in the
City's Plan, with the applicable participation fee as follows:
• Green Meadows Office Building
(Lot 4, Block 1, Green Meadows Sixth Subdivision) $5,690.26
• State Farm Insurance Building
(Lot 13, Block 1, Westway Manor Third Subdivision) $2,004.60
• Mike Lawson Construction Cold Storage Building
(P/O Lot 3, Block 1, Airport Industrial Park) $ 598.22
• Phone Station 1st (Replat of P/O Lots 1,2, & 3, Hartman Square) $1,120.48
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.
:)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 417
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENTAGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO..
Public WorksD-54
ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: 'intersection Improvements and PREPARED BY
Signal System at 41st St NW and W. Frontage Rd" (J-6397) D. Nelson
Bids were received and opened after 11:00 A.M., June 28, 2000 for the following project:
Project No. M051 (J-6397).
"Intersection Improvements and Signal System at 41st St NW and W. Frontage Rd"
This project is proposed to be funded with Municipal State Aid funds. It is included in the 2000 - 2005
Capital Improvements Program, pg. 30 (item 9) and pg. 36 (item 11).
This project includes public improvements required to be completed by the City and MnDOT related to
the Rochester Marketplace Development located along the south side of 41" St NW and west of TH52.
MnDOT required that the existing TH52 West Frontage Rd north of 41' St be relocated 100 feet west
for greater vehicle stacking between signals.
This project will involve the placement of a traffic control signal system at the relocated intersection of
41" St NW and TH52 West Frontage Rd. Additionally, it will include concrete curb/gutter, bituminous
roadway construction, storm sewer and associated sidewalk construction relocated due to the widening
of 41' St NW between the west TH 52 ramps and the relocated 41" St / W. Frontage Rd intersection.
MnDOT has agreed to contribute a lump sum amount of $110,000 towards the construction of the
project improvements on 41' St NW.
The following bids were received:
Total Bid
1. Road Constructors Inc. $ 497,121.90
2. Elcor $ 555,133.65
3. Rochester Sand & Gravel $ 561,930.54
Engineers Estimate $ 480,068.56
Pubic Works recommends the award of contract J-6397 to Road Constructors Inc, contingent on
receipt of MnDOT project approval. MnDOT is awaiting receipt of deeds from Mortenson property
prior to their final review and approval. We anticipate property deeds will be forthcoming, such that
MnDOT review and approval will be granted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted awarding the contract to Road Constructors Inc, at $ 497,121.90,
contingent on receipt of MnDOT project approval.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by:
to
Second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f 01
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS
-35
4WEM DESCRIPTION:
Award of Contract:
PREPARED BY:
Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation
R. Kelm �1-
Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., June 28, 2000 for the following local improvement
project:
SAP 159-113-15 (J2198)
Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project
On 11th Ave SW from 2nd St SW to 200 ft north of 3rd St NW
SAP 159-119-09 (J2197)
Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project
On 4th St SW from 6th Ave SW to 2nd Ave SW
The following bids were received:
Total Bid
1. Knish $ 226,846.80
2. Tenson $ 237,341.15
3. PCI Contractors $ 261,064.00
Engineers Estimate $319,784.20
The Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project, engineering and construction will be funded with
Municipal State Aid funds.
The project is included in the 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program budget (item 19, page 30).
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution awarding the contract:
SAP 159-113-15 (J2198)
Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project
On 11th Ave SW from 2nd St SW to 200 It north of 3rd St NW
SAP 159-119-09 (J2197)
Concrete Pavement Rehabilitation Project
On 4th St SW from 6th Ave SW to 2nd Ave SW
to Knish Construction, Inc. Montgomery, MN
UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING i 03
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D .3p
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS:
PREPARED B
"Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills Court NE
R. Kelm
from Northern Hills Drive NE West to Cul-De-Sac" (J9622)
+�
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project:
Project Number
6921-00, (J9622)
Protect Name
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay Northern Hills Court NE from Northern Hills Drive NE West to Cul-
De-Sac
Project Background:
The project feasibility report and assessments were approved during the May 1, 2000, City Council
meeting.
The project, engineering and construction will be funded with Special Assessments and General Street
Resurfacing funds (J-6308 & J-2201).
This project will involve the placement of concrete curb/gutter, bituminous street construction, 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 dugUsi:,OQO at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk;
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning July,5; 2000.
_ _UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
( 05-?,-�
7-5-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
1
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Passenger/Commodity Loading Zone for Lourdes High School
EPREPAREDBY:p}�
marf
The City has received a request to modify a passenger -loading zone for Lourdes High School. The
request is to increase the length from 50 feet to 130 feet to accommodate additional vehicles and to
include the section directly in front of the school doors.
The present zone is 50 feet long and for 5-minute limit, effective from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday
through Friday. The remainder of the block frontage is reserved for Bus loading Only from 7:00 AM to
3:00 PM school days only. The bus loading zone will be shortened but will still have the capacity
needed. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor it.
Passenger & Commodity Loading Zones are established in accordance with Section 134.15 of the
Rochester Code of Ordinances which reads:
134.15 Passenger & Commodity Loadinq Zones. No person shall park a vehicle, for any purpose or
period of time other than for the expeditious loading or unloading of passengers or commodities in any
space established by the Council as a passenger or commodity loading zone, and so signed and
marked, during the hours when the regulations, applicable to such loading zones are effective. In no
case shall the stop for loading or unloading commodities exceed Fifteen Minutes.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution ; amending the following paragraphs of the Comprehensive Traffic and
Parking Resolution Book, to read;
1. Paragraph 11 of Section E "Passenger Loading Zones"
(11) West Center Street, on the north side, from 7' Avenue to a point 130 east of 7th Avenue, from
7:OOAM to S:OOPM, Monday through Friday, 5 minute limit.
2. Paragraph (16) of Section B "No Parking Zones"
(16) West Center Street, on the north side, from a point 130 east of 7' Avenue to 6' Avenue, between
the hours of 7:00 am to 3:00 PM, school days, for buses only.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
1l(0 /
LOURDES HIGH SCHOOL
621 WEST CENTER STREET ■ ROCHESTER, MN 55902-6200 ■ TELEPHONE 507/2-, ..,91
June 21, 2000
The Government Center
Attention: Dave Rossman, Traffic Engineer
201 4s` St. SE Room #108
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Dave,
I am writing this letter in request of you to move the following signs:
"No Parking 7 am-3:30 pm School Days Buses Only"
and
"Passenger Loading 5 min. limit 7 am-5 pm Mon. -Fri."
to the east of the sidewalk, located on the south side of Lourdes High School
(West Center St.).
The need to keep this sidewalk open is vital to our deliveries throughout the year. By
relocating the signs further east it will allow an unobstructed entrance to our building.
Please call Bev Timmons (280-0349) or myself at your convenience.
Your promptness in handling this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincere ,
�e �&,7� ri
Dennis L. Nigon, Principal
Lourdes High School
DLN/bt
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
10 0?/."
7-5-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
� • 38
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from the Edison Neighborhood
PREPARED BY:
D. Rossman
The City has received a petition from the residents and property owners of 91h Avenue SW /500 block
requesting the City to establish Permit Parking on their Avenue. The reason stated is to control all day
parking in their neighborhood and so that they can park in front of their own homes without receiving a
parking ticket.
The area is shown on the attached map. This petition is from the Edison Neighborhood where Permit
Parking has already been established in two locations. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the
requirements of R.C.O. #138 and staff finds that all conditions are met. The street requested is impacted
heavily by all day parking Monday thru Friday from a source outside the neighborhood. There is a
parking restriction inplace on the west side from 11 am to noon, Monday thm Friday that was installed in
1992 to deal with the problem. This restriction would be removed. No parking at all is allowed on the
east side. This is due to the narrow street width and this restriction will remain. The block involved is
zoned for residential use. The following is the normal review data. :
Block street/row width # of signers # of buildings % signing
9th Avenue / 500 block 24/75 8 10 80 %
All conditions are met, therefore staff would recommend in favor of the petition. A public hearing is
recommended for August 7, 2000.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution calling for a public hearing on August 7, 2000 to consider expanding
Residential Permit Parking Zone #6 (Edison Neighborhood) on the following street, to be effective
between the hours of 8:00am to 4:00pm, Monday thru Friday.
9`h Avenue SW on the west side of the street from 5 h Street to 6`h Street.
)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
76TSW
83TMN
1
Edison Neighborhood
rid H41E I ------
E L
411
1 :-
1111_ .1■= __ .�1�
a
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 07-05-00
DATE: /A&
AGENDA
NSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
M CHANGE ORDER ON ZIPS BUS PURCHASE / FEDERAL
PROJECT # MN-90-XI06 AND MNDOT PROJECT # 77835
ITEM NO.
D 3 14
PREPARED BY:
A KNAUER U
In March, 2000 bids were awarded to Orion Bus Industries for the purchase of up to six (6)
buses for the cities of Rochester and Mankato. (Two plus two option buses for Rochester and
two buses for Mankato.) Following is a recap of the award.
Orion Bus Industries
Rochester buses
Mankato buses
$210.000 w/ tires
$209,000 w/o tires
Since award staff has met with Orion to review the specifications and final production order.
The attached memo summarizes various minor changes to the final production order. Based
on these changes the purchase price will increase by $94.00 for the Rochester buses.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving Change Order #1 to the Orion Bus Industries contract
increasing the per unit cost by $94.00 for a total unit cost of $210,094.00.
JNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
l�l
7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS—tht4ff 1'ILM
Public Works
E +1
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from Kutzky Addition Neighborhood
PREPARED BY:
D. Rossman
This is a Public Hearing to establish Permit Parking on eight blocks of this neighborhood to control a[] day
parking on their street. The petition is for "Residential Permit Parking on the following listed streets
between the hours of 7:00am to 5:00pm. Monday thru Friday:
1. West Center Street on both sides of the street from 9th Avenue toll' Avenue
2. 2"d Street NW on both sides of the street from 6" Avenue to 7`" Avenue.
3. Yd Street NW on both sides of the street from 6" Avenue to Sth Avenue
4. 4d' Street NW on both sides of the street from 6" Avenue to 7" Avenue.
5. 7`" Avenue NW on both sides of the street from 2nd Street to 4th Street
The area is shown on the attached map. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of
R.C.O. #138. This review is shown on page 2 of the RCA. All conditions are met, therefore staff would
recommend in favor of the petition.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to the Comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution
Book:
A) adding paragraphs (3 thru 8) to Zone 48 (Kutzky Addition) of section L "Residential Permit Parking to be
effective from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday thru Friday"
(3)2 d Street NW / 600 & 700 blocks, on both sides of the street.
(4) 3 d Street NW / 600 & 700 blocks, on the north side of the street.
(5) 4" Street NW / 600 block, on both sides of the street.
(6) West Center Street / 900 & 1000 blocks on both sides of the street.
(7) 7d' Avenue NW 200 block on the east side of the street.
(8) 7' Avenue NW 300 block on both sides of the street.
B) amend paragraphs (19.0) (19.5) (49.5) and (50.5) of section B "No Parking Zones" to read:
(19.0) West Center Street / 700, 800 and 1100 blocks, on the north side of the street, from 7:00 pm Monday to
3:00 pm Tuesday.
(19.5) West Center Street / 700, 800 and 1100 blocks, on the south side of the street except from 3 pm
Monday to 7 pm Tuesday.
(49.5) 2"d Street NW / 800 block, on the north side of the street, except from 3 pm Monday to 7 pm Tuesday.
(50.5) 2nd Street NW / 800 block, on the south side of the street, from 7:00 pm Monday to 3:00 pm Tuesday
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
-7— v.
RCA June 5, 2000
Page 2
1 /3
Staff review of a petition to install "Residential Permit Parking on the following listed streets between the
hours of 7:00am to 5:00pm Monday thru Friday:
1. West Center Street on both sides of the street from 9th Avenue to 11th Avenue
2. 2Id Street NW on both sides of the street from 6'h Avenue to 7'h Avenue.
3. 3rd Street NW on both sides of the street from 6'h Avenue to 8th Avenue
4. 4'h Street NW on both sides of the street from 6ch Avenue to 7fh Avenue.
5. 71h Avenue NW on both sides of the street from 2nd Street to 4th Street
The petition has been analyzed in the following 4 areas:
1) Is this area residential in nature? Yes
2) Is the zone requested at least 32 dwelling unit in size? Yes, this is part on the Kutzky zone, which is
bounded by 6' Avenue on the east, First Street SW on the south, 11'h Avenue on the west, and Cascade
Creek on the north. Three other streets in the zone presently have Permit Parking.
3) Is the street congested with parking from an outside source? Yes, the street is congested with cars parking
on both sides of the streets on weekdays, and is mainly students from Lourdes High School and employees
from the medical center.
4) Is the petition signed by 60% of the residents or landowners? Yes. 54 of 79 residents (68%).
There are various parking restrictions inplace. The notes in the chart below explain what is recommended for
each of these existing restrictions. The petition has signed by the following percentage of abutting property
owners or residents:
Block
street/row width # of signers
W. Center St/ 900 block
30/75
7
W. Center St/ 1000 block
30/75
5
Subtotal
12
2nd Street / 600 block
35/75
5
3'd Street / 600 block
27/66
4
3rd Street / 700 block
27/66
11
4'h Street / 600 block
36/66
10
7th Avenue / 200 block
27/66
4
7th Avenue / 300 block
36/66
8
Grand Total
54
# of buildings % signing Notes
8
87 %
(1)
11
45 %
(])
19
63 %
5
100 %
(1)
9
44 %
(2)
13
84 %
(2)
13
76 %
10
40 %
(2)
10
80 %
79
68 %
The following notes are on the existing restrictions.
(1) Replace existing alternating restriction with a one -day restriction on each side for street maintenance. (2)
No Parking Restriction is inplace on one side due to the street width. This is to remain.
The petition has been discussed with the City Police Department. Their recommendation is to proceed. All
conditions are met, therefore staff would recommend in favor of the petition.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING t (!57
DATE: 7-5-00
9NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING e. _A
i —0
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #00- PREPARED BY:
13 by Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz, to allow for the development of a recreational vehicle Mitzi A. Baker,
park with 53 sites for vehicles, a manager's and assistant manager's units, and an Senior Planner
office/bath house facility. The recreational vehicle park is proposed to be located along
the east side of 11`h Avenue SW, south of Scenario Lane SW, and north of 101h Ave. SW.
June 27. 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On June 14, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider this request. Ms. Petersson
moved approval with 16 conditions, with staff suggested findings. Brede seconded, the motion carried 6-0. (see minutes for
details)
1. The applicant shall execute/dedicate an avigational easement over the entire parcel prior to approval of any
development permits.
2. Manufactured homes proposed for this property must either be constructed to meet the definition of "Dwelling,
One Family Attached" consistent with Section 60.200 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual (LDM) OR the manufacture homes must meet Section 62.262, 1, b, 17, d and a and h.
3. Additional development permits and others which may be required through other agencies must be obtained
prior to commencement of development activities on this property (i.e. grading and drainage, owner contracts,
firelburn permit, building, health department).
4. Bumper stops shall be located along the north side of all sites located within Row A and along the south side of
all lots located within Row C.
5. Recycle bins shall be provided within the area identified for refuse.
6. Submittal of a Final Development Plan application for this proposed use shall include:
• A detailed lighting plan, including illumination levels at the property lines;
• Building materials to be provided for the bath house; corrected elevations for the managers unit — the
elevations and site plan are not consistent;
• A garage site for the assistant managers unit;
• Landscape Plan identifying areas of the site on which existing vegetation will be maintained including the
approximate density, type and size of trees & shrubs to remain on -site; any new vegetation to be planted;
areas to be maintained with turf;
• Bufferyard and screening along the southern boundary of the RV Park to provide buffering from future
development on that part of the property.
• The proposed development sign must be moved to the east, to be located outside of any existing or
proposed easements;
7. Prior to development of this property, the applicant shall dedicate 50' of right-of-way for 11rh Avenue SW (via
Warranty Deed); easements for utilities; and controlled access along 111h Avenue SW, with the exception of one
32 foot wide access opening. Mr� f i�nr I rS rek,4tcr'
Sr .
7Io
*`*(continued on next page, 16 conditions total) o{ cs 7• Y4 in vrt(.er 4v Avar d IVIG�a"-j E1 `" �
UNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
�1 7-n'
Page 2
RCA
June 27,U00
8. On -site stormwater management, as proposed, shall require execution of a Stormwater Maintenance and
Ownership Agreement, prior to development.
9. The applicant shall provide a right -turn lane into the site from 11'" Avenue SW.
10. The internal roadway must be signed with a roadway name sign and also must be signed "no parking —fire
lane", with signs installed in accordance with the Public Works specifications. Signs must face both directions
on both sides of the roadway for clear notice to motorists.
11. For maintenance purposes, trees or extensive landscaping shall not be planted within the 20' public utility
easement.
12. Prior to development of this property, the applicant shall execute a Development Agreement with the City that
includes, but Is not limited to, the Owner's obligations for stormwater management, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities (i.e. along 11" Avenue), right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure.
13. The applicant shall comply with any State and/or Federal Noise Abatement Regulations which may apply to this
development and shall waive rights to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to
T.H. 63.
�'"�� a�� or roue ��
14. Aior shelter h Idl be provided on the property. If possible, it could be incorporated into the bathhouse.
15. A fence be provided along the south side of the utility easement for the overhead lines, if one exists, in addition
to additional plantings to fill in the gaps where the trees are bare.
16. A copy of the park rules be provided with a final plan application.
***The Commission also recommended that the City Council not waive the final plan review requiremenL
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either
approving, approving with conditions, or denying this request based upon the criteria included in the
staff report.
2. Motion should include whether the final plan application/review will be waived, as requested by the
applicant.
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney: legal Description Attached
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m
Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
6. GGG Engineering.
on July 5, 2000 in the Council ! Board Chambers in the
PM
COUNTY OF
DATE: June 14, 2000
TO: Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
Itteou►�r�uslw
I
1 -
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATIOW 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GISIADDRESSING/
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
BUILDING CODE
WELUSEPTIC
FAX
RE: Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #00-13, by
Youngkrantz for an RV Park
507/285-8232
507/285-8224
507/285-8213
507/285-8345
507/287-2275
Revised comments received from the Rochester Public Works Department which result
in modifying the recommended conditions. Other modifications are also necessary. The
applicant had submitted preliminary elevations for the bath house and also submitted
elevations for the screening to be provided around the refuse collection area (see
attached).
Staff suggests that this application can be approved subject to the following conditions or
modifications:
1. The applicant shall executeldedicate an avigational easement over the entire
parcel prior to approval of any development permits.
2. Manufactured homes proposed for this property must either be constructed to
meet the definition of "Dwelling, One Family Attached" consistent with Section
60.200 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
(LDM) OR the manufacture homes must meet Section 62.262, 1,b, 17, d and e
and h.
3. Additional development permits and others which maybe required through
other agencies must be obtained prior to commencement of development
activities on this property (i.e. grading and drainage, owner contracts, fire/burn
permit, building, health department).
4. Bumper stops shall be located along the north side of an sites located within
Row A and along the south side of all lots located within Row C.
S. Recycle bins shall be provided within the area identified for refuse.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
6. Submittal of a Final Development Plan application for this proposed use shall
include:
• A detailed lighting plan, including illumination levels at the property lines;
• Building materials to be provided for the bath house; corrected elevations
for the managers unit— the elevations and site plan are not consistent,
• A garage site for the assistant managers unit,
• Landscape Plan identifying areas of the site on which existing vegetation
will be maintained including the approximate density, type and size of trees
& shrubs to remain on -site; any new vegetation to be planted; areas to be
maintained with turf;
• Bufferyard and screening along the southern boundary of the RV Park to
provide buffering from future development on that part of the property;
• The proposed development sign must be moved to the east, to be located
outside of any existing or proposed easements;
7. Prior to development of this property, the applicant shall dedicate 50' of right-
of-way for 11t° Ave. SW (via Warranty Deed); easements for utilities; and
controlled access along 11'h Ave. SW, with the exception of one 32 foot wide
access opening.
8. On -site stormwater management, as proposed, shall require execution of a
stormwater Maintenance and Ownership Agreement, prior to development.
9. The applicant shall provide a right -turn lane into the site from flu' Ave. SW.
10. The internal roadway must be signed with a roadway name sign and also must
be signed "no parking — fire lane", with signs installed in accordance with the
Public Works specifications. Signs must face both directions on both sides of
the roadway for clear notice to motorists.
11. For maintenance purposes, trees or extensive landscaping shall not be planted
within the 20' public utility easement.
12. Prior to development of this property, the applicant shall execute a
Development Agreement with the City that includes, but is not limited to, the
Owner's obligations for sotmwater management, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities (i.e. along 110 Ave.), right-of-way dedication, and
contributions for public infrastructure.
13. The applicant shall comply with any State and/or Federal Noise Abatement
Regulations which may apply to this development and shall waive rights to
request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.N. 63.
1a0 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 40' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 56904.3740
507-287-7800
FAX - 507-281-6216
Public Works has reviewed the revised request Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #00-13 by Galen &
Patricia Younekrantz to allow a RV Park in the M-1 Zone. New Comments are shown in Bold, comments that
should be deleted are indicated with strðreagh• The following are Public Works Comments on the proposal:
1. Public Works is in agreement with the changes as proposed.
Execution of a Development Agreement is required to address the Owner's obligations relating to, but
not limited to, stormwater management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way
dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure.
3. Separate approval of Grading & Drainage Plans is required prior to development of this property.
4 The aisplieftnt SIM111 PfROF into a Pevelopment Agf-ment with the Gity, pFieF to final Plat subminal, that
5. Dedication of 50 feet of ROW is required for 11a' Ave SW. Dedication is shown on the revised site plan as
being via a QCD. Dedication should be via a Warranty Deed.
6. Controlled access is required along the entire frontage of I I" Ave SW, accept for one 32 foot wide access
opening.
7. Dedication of all required utility, pedestrian facility, and/or drainage easements is required prior to
development of this site.
8. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. As proposed there will be an on -site
detention pond. Execution of a Stormwater Maintenance and Ownership Agreement will be required prior to
development of this property.
9. The Owner will be required , as a condition of the Development Agreement, to provide or make a
contribution for ent-Fi_-•"' e-elopment ofthis site, that
future pedestrian facilities along the frontage of 1 i' Ave
SW (CSAH 147).
10. Execution of a City/Owner Contract will be required for the extension of public watermain, and hydrants
required for this project.
11. The owner should comply with any applicable State and/or Federal Noise Abatement Regulations, and
waive its right to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.H. 63
12. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the subject property (rates are subject to
annual review and change. The charges below apply to the entire parcel (not just the north 295 feet as shown
on the plan):
J9266 "Water Tower to Serve High Level Area & Airport" Q S1,298.94 per acre, plus 7.5% interest from
316/95,
J9305 "Watermain Extension in flu` Ave SW" = $8,602.21 principal for 495 feet of frontage plus 7.5%
interest from 3/6/95.
aSubstandard Street Reconstruction Charge Q $60.00 per foot of frontage on I It° Ave SW, plus a proportional
cost share of the Capacity Component for the Southwest Area TiD.
• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division.
.• A Stormwater Management Fee, if on -site detention is not provided.
i
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
TO: City Planning &Zoning Commission GIS/ADDRES5ING/ 5071285-8232
MAPPING
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner HOUS;NG/HRA 5071285-8224
Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213
WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
DATE: June 9, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275
RE: Type III, Phase II Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #00-13
by Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz, to allow for the development of a
recreational vehicle park with 53 sites for vehicles, a manager's and
assistant manager's units, and an office/bath house facility. The
recreational vehicle park is proposed to be located along the east side
of 11`h Avenue SW, south of Scenario Lane SW, and north of 10th Ave.
SW
Planning Department Review
Applicant: Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz
2260 Fisher Court NW
Rochester, MN 55906
Architect: GGG Engineering
14070 Highway 52 SE
Chatfield, MN 55923
Property Location and Size: This proposal includes approximately 8.70 acres of
land located along the east side of 11th Avenue SW
(County Rd. 147) between the South Pointe
Subdivisions and the Airport Industrial Park
Subdivision.
Zoning: The Property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -
Industrial) district. The property is also within the
Airport Zoning District "D".
Adjacent Land Use: North: Single family residential homes in the South
Pointe Subdivisions. The property is zoned R-1
(Mixed Single Family) on the City of Rochester
Zoning Map. This property is also within the Airport
Zoning District "D".
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
CUP #00-13
06/09/00
Page 2
South: The Airport Industrial Park is along the
south property boundary. The subdivision is zoned
M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) on the City of
Rochester Zoning Map. Some of the lots have
been developed. This property is also within the
Airport Zoning District "D".
East: Highway 63 is along the east side of the
property.
West: Across 11a' Avenue SW is undeveloped land
in the AG (Agricultural) district in the City of
Rochester. This property is within the Airport
Zoning District "C".
Public Utilities: A 12" watermian runs along the western property
boundary, while a sanitary sewer line runs through
the eastern portion of the site. Other public utilities
are location with the 11 th Avenue right-of-way. All
service utilities are proposed to be privately owned
and maintained. The water mains to and including
the fire hydrants are public and will need to be
within a 20' public utility easement.
Referral Agency Comments: RPU Water Division; RPU Operation Division;
Rochester Public Works; Planning Dept. — GIS
Dept.; Olmsted County SWCD; Planning Dept.
Transportation staff; Fire Department (see
attached)
Attachments: Location Map
Site Plan
Referral Comments
Development Narrative
Summary of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to develop a recreational vehicle
park. Access to the site is from 11°i Avenue SW (County Road 147) which is designated as
a collector of the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan. All roadways within the development are
proposed to be private with a minimum width of 20 feet.
According to the site plan, the applicant is proposing 53 sites for the placement of
recreational vehicles. All sites are shown with water, electric, sewer, cable, and phone
services available. The outside rows are proposed for seasonal use while the center row is
proposed for year round use. All sites are shown having a 10' wide gravel parking for the
RV, with the rest of the site area being grass.
The proposal also includes 2 manufactured homes placed on the site to be used for the
manager's and assistant manager's dwellings. A 40' by 24' building is proposed near the
J
CUP #00-13
06/09/00
Page 3
«3 1_1�
entrance to be used for a registration office, bathroom facilities, storage area and laundry
facilities. There is also a refuse area location near the registration building.
A private stormwater pond is proposed in the eastern portion of the site in an existing
drainage swale. According to the applicant's consultant, the proposed stormwater pond will
have the capacity to handle this development and the any future development of the
remaining 200 feet of the property.
A recreational area is shown in the northeast portion of the development. According to the
information submitted this area will include picnic tables, playground equipment and fire
pit/grills.
Currently a 50' wide environmental easement is located along the north property line. No
vegetation can be removed within this environmental easement.
Explanation of Application and Review Procedures:
The applicant is proposing to develop a recreational vehicle park in the M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -Industrial) zoning district. Since recreational vehicle parks are not a permitted
use in the M-1 zoning district, the applicant has proposed the development by proceeding
through the Restricted Development provisions.
The Restricted Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual (Section 62.700) recognize that certain land uses which are generally not allowed
within a given zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a
more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to
standard zoning regulations". This application requires a two step review process,
consisting of a preliminary plan and a final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows the
Type III, Phase 11, procedure with a hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing
before the Council. The applicant has requested that the final plan review procedure be
waived.
Analysis:
When evaluating the preliminary development plan, the criteria included in Sections 61.146
and 62.708 of the LDM shall be considered (see attached).
The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings to the criteria found in Section
62.708, in regard to the proposed request:
iA Capacity of Public Facilities: Public facilities are available serve the proposed
District will apply to this development.
CUP
#00-13
Ob/09/00l00
Page 4
(B) Geologic Hazards: No natural or geologic hazards have been identified on this
Property. Currently the site is undeveloped woods.
LQJ Natural Features: Nearly the entire site is wooded. According to the information
submitted by the applicant, construction will be done in a manner as to preserve an
trees that donY need to be removed beyond those involving the construction of utilities,
roadways parking sites, and the storm water detention pond. Storm water runoff will be
directed to the proposed private storm water management pond located on site.
(D) Residential Traffic Impact:
a)
Avenue SW which is designated as a "collector" on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan.
(E) Traffic Generation Impact: Based on the information prepared by the Planning
(F) Height Impacts:
(G) Setbacks: The setbacks proposed from 111" Avenue is consistent with the minimum
u
vehicles that will be slowing to enter the development.
jl,) Screening and Buffering:
CUP N00-13 a
06/09/00
Page 5
(J) Ordinance Requirements: The applicant's consultant used the ordinance
(K)
services, light industrial, trade shops, indoor recreation and athletic facilities, animal
husbandry, and agricultural services and support. The 50' environmental easement
uses.
In addition to the standards in Section 62.708, the Commission and Council must
consider the standards for Conditional Uses, Section 61.146.
61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or
Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless
one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is
made:
1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and
pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will
create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public
facilities. This application makes provisions for future pedestrian facilities
/
CUP #00-13
06/09/00
12(oPagc 6
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and
structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood
or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water
or similar public facilities. Only three buildings are proposed on -site. Thev an
environmental easement located along the entire north property line. Storm
water is proposed to be managed on -site. Except for the 6" public watermain
and public fire hydrants, utilities will be private (sewer and water).
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide
adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the
screening/buffering the use. The applicant is not proposing to include a fence
or berm along the north property line.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that
may be created by the development. Detailed grading and drainage plans
site.
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. At this time, a full lighting plan, including illumination_
levels at the property lines, has not been submitted.
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. Emergency vehicle access will be provided, according to
the site plan. Public water main and hydrants are also shown on the PlanPublic water main and hydrants are also shown on the Plan.
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 1 site plan, such that
the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. N.A.
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying
to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards
CUP #00-13
06/09/00
Page 7
P1 el
specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with
specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part
of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not
Staff Recommendation:
The property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial — Industrial) district. According to the City of
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, the M-1 is a district that
provides an area for a mixture of commercial uses and industrial uses which do not
generate significant adverse impacts, which are served by major thoroughfares providing
direct access or a local street system with direct access to major thoroughfares, and with an
adequate level of buffering, could be located in reasonable proximity to residential areas.
The M-1 zoning district allows a wide range of uses ranging from offices, warehousing,
trade shops, restaurants and light industrial. These uses would be permitted on this site
without any public hearings.
The site also lies within Zone D of the Airport Zoning Ordinance. According the Airport
Zoning Ordinance, Dwellings intended for occupancy by a person for more than 30 days are
restricted to single dwelling constructed on not less than one-half (1/2) acre lots. Staff did
ask the City Attorney if recreational vehicles were considered a dwelling. The conclusion
was that recreational vehicles are not a dwelling, therefore, the regulation that each dwelling
be on a one-half acre lot does not apply to the RV sites.
Staff suggests that this application can be approved subject to the following conditions or
modifications:
1. The applicant shall execute/dedicate an avigational easement over the entire
parcel prior to approval of any development permits.
2. Manufactured homes proposed for this property must either be constructed to
meet the definition of "Dwelling, One Family Attached" consistent with Section
60.200 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM)
OR the manufacture homes must meet Section 62.262, 1,b, 17, d and a and h.
3. Additional development permits and others which may be required through other
agencies must be obtained prior to commencement of development activities on
this property (i.e. grading and drainage, owner contracts, fire/burn permit,
building, health department).
CUP #00-13
t
00
Page 8Page 8
4. Bumper stops shall be located along the north side of all sites located within Row
A and along the south side of all lots located within Row C.
5. Recycle bins shall be provided within the area identified for refuse.
6. Submittal of a Final Development Plan application for this proposed use shall
include:
• A detailed lighting plan, including illumination levels at the property lines;
• Building elevations for the bath house; corrected elevations for the
managers unit- the elevations and site plan are not consistent;
• A garage site for the assistant managers unit,
• Elevations and details for screening to be provided around the refuse area;
• Landscape Plan identifying areas of the site on which existing vegetation
will be maintained including the approximate density, type and size of
trees & shrubs to remain on -site; any new vegetation to be planted; areas
to be maintained with turf;
• Bufferyard and screening along the southern boundary of the RV Park to
provide buffering from future development on that part of the property;
• The proposed development sign must be moved to the east, to be located
outside of any existing or proposed easements;
7. This property shall be platted. Dedication of 50' of right-of-way is required for 11th
Ave. Easements for utilities also must be dedicated. Controlled access will also
be required along 11fh Ave. SW, with the exception of one 32 foot wide access
opening.
8. On -site stormwater management, as proposed, shall require execution of a
Stormwater Maintenance and Ownership Agreement, prior to development.
9. The owner shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities agreement prior to development
of this site, that addresses the Owner's responsibility with regard to future
pedestrian facilities along the frontage of 11'h Ave. SW (CSAM 147).
10. The applicant shall provide a right -turn lane into the site from 11th Ave. SW.
11. The internal roadway must be signed with a roadway name sign and also must be
signed "no parking - fire lane", with signs installed in accordance with the Public
Works specifications. Signs must face both directions on both sides of the
roadway for clear notice to motorists.
12. For maintenance purposes, trees or extensive landscaping shall not be planted
within the 20' public utility easement.
NOTE: Staff does not recommend a waiver of the Final Site Plan review, as
requested by the applicant. Additional information/detail should be reviewed through
the Final Development Plan application.
r
CUP #00-13
06/09/00{
®lr
Page 9
62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall
approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addresses and
satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution consistent
with the public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or a modification
for the unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712.
62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be
guided by the following criteria:
Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
A. Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in
the area are adequate to serve the proposed development.
B. Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic
hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been
identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account
or will be addressed in the Phase II plans.
C. Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the
arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent
practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation
of the site.
D. Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the
proposed development:
1. Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local
residential streets;
2. Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets;
3. Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours
on local residential streets;
E. Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the
development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be
exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access
points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where
needed.
F. Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the
heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the
surrounding development. Factors to consider include:
CUP #00-13 • .
06/09/00
Page 10
Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties
during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year;
2. Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary
exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences
in elevation.
G. Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed
setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with
that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district.
H. Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction,
the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and
desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or
other focal points.
Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards
proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the
development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior
traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage,
noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards,
unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in
architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses.
J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes
adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case
of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance
requirements.
K. General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance,
general density and overall site design of the proposed development
should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to
determine the general compatibility of the development with its
surroundings.
62.386 Recreational Uses:
1) Campgrounds and Trailering Parks: The density of proposed developments
shall not exceed 20 sites per acre. Spaces for trailers shall be at least 25 feet
wide, and a 30 foot separation between any designated site and a residential
zoning district boundary shall be maintained. Recreational space equal to 10
percent of the site area shall be provided, with no single area smaller than 800
square feet in size. Submittal information shall include plans for utilities,
sanitary facilities, bathing facilities and the waste disposal system. Trailer
parks located in the Flood Fringe, Flood Prone and Floodway Districts are
subject to the provisions of 62.800.
r=
--------------
6'
L-
10'
WELCOME
AUTUMN WOODS
RV PARK
r OO
Engineering
Surveying
Planning
ii GI C 2000
Prepared For:
Galen Youngkrantz
2260 Fisher Ct. NW
Geoffrey G Griffin
241 North Winona Street Chatfield. Mr. 55923 Ph. 507-262-2683
• • 1 *A�
�O�r+
Y 7O
SURFACE DRAIN
S RM SEWER SANITARY RISER
0' D' \
61 S ARY SE R 74' 3e' „ o.
p 0'
ELE TRI ABLE TV, PH \ I ` 94 ,WATER ISE
2 Yp \
!l XXW A yc
9
ACE
JfV, PH"TERRIS
HSEWER
1 ,
&MMY-1 ME
'o.
94ri 35"
C
SANIT
20'
20'
14'
20'
r�L
Engineering Prepared For: ^
0 30' U Surveying Galen Youngkrantz eofrey G Griffin Plannin2260 Fisher Ct. NW
g Rochester, MN 55901
Gf
24/ North Winona Street Chatfield, Mn. 55923 Ph. 507-282-2683 SHEET 1 OF 1 I FILE NO.: 99149
to;a
,..il G %]
l� JUN 9 2000
niiiuum
uir�iiom:
wuo;m
ml�o a uo
a i,ii�muu
i[ulann:
nirmi�
Glllinln
IIII:G�.�u
iinnmui
,
Engineering
Surveying
Planning
Ph. 51 2-2693
Prepared For:
Galen Younakrantzl
2250 Fisher Ct. NylI
J
Geoffrey G Griffin
241 N Pinono Street Chatfield, Mn. 55923
1
16.0'
1�
a
i 1 ,
'-4'
CONCRETE SLAB W/8'•r
`�7HICNENED EDGE
v
o�
PROYiDE GATE HINGES AND �
! a ,aLATCHBDLT CLOSURE FOR BOORS
0
a
I— E.O' 1 6.D' —i
TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL
A' TREATED POST
6' TREATED
6' CEDAR TRIM
CEDAR DECX BOARDS
CHOICE: PROVIDE VERTICAL
DOWEL PIN TO SET
POST ON, 4' CONCRETE SLAB W/
OR SET POST IN CONCRETE H'S O 24' O.C. EA WAY
1618' 7HICI(ENED EDGE
w/ 2-KS CONT. TW.
TRASH ENCLOSURE SECTION
Engineering Prepared For: -
((��I Surveying Galen Youngkrontz
2260 Fisher Ct. NW
Geoffrey G Griffin Planning Rochester, MN 55901
241 North Winona Street Chatfield. Mn. 55923 Ph. 507-282-2683 rn r un. Oouo
ELEVATION
4
J
13q
IfLr%
FROM: Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GWADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA
5071285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287.2275
Cord Use 0-13 The consultant for the applicant discussed this application with staff prior
Youngkratz RV Park to filing the Conditional Use application. A determination was made that a
traffic impact study was not warranted based on the low volumes of daily
and peak hour traffic expected. Estimated peak hour traffic for a park with
53 sites is approximately 25-30 vehicles, and daily traffic is estimated at
220-240 vehicles per day.
The applicant should coordinate with the Public Works Department
regarding improvements at the entrance to the park. A right turn lane
should be provided given the types of vehicles that will be slowing to enter
the park and the likely presence of higher speed traffic (35-40 MPH) that
can probably be anticipated on 111h Ave. SW once it is upgraded in the
I
RON
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
,ve ,olerlye, we ielwer
June 6, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: REVISED: Type III, Phase II Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #00-13 by Galen &
Patricia Youngkrantz to allow for the development of a recreational vehicle park with 53 sites, a manager's unit
and an office/bath house facility. The property is located along the east side of I Ith Ave. SW north of 100' Ave.
SW to be known as Autumn Woods RV Park.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced application is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property maybe subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Assessments
Manager (507-281-6004) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees.
2. Airport High Level Water System service is available to this site. Preliminary computer water system
modeling indicates with the combination of 8" and 6" water mains shown, adequate flows will be available to
the fire hydrants for fire protection.
3. For maintenance purposes do not plant trees or place extensive landscaping within the 20' public utility
easement.
4. The owner is required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the installation of the
public water main. Contact the Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
for details.
Final water main construction plans will need to be prepared by a civil engineer and conform to standard City
of Rochester requirements.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
�
"mA
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz
GGG Engineering
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
10\ GGG
Engineering Surveying chi Planning
14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923
Phone: 507-867-1666
Fax: 507-867-1665
April 26, 2000
Olmsted/Rochester Planning
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Conditional Use and Restricted Development for Autumn Woods RV Park
We are requesting that the property described by the attached legal description become part of a
restricted development. Currently the property is zoned M-l. The proposed use of the property
would be a Recreational Vehicle Park, which is a B-4 type use. The restricted development is to
cover only that part of the property that is depicted in the site layout for the RV Park (north 295
feet). The remaining south 200 feet of the property will not be developed at this time.
Development of that portion will need to go through the necessary processes before any
improvements can be made.
What follows is additional information, which may further answer questions about the
Autumn Woods RV Park.
Streets and Utilities:
The streets and service utilities throughout the RV Park will be privately owned and maintained.
The only utility that will be dedicated to the city will be the 6" water main and hydrants through
the center of the RV Park, which provide fire protection. All water services, starting from the
tee, which goes to the meters in the bathhouse, will be private. Easements will be provided for
the city watermain and all other utilities that will require one. The attached typical site layout
shows the distances between each utility and hookups for each lot.
Vegetation:
Currently nearly the entire site is wooded. Construction will be done in such a manner as to
leave any trees that don't have to be removed for construction of utilities, the roadway and the
stormwater detention pond. Additionally, the north 50' of the property is subject to an
"environmental easement" which doesn't allow for the removal of existing trees. There will be
no grading or tree removal in this area. This area will be the bufferyard to the South Pointe
development.
Stormwater:
Currently the area being developed drains to the east where there is a broad swale drainage way
flowing north/ northeast. To provide treatment of the stormwater coming off the development, a
private stormwater pond will be constructed in the broad drainage swale. A ditch will be
constructed around the east side of the pond to divert the existing runoff from property to the
south around the pond. The pond will have the capacity to treat this development and the future
2 143
development of the remaining south 200 feet of the property. The pond sill cause sediment to
settle out in the pond and an outlet pipe will allow the treated water to exit into the broad swale.
Parking:
Required off street parking for a RV Park is one parking spot per overnight site. Each site will
fulfill this requirement.
Exterior Refuse Collection:
Exterior storage of refuse is required in this development (Exterior Storage Standard "T"). An
area near the bathhouse has been designated for refuse collection. This area will be on a hard
surface and will be fenced on three sides for aesthetics.
Exterior Lighting:
Exterior lighting for the project has a type "C" level of performance per the zoning district table.
The proposed lighting in the project will be 20'-25' light poles with a luminaire having a total
cutoff angle greater that 900.
Recreation Areas:
The required recreation space for Campgrounds and Trailering Parks is 10% of the site area. The
RV sites cover 4.5 acres. This project would require .45 acres of recreation space. In addition to
green space near the bathhouse on the west end of the site, an area east of the inplace sanitary
sewer line will be designated for recreation space. Recreational areas will supply picnic tables,
some playground equipment, fire pit/grills, and outside hydrants.
Access to RV Park:
Access to Autumn Woods RV Park will be made off I I"i Ave SW. This road is a collector
street. Charlie Reiter with the Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department deemed a Traffic Impact
Report unnecessary for this development.
Buffervard Requirements:
This development has a Bufferyard Indication of VI. A Bufferyard is only required along the
north line of this development which is adjacent to the South Pointe residential development.
There is currently a 50 foot "environmental easement" along the north line of the property.
Approximately the south 30 feet of this easement currently has mature canopy trees and thick
underbrush growing on it. This existing vegetation should more than qualify as a Type F
buferyard. In any areas that may be found to be deficient, plantings will be placed to fit the
Type F bufferyard criteria.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at any time.
MarJk%fWelch
Design Engineer
Cc: Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government
Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Mr. Jim Suk, Chair; Ms. Mary Petersson, Vice Chair; Mr. James Burke; Mr.
Ardell Brede; Mr. Michael Quinn; Mr. Randy Stover
Members Absent: Mr. Gerry Werven; Ms. Christine Schultze; Ms. Diane McGowan
Staff Present: Ms. Jennifer Garness and Ms. Mitzi A. Baker
Other City Staff Present: None
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve the minutes of May 24, 2000, as
written. Mr. Stover seconded the motion. The minutes from May 24, 2000
were approved unanimously.
Ms. Baker stated that the applicant, for item C1, withdrew the request. They
will resubmit an application, at a later date.
The Commission approved the agenda.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
Type III Phase 11 Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #00-13 by Galen 8
Patricia Youngkrantz to allow for the development of a recreational vehicle park with 53
sites for vehicles a manager's and assistant manager's units, and an officelbath house
facility. The recreational vehicle park is proposed to be located along the east side of
11 Avenue SW south of Scenario Lane SW, and north of 10 Ave. Sw.
Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated June 9, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is
on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker indicated, to the audience, that there is a copy of a memorandum, dated June 14,
2000, modifying some of the conditions listed in the staff report. She explained that the
Rochester Public Works Department submitted a revised set of comments. Also, staff obtained
information on elevations.
Ms. Baker stated that the applicant proposes to develop a RV park on the northern 8.7 acres of
the property. They did not disclose a plan for the southern 200 feet of the property. However, if
the park is approved and is successful, they may expand the park onto the rest of the property.
If this occurs, the applicant would need to go through the conditional use permit process again.
Paget l
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: June 14, 2000
Ms. Baker stated that there is an existing 50-foot environmental easement, along the north
property boundary.
Ms. Baker stated that the applicant asked that the final plan review procedure be waived. She
explained that the Council has the authority to waive the procedure, if they feel sufficient
information has been provided. She indicated that, if the Commission wanted to see additional
information, they could either continue the hearing or suggest that the Council not waive the
final plan review.
Mr. Quinn asked if there would be a private roadway.
Ms. Baker responded yes.
Ms. Petersson asked if they could require a storm shelter be provided, since they are required in
mobile home parks.
Ms. Baker responded that there is little information in the ordinance regarding campground and
trailer parks. She indicated that, if the Commission and Council decided that it would provide for
better safety and in the,public interest, they could add it as a condition.
Mr. Burke asked if the bathhouse, if constructed properly, could serve as a storm shelter.
Ms. Baker responded that she did not know the required codes. However, if there are internal
rooms without windows and it is constructed to a certain standard, she believes it would qualify.
Ms. Petersson stated that only a part of 11th Avenue SW is paved. She expressed concern with
having a road that is partially paved and gravel. She asked if the City could pave the entire
road.
Ms. Baker stated that the City has been collecting substandard street fees for reconstruction of
substandard roads. She stated that the fee applied to the South Pointe development. She
stated that she would pass the concern to Richard Freese, Rochester Public Works Director.
Mr. Staver asked if the sites would be tied into the city sewer or a private septic system.
Ms. Baker responded that the sites would go into the city sewer service.
Mr. Burke asked if the environmental easement is on record.
Ms. Baker responded that it is an existing easement, according to the application. She
suggested that the applicant would need to respond to any additional detail regarding the
easement.
Mr. Burke asked what type of buffer would be needed between an R-1 zoning district and the
current type of development.
Ms. Baker read Section 62.386 Recreational Uses of the ordinance. She indicated that staff
suggested that a fence or berm would provide little benefit for visual screening, since the
existing vegetation within the 50-foot easement would be maintained.
Ms. Petersson asked if they could require a chain link fence.
q�Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: June 14, 2000
Ms. Baker responded yes.
The applicant's representative, Mark Welch of GGG Engineering, addressed the Commission.
He stated that it would be hard to specify where all the trees are on the landscape plan. He
indicated that they plan on keeping as many trees as possible.
Mr. Welch stated that they would like the bufferyard condition be taken off, when the RV park
expands to the South. They would like to state that, if a bufferyard needs to be built and if there
is any kind of development other than an RV park, that the bufferyard be constructed at the time
they come back for another conditional use permit.
Mr. Welch stated that the environmental easement was on the property before the current
owner purchased it.
Mr. Suk asked if the applicant would provide a storm shelter.
Mr. Welch responded that it was not required. If it were required, they would look at turning the
bathhouse into a concrete building.
Ms. Petersson asked how the applicant felt about having a fence.
Mr. Welch responded that they could put up signs that state "Private Property" at each of the
corners of all the lots. He explained that there would be strict guidelines.
Ms. Petersson asked what the curfew would be.
Mr. Welch responded 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Brede asked how many spots are seasonal, out of the 53 sites.
Mr. Welch responded that the row in the middle has 19 sites. He explained that there would not
be anyone staying the entire year, due to the weather.
Mr. Burke asked if the two permanent structures on the property would have basements.
Mr. Welch responded no. He stated that they would be manufactured homes.
Ms. Kris Hammel, 704 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. She stated that she
represents the residents of South Pointe Addition (a large amount of the audience stood up).
She stated that most of the residents purchased the property to enjoy the privacy of the wooded
area. She stated that they did not anticipate that they could have 24 hour -neighbors, since it
was zoned commercial.
Ms. Hammel stated that they have photographs of the site, which were taken 25 feet within the
property.
Ms. Hammel suggested to the Commission that the applicant construct a high privacy fence to
be placed on the south most border of the entire 50-foot environmental easement to provide
additional buffer. She explained that one of the residents runs a daycare from her home.
Page 4
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: June 14, 2000
i+T
Ms. Hammel expressed concern for the RV guests, with the recreation space located near
Highway 63. Also, the guests would have access to the City Park. She also expressed concern
with regard to traffic on 11"' Avenue.
Ms. Hammel questioned how the proposal would meet the needs for retaining the trees with the
construction expectations. Also, she asked what accountability the Commission had to make
sure that the proposal is met.
Ms. Hammel asked why the applicant couldn't retain the north area and develop on the south
portion of the property.
Mr. Tony Lichner, of 802 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. He showed the
Commission photographs of the property.
Mr. Welch stated that the applicant proposes to put in additional plantings to fill in the bare
areas.
Mr. Lichner expressed concern for the vegetation with people walking through the 50-foot
environmental easement.
Mr. Lichner stated that he would like the fence placed on the south side of the easement,
instead of on the property lines, so that he could still see the vegetation.
Ms. Sherrie Nelson, of 819 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. She questioned
would what stop seasonal employees from permanently staying at the RV park.
Ms. Nelson expressed concern with seasonal employees and their children vandalizing their
homes. She stated that she would like the park to be for adults only.
Ms. Petersson responded that they could not request that it only be for adults. Also, there will
be a 24-hour, 7 days a week on -site management.
Ms. Nelson expressed concern with having two manufactured homes near $300,000 homes.
She stated that she is concerned about the value of her home. She asked why the Commission
does not require the applicant to build a house comparable to all of the other houses in the area.
Ms. Petersson responded that a mobile home could be put on any lot in the City, as long as it
meets standards.
Mr. Suk explained that other uses could be placed on the site.
Mr. Burke stated that a privacy fence along the north property line would not allow for a
passageway between the subdivision and the development would. He asked if this would
alleviate some of her concerns.
Ms. Nelson stated that a chain fence would not be acceptable.
Mr. Burke asked that, if the Commission requires a privacy fence, if it would alleviate the
audience's concerns.
A large amount of people in the audience replied yes.
1 TCit e 5
1! ��"r�°City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: June 14, 2000
Ms. Baker explained that there are a number of uses that could occur on a 24-hour basis in the
M-1 zoning district. She stated that some of them could generate smoke and noise. She stated
that the only restriction is that, if a building is located within 200 feet of a residential district,
doorways or other openings could not face the residential property boundary.
Mr. Suk asked what type of accommodations could be placed there.
Ms. Baker responded motels, hotels, and rooming houses.
Ms. Bethany Krom, of 803 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. She expressed
concern with having almost year-round neighbors. She stated that she would like to see time
limits on when people stay. She asked if the park would include room for tents.
Ms. Petersson responded that tents would not be allowed. She explained that the seasonal
sites would only be used until frost.
Ms. Krom asked if it is a requirement.
Mr. Suk responded no.
Ms. Krom stated that she would like a requirement stating how long people could stay at the
site. Also, she would like to see a fence and storm shelter provided.
Mr. David Thompson, of 810 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. He stated that
there are utility poles at the property line. Therefore, it would prohibit a fence on the property
line. He stated that a more reasonable place to put the fence would be on the south end of the
50400t easement.
Mr. Ernie Moeller, of 910 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is
concerned about what would happen if the RV park were not successful. He questioned what
regulations there are for the applicant to not turn it into a mobile home park.
Mr. Suk responded that, if there were a change in use, the applicant would need to come back
to the Commission for another conditional use permit.
Mr. Dwight Parker, of 712 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. He stated that this
request was tabled, from the June 9, 2000 meeting, to gain information from the Airport
Commission Board. He stated that he thought they were also waiting for a response from the
City Attorney regarding an ordinance requiring anything with permanent housing close to the
airport having to be at least''/2 acre lots.
Ms. Baker responded that a RV park is for recreational vehicles. She stated that it is not the
same as a manufacture home park. A RV park is not intended for permanent dwellings and
RVs do not meet the definition of a dwelling. She also stated that the two manufactured homes
proposed on the site have an average density lower than what would be required.
Mr. Parker asked if the center site area could be used for manufactured homes.
Ms. Baker responded no.
Page 6 • • I q
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: June 14, 2000
Mr. Parker stated that he would like the sites, in the center row, to have a certain date be
designated and in written form that people can stay there.
Mr. Welch stated that the park would be very well maintained. He explained that, if fire pits
were used on each site, firewood would be available for sale. He explained that the proposed
development is much better than what could be proposed for this site. He stated that it is the
only type of development that could preserve as many trees.
Mr. Welch stated that there is a 50-foot buffer and they could plant additional trees. Therefore,
he does not believe a privacy fence is needed.
Mr. Suk stated that 6 feet is the maximum height a fence could be.
Mr. Welch stated that some of the houses are on higher property. Therefore, they would be
looking over the fence. Also, if the fence were located on the south side of the easement, it
would give the property owners additional property.
Ms. Petersson asked Mr. Welch for sample rules of the park.
Mr. Welch responded that he did not have them with him.
Mr. Brede asked if a RV could be left at the site during the off-season.
Mr. Welch replied yes. He stated that, if a person wanted to leave their RV at the site, they
would park the RV in the back area. He stated that they could make it a stipulation that it be
parked off to the side.
Mr. Galen Youngkrantz, of 2260 Fisher Court NW, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Brede asked if the regulations would prohibit someone from leaving a vacant RV on the
property for a month or two. He asked what a standard fee would be.
Mr. Youngkrantz responded that the fee would be approximately $26.00 a day. He indicated
that it would be unlikely that someone would leave their RV on the property.
Mr. David Thompson, of 810 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. He stated that
there are 9 lots that are along the RV park. He stated that only one has a fence. He indicated
that no one uses the wooded area for their personal use.
Mr. Brede asked if it would be an option that the property owners plant a row of trees on their
property.
Mr. Thompson responded that there are utility lines along the property line.
Ms. Sherrie Nelson, of 819 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. She asked why the
RV park couldn't be moved south into the area that is not going to be developed.
Mr. Suk responded that the Commission could only address issues that come before them. He
explained that it is the applicant's decision.
l
1 �ge 7
rty Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: June 14, 2000
Ms. Kris Hammel, 704 Scenario Lane SW, addressed the Commission. She stated that it is
important that the applicant know that the neighborhood is willing to work with an environment
that is appropriate. If a fence is recommended, she asked that the Commission place it
wherever they feel it would be appropriate.
Ms. Baker stated that, if the Commission were looking at a fence location, staff would need to
talk with RPU regarding the overhead power lines. She stated that fenced could not be
constructed on a utility easement.
Ms. Baker stated that the Commission might want to ask for a copy of the park rules.
Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Petersson moved to approve Typ, a -All, Phaso 11 jtes#icted Development Condltinnal
Use Permit #0043 by Galen 1 Patricia JFounq)jEanti, witf staff-sur9gested f;ndings_and
the following,condltigtts
,,ii y. r ,art* Fd' i.Ri �'Y t ' `i r 5 a i * a
riOJY iliONSa ,,>fa�a� j � � r#i -`, to ♦ 'ykroz ;-_, ;
aplant s6�11 execu% at ° ` rs�t�►r iel<fct
iur #provairoan ivegtx'�, ;.," r
Mahutaredhones,�ra �d#or&its - aµtl+ �ct�asi�re��komaat
tote dean tipit of+))weldn slen v�iith" cdir 6ij�,2lil} of -
R
tfia �ta�liest,�r'�+oti�n� t;�r >�alt,ceSa .,,
rnanuf;lcura h�if;ea�s�mde'sect ant�1
Kr �,+5^
"5Abu k�. >
tisvaoph� ermlts an others inrhich may �s reyulre�lp
r T
ag�n s�e8 ° prior tp commencement of c7evejopmengA
t aetiv es r �
bpe-, a"gta�dinj n -Zra" e ow oc retracts ffie/
'""aGj'� l��
e !it t y3 Pt x Wr r r
"i.� it
4 Birtreatopsd albWIM
Si
9. le�Cleiins���kfprY,j�4yhil ttearea identtf#ed
a hr
%r411Yr"'uu+ t tvK e4k '�Mit m r� iy 'SY
'$u� ova klital levelo ent Plan applicatcnor tii p} e�lSehl�l�idludet
a -.�a - r afe x s^.�✓t €i a'e3.b'iK .G 'Wchap^?
,Q:k1z
`�► !ed ii ling clodft jllumination leve(Is at
�r... 5,0$ a otase� come ` Q�o+C t e
maoaer# unf# k siQyat7on§ande ` �+Enlb
c k7.fiF. t .ir 'x;i^' ur iyx4f xryc a s " A
,l>s a e ig Ifor,°t tl as istanat managers uNt;
Len $Re flan ident�i A areas of tfie sp r�ticll �r� �'�l>e
� �e " r
klna7ll Ipq fn 4 - a a Proximate der s n ze re s 1110
�
m an�N dn�►in VR'� eYtatkori �o be plY ;�t11r�
ufeht#fahi reenipg snthe southern and x frstarY�ile
bVaff� a9f�OJ 1J[etleY,aP�4►ltktbPA fiH_'M 4`rk
> theiolSp�i] clprelopm sl�gTia mod t�i ensj digtfclxedui�1e
of a : iistin `o io lose 0 en ,..�-» I.
Page 8 S7
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: June 14, 2000
:. .. "1'rr'nw$°Yi�su i��+^�>`�"ray. z�Fk«M Y, '�,4 •�"2°s 'gr '. � y# it y
7i Prior to development of this pr6pat y, the applicant shall dedicate 3Q' of right-qf-way
for i I Avenue SW (vta 1Narran Deedji easements for ritiliti$� an cpntroiled
access along i tw Aveny@vVC, v�i th ti�� exceptibn o-f one 3 foot Vdq Occemppeffing.
4V On site Slor fiW..WIII ttdr of a
Stormwatief>lAaTnteraan a ne` Fti ree � , iro n gte10Men t
Gap itcant s>IaJG �v e »r rf h rn tape into the Site fro � Ayenus S..
,4x, r'vgt X3�Yia[u., .� ruses zn
b".si
tQ ThRfiternal ro�dlrtruoadvtray name sign and also must
igne�l " parkfnInailed3n accorc�anc+ vyttil the pub
1Nbr1 s y,§e-c-i#icait op's�ging g " F4, ons on both sides of #ije
[ql ciea�hdlR�#Ici tp�oi 3 s SR�Sryfi
¢ , '3 d `'
S,11
# # 1✓of trrSnehb uses' e'e5 or extenstve,lan st aping sa'11 trot he rit`Nlli '.
g
th@ 4gt�htyeaserrle?Iiil}i{4 z"x4yr rcp ¢h yrrtSa}ll
I''.n sw'✓ 3 o- F anu f a� is
' t o- =� -F i �' .r x ua' w 3 h• tJ -� i` zr� e
'l�. Fripoeelo ment of thts propertlfi the appl #can! shall execuf@ aFDerelpjn 4fi,
Agfeerie�r�irth Ctty that, dudes bums not I�jnited #q,th Ow ppi' oj� i a Q' i
sq..ffi. -4615— s 'ill
or f i@ matn�gement, affic improayemenisr pei#@stnan 12 trios ice ,a1ap d 1
I.., =e R, k :ti, i S.d i. �g a Y
jrbii� *'-of-waydedicatlan and1pont�ributionso�ryubl�p�s#rues''
lorFl i[ y
7 ,lfies au�sha�I d�Rnply�vJthany,StateandDist"� n�
1 end bn tnih 0_11TRY apply, Tq thljg "deve'lopmel"it ant] shall wa tte 3 h ire�iiesl
!yy QIl!@rnetltoviston of ap noes a abatem[ en1'reyated to"1
a�ear&3. f hVa4r3,�`v <e'*����,5i(�` s rrA,'vve �ayA4."`` >ri :e r c{�k��. i s
`X x ;,jr,i�,W,i.' *i &N'd" t rt tw s {
14 Seller sha 1°be rovldsitoi>t' odepoilito it`al
3 u s alq -
corpgrated !n o th ti ,
fence%e.provl ed a on,�/ythe°s
neexists oLt =s e o = h utlL ease "'o p `,'S
< Ly "ash° {`r
Ihes, �t aii�sddiYjon toaadd t ono antingr #q n;i ap�ir YYerp
� xSs
'� rl+`°14">ijE�ry .'ns 5+'-�e'"r�Y-n n fc. t '*'w•y" r' ss " 4',v �""
t
#d4 copy of the park'ru�es bergvl �dwi h #tnapl n'apptigat(q rr
..NYC \� n )i i r•par ,ru ki $ a } any:"? aY�3.i,A+x4a5 ,}rdyFY ..'C 1M aL P M t 5' 1y
la,F."�2°Yww��1
Mr. Sulk asked what type of fence should be used.
Ms. Petersson responded that a chain link fence would preserve the view.
INr, t3rede seconiledtiie mo#lota�, ,' ..; "�ff4_ _ ,..„..
Ms. Petersson agreed with Mr. Brede's second.
Ms, Petersson stated that she would like the applicant to provide copy of the rules, prior to the
Council meeting.
Mr. Burke asked if the fence would be in lieu of additional plantings.
Page 9 • •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Baring Date: Tune 14, 2000
Ms. Petersson responded that it would be in addition to.
Mr. Staver stated that he was unsure as to what they are trying to accomplish with a fence and
additional plantings.
Discussion ensued regarding additional plantings.
Ms. Baker summarized that the Commission's motion to approve is based on staff -suggested
findings and conditions and also the following additional conditions:
1. A storm shelter shall be provided on the property. If possible, it could be
incorporated into the bathhouse.
2. A fence be provided along the south side of the utility easement for the overhead
lines, if one exists, in addition to additional plantings to fill in the gaps where the trees
are bare.
3. A copy of the park rules be provided with a final plan application.
The Commission recommended that the Council not waive the final plan review requirement.
Discussion ensued regarding who maintains the easement, with regard to junk lying in it.
The, motion'mdod 6.0a777
TABLED ITEMS:
The applicant withdrew the
Ms. Baker stated that the Commissi needs to ke a motion to table the request to their June
28, 2000 meeting. She explaine at the applican trying to work out negotiations with City
Public Works.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING `
7-5-00 ` J MW
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
.
IIPARED
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING
3
I DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-48 to be known as Bandel North First.
PBY:
. Baker,
June 28,2000
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. Easements for off site utilities and a temporary turn -a -round at the east end of "Bandel Drive" shall be executed prior to
recording the Final Plat Documents for this property.
2. Parkland dedication for this property shall be met via cash in lieu of land consistent with the attached June 26, 2000
memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department
3. The Plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along both sides of Overland Drive.
Council Action Needed:
1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Attachment:
1. Staff Report dated June 28, 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 Wednesday July 5, 2000, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
5. McGhie 8 Betts, Inc.
_JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to:Cd4*14a
u C.s,.d _ 7-0
Z—� --�
<--SLYYHS s JO a LgYHS
Y.VS-->
I +
Ll
I
Lo
.5 X Nrq
y{
I
b
NSNi1x0
�� � •� @!i!
f0
w ••
� � r
_
1 `
TiiR]6s� I I ®N.c+M.wx
I ]A
I �
V I ii I x mu°t •nw°x § f4e a*.Nuws f
N i
10 G 1
yq�`d g`
N
t, i well
' q
s �\� Wrm x E—
M+Ly
�A*'P:r'ajNare.it
:r• �"�� � a m �� t �
Lj
r«
lex
/m w a
-m
_ $�k• ass
_ wets
J -cs
C
Ile
Y
9
M Lt
a L Z V d N [I A S
at
W
•� — — — — as at
--m _71
� Fe
Q
Al
ya•i I I <--SlffffHS S dO Z ZHJHS H.VS-->
/ I 91 O
L I I I l
91 I I it E! I S1
e
�. Y ' r K sanoa 7YQN16 �
IV
It
W \\
vQ LJ V IdNa
rs N•IfIWT
a
!
91
91
Llvi
g-
42
3,UxAN
Ooaa awwrr•xar•a,q
'T..Louno
/
01
OPEN
➢ � I 1 � " Itl t�lal! -
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
TO:
Rochester Common Council
ADMINISTRATION
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
FROM:
Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
BUILDING CODE
DATE:
June 28, 2000
WELUSEPTIC
FAX
RE:
Final Plat #99-48 to be known as Bandel
North First Subdivision
Plannina Deaartment Review:
ApplicantlOwner: Big DE Development
PO Box 247
Byron, MN 55920
Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: Rochester Department of Public Works; Planning
Department Transportation Division; Rochester Park
& Rec. Dept.
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 Letters)
2. Location Map
3. Copy of Final Plat
Plat Data:
Location of Property: This plat is located east of Bandel Rd., south of 651"
St. NW.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family).
Proposed Development: This development consists of 28.66 acres to be
subdivided into 66 lots for single family residential
development and 3 Outlots.
5071285-8232
5071285-8232
507/285-8224
5071285-8213
507/285-8345
507/287-2275
Substantial Land Alteration: The applicant is
requesting approval for Substantial Land Alteration
activities on -site, concurrent with this Final Plat
application. Portions of the site will be cut 18 feet;
others will be filled 22 feet. No finished slopes will be
steeper than 3:1. Please see the attached letter from
ne/Mp[n
`-'� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
15
Page 2
(� June 28, 2000
McGhie & Betts Inc. which provides an explanation of
these activities and also includes suggested findings
as required by Section 62.1105 of the LDM.
Streets: The plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for five (5)
new roads and will also dedicate right-of-way for
Bandel Road. Right of way is being dedicated for
"Overland Drive" which will be the easterly extension
of 651h St. that will eventually connect to 181h Ave.
NW.
Utilities: Sewer is available at Bandel Rd. NW and will be
extended to serve this Plat.
Water service to the site is currently limited. In order
to provide adequate pressure for domestic use, the
Northwest High Level Water System will need to be
extended to this property from the Orchard Ridge
development on the west side of TH 52. An alternate
option, approved by RPU Water, is the installation of
a temporary booster pump station that would be
removed at the time the higher pressure from the NW
High Level System is made available.
Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along the streets being dedicated in this plat.
A 10' pedestrian trail will also be required along the
east side of Bandel Rd. NW.
Drainage:
The property generally drains to the north. The Plat
labels a "detention pond area" in the northerly portion
of Outlot A. Storm sewer is proposed to capture and
convey run off, from a majority of the site, to Outlot A.
A small portion of the property drains to the
southwest. That run off is proposed to be captured
by storm sewer, which will extend to Bendel Road.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils.
There do not appear to be hydric soils on this portion
of the property according to the Soils Survey.
Spillover Parking:
The spillover parking requirements for this
development would be 79 parking spaces. The
proposed roadways should be adequate to
accommodate the required spillover spaces.
Parkland Dedication:
The Park & Recreation Department recommends that
dedication requirements be satisfied by cash in lieu of
land. There is a 40 acre Park/School property
southeast of this property.
General Development Plan:
This property is included within the Hidden Oaks
Valley GDP.
i
Page 3 '
June 28, 2000
Preliminary Plat:
The preliminary plat for this property was approved by the Rochester Common Council in
March 2000 subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1. The Plat be revised as follows:
Roadway names shall be revised and the future collector road shall be named with
names and roadway types approved by the City and Planning Department GIS
Division.
2. Slormwater management must be provided for this development. Any facility serving 50 or
less developable acres will remain private and will require execution of long term maintenance
agreements and easements.
3. Easements for off site utilities and a temporary tum-a-round at the east end of Bendel Drive" shall be
executed prior to recording the Final Plat Documents for this property.
4, in addition to construction of sidewalk along both sides of all new public roads, a 10' wide bituminous
pedestrian facility is required along Bandel Rd. NW.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the
applicant relating to, but not limited to, storm water management, park dedication, traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure.
6. Parkland dedication for this property shall be met via cash in lieu of land.
7. The size of the returns at Bendel Road shall be designed so that a design vehicle can turn right without
crossing the centerline. The culverts at this Intersection shall be extended beyond the right-of-way so
that future pedestrian facilities can be installed.
B. Capacity improvements will be required on Bendel Road to serve this development, including right and
left turn lanes. The property may be subject to a Substandard Street Capacity Charge as established
by the Council in conjunction with future; improvements to Bendel Road.
9. The applicant shall provide the necessary watermain extension between Lot 3 and Lot 4, Block 5 as
required by RPU Water division.
Plannina Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the
following conditions or modifications:
1. Easements for off site utilities, and a temporary turn -a -round at the east end of " Bandel Drive"
shall be executed prior to recording the Final Plat Documents for this property.
2. Parkland dedication for this property shall be met via cash in lieu of land consistent with the
attached June 26, 2000 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department
3. The Plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along both sides of Overland Drive.
Reminder to the applicant: Payment of parkland dedication fees and execution of easements for off site
utilities, tum-a-rounds or right -of --way is required prior to recording the final plat documents.
1(0 McGhie Betts inc.
Consulting Engineers 7 Land 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
June 19, 2000
Ms. Mitzi Baker
Consolidated Planning Department
2122 SE Campus Dr.
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Exemption from Section 62.1101.2 (a) for Bandel North First Subdivision
Dear Ms. Baker:
Section 62.1101 of the Rochester Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance contains new
standards for substantial land alteration projects. The grading of the Bandel North First Subdivision will
result in exceeding a 10-foot vertical cut and a 10-foot vertical fill over various portions of the site,
primarily in the north half of the project. This project meets the definition of Section 62.1101.2.a.1 (d)
where the cut/fill involves a grade change of 10-feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The enclosed
grading plan indicates the cut and fill areas on the site. The raw cut volume is approximately 150,000
cubic yards. All excess materials will be placed on the site. The maximum extreme cut would be
approximately 18' and that would occur on the northeastern portion of the site. The maximum amount of
fill would be approximately 22' on the north central part of the site (See grading plan.)
Section 62.1102.1.F provides for an exemption provided there are sufficient findings made as contained
in 62.1105. The following are suggested findings in support of the request:
62.1105(1-15):
1. The activity necessary to grade the portions in excess of 18-foot vertical cut/fill will not result in
unstable slopes or unsafe access. The slopes on the east edge of the site will be a maximum of 3:1
and only a small portion of the grading would involve an excess of an 18-foot cut. The cuttfrll
areas are not adjacent to a planned park area or existing residential area.
2. The environmental impacts of grading on this site to adjacent properties will be minimal because
there is vacant land on three sides of the property. The grading activity that is adjacent to Bandel
Road affects only 320 LF of right-of-way.
3. Access to the site will be from Bandel Road. It will not be necessary to truck in fill or haul fill off
of the site, so that will minimize the impact on the surrounding roads.
4. The additional grading will not adversely affect air quality. The cut/fill is not near the ground
water and grading that is necessary to create the storm water facility.
5. The natural topography of the area will be re -graded to provide adequate slopes for single-family
dwellings, but the overall scenic quality will be maintained.
K. M. McGhie, PE, LS, 1904-1975 William E. Tointon, CET, President James E. Swanson, L5, Vice President David L. Morrill, PE, Vice President
Douglas N. Setts, PE, LS, Vice President Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA Larry J. Shannon, LS Michael E. Gowin, PE, LS
Mark E. Severtson, LS Darnel J. Zemke, PE Gregory H. Bond, PE
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1 6( f
6. The grading is compatible with the proposed adjacent neighborhood developments.
7. The grading will be confined to the Bandel North First site and will not duly affect the use and
enjoyment of adjacent properties.
8. The grading activity will take place in one phase and will take approximately 8 weeks. There is
only one home in the immediate area and that will not be visibly affected by the grading activity
because of the distance and site lines to the site.
9. The grading plan will provide for proper restoration stabilization in accordance with the codes for
the City of Rochester.
10. The grading plan will not result in negative impacts on the drainage patterns. The site will still
drain from the central portion of the site to the north into a storm water detention facility.
11. The area of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and will not affect the groundwater or
the subsurface water quality once restoration and stabilization is completed.
12. The grading of the site will take place in one phase and will take approximately 8 weeks. This
time frame is appropriate for the size and location of this activity.
13. Permanent and interim (during construction) erosion/sedimentation control are provided for in the
grading plan. The City has reviewed and approved the grading plan.
14. A performance and payment bond is required for all work associated with the construction of the
public improvements. This bond will be submitted with the owner/contractor.
15. The grading activity is not directly associated with the adopted building code. The standards in
the Land Development Manual and on file with Public Works shall apply to the design standards
and construction process.
Very truly yours,
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Andrew J. Masterpole
AJM/bd
Pc Harvey Ratzloff
Joel Bigelow
OWN
Irl
ROCHESTER PARK AND F :REATION DEPARTMENT '
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 26, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm
Planning
RE: Bandel North First Subdivision
Final #9948
Acreage of plat.......................................................... 2B.66 acres
Number of dwelling units ............................................. 66 units
Densityfactor............................................................ .0244
Dedication............................................................... 1.61 acres
Fair market value of land ............................................. $12,00/acre
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met
via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $19,320 (1.61 acres X $12,000/acre). Payment due prior
to recordation of plat.
Applicant:
Big DE Development
706 County Road 3 NW
Byron, MN 55920
N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\NW 2898\BANDEL HILLS NORTH.DOC
TRANSPORTATION STAFF
I43 /
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REVIEW DATABASE - 1998
Jurisdiction I ADnlieati0n I Comments
June2000
City
Bandel North
Final Plat should indicate controlled access along Overland Drive
City
Circle 19
Name of Superior Drive and Deacon Drive should be standardized on one or the
other
County
Prel Plat 00-3
To facilitate safe traffic operations a bypass lane on the west side of CSAH 11 at
County
the intersection Meadow Drive and CSAH 11 should be provided as part of the
Meadows
site improvements associated with development.
Consistent with other subdivision plats along Bear Creek between CSAH I 1 and
CSAH 19, an environmental corridor easement should be provided along Bear
Creek to permit management of a open space corridor along Bear Creek for future
public purposes including development of a non -motorized trail facility along the
corridor.
On the ROCOG Long Range Thoroughfare Plan 19'h St is shown as extending east
of CSAH 11 and angling to the southeast towards platted right of way in County
Creek Subdivision which will provide for a future realignment of CR 143 between
CSAH 11 and a point approximately View of CSAH 11 on CR 143. This
realignment will replace the current substandard intersection design found at the
south intersection of CR 143 and CSAH 11. Necessary right of way for this
improvement should be provided on the final plat.
(61 ROCHESTER
Minnesota
b/27/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a
Final Plat #99-48 on Bandel North First Subdivision fBia DE Development
Property). The following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
2. A temporary turn -around, and associated easement will be required at
the eastern end of Bandel Dr NW.
Charges/Fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in
the executed Development Agreement with the exception of:
❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic
Division;
(3) Stop Signs
(1) Speed Limit Sign
(1) Trunks Prohibited Sign
(9) Street Name Signs
C:1TEM P1FP#99.48.doc
06/29/00 15:22 FAX 507 287 2275 RUCH DLIM PLANNING DELI'
> CT) ADKIN
Ifl 002
ROCHESTER
Aomwas
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507) 285.8256
DATE: June 27, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning
From: Lyle Feisch, Deputy Chief
Subj: Type III, Phase I Final Plat #99-48, Bendel North First Subd., located on the east
side of Bandel Road NW adjacent to the City of Rochester Water Tower site.
This project will add 66 single family residential lots on 28.66 to the response area of
the Rochester Fire Department. The following are the requirements of the fire code:
An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
Due to the close proximity to the Bendel Water tank (not a tower), this area
presently has marginal water pressures and booster pump(s) may be necessary to
insure adequate fire protection water supplies. Refer to comments from Donn
Richardson, RPU Water Division.
2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance
with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. All fire
department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building
construction.
Emergency access to this development appears to be adequate as drawn.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any
residential buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
property,
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
McGhie & Betts, 1648 3`° Avenue SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904
Big DE Development, Box 247, Byron, Mn. 55920
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE 7-5-00 �[
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
M NABY:
is PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
re,
I DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-34 to be known as Circle 19 Plaza.
]PREPARED
Brent
June 29,2000
Planninq Department Review.
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1. Easements for a temporary turn -around at the westerly end of Heritage Place NW and at the southerly end of
Superior Drive NW must be executed with the City Public Works Department prior to the recording of the final
plat.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant)
1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications
2. Recording Statement
0
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 29, 2000.
Distribution:
1. City Attorney
2. Planning Department File
3. Planning Department — GIS
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street BE.
5. Yaggy Colby Associates
Ah
'IFUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
W I�
I qo
1����1�1��1911��1111
�n�AD
S
,OP
UNPLATTEO
'� J
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: June 29, 2000
RE: Final Plat #99-34 to be known as Circle 19 Plaza.
Plannino Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: B & H Development, LLC
2310 Telemark Lane NW
Rochester, MN 55902
• Liu �•
w.a �i-�aaJ•�
♦iL�ul��h�lltl�
ROC HESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
5071285-8232
PLANNING
GISIADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGMRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELVSEPTIC
5071285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
Surveyors/Engineers:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
1. Planning Department - Wetland LGU
2. Planning Department — Transportation
3. Planning Department — Addressing
4. RPU Operations Division
5. RPU Water Division
6. Rochester Public works Department
7. Rochester Fire Department
8. MnDOT
9. Olmsted County SWCD
Report Attachments:
1. Referral Comments (3 Letters)
2. Location Map
3. Copy of GDP
4. Copy of Final Plat
Plat Data:
Location of Property:
This plat is located along the west side of West Circle
Drive (CR 22), north of 19`" Street NW.
Zoning:
The property is zoning M-1 (Mixed Commercial -
Industrial).
Proposed Development:
This development consists of 21.51 acres to be
subdivided into 16 lots for commercial — industrial
development.
�`r AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
1 i age 2
Circle 19 Plaza
June 29, 2000
Streets: The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right-of-
way for three (3) roadways.
The first roadway is labeled "26" St. NW", extending
west off West Circle Drive. This roadway is designed
with a 51 to 40 foot roadway width.
The second roadway is labeled "Superior Drive NW"
and is proposed as a north/south roadway. This
roadway is designed with a 36' roadway surface. The
roadway will continue to the north and south with
future development.
The third roadway is labeled "Heritage Place NW"
and is an east/west roadway designed with a roadway
width of 40' at its intersection with West Circle Drive
and 36' after its intersection with Superior Drive NW.
The roadway will continue to the west with future
development.
Sidewalks:
In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along all streets being dedicated in this plat.
The approved construction plans indicate a 5' wide
sidewalk along both sides of the roadways.
Drainage:
Elevations on the property range from approximately
1040' on the south end to 1100' on the north end of
the Plat. Grading and drainage plans have been
approved for this plat.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils.
There do not appear to be hydric soils within this plat.
Public Utilities:
Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to be
extended from their present ends to serve this
property. Construction plans (roadways, sewer,
watermains, storm water management) have been
approved for this development.
Spillover Parking:
Parking requirements will be reviewed when specific
development proposals are submitted.
Parkland Dedication:
There are no parkland dedication requirements with
this Plat.
General Development Plan:
This property is included within the Hartman Farms
General Development Plan which was approved in
1999.
Page 3
Circle 19 Plaza
June 29, 2000
Preliminary Plat.
A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on September 20, 1999 with
the following conditions:
1. Storm water management must be provided for this development.
2. The roadway names "22nd Street NW, 42nd Avenue NW " be changed to named
roadways, consistent with the LDM Roadway Naming Standards. The applicant or
consultant shall coordinate with Staff to determine if the roadway names are
consistent with the LDM standards.
3. The Applicant shall provide a temporary turn -a -round at the west end of "22nd St. NW"
and the south end of "42"d Ave. NW. Easement documents for the temporary turna-
rounds must be executed with the City Public Works Department.
4. Pedestrian facilities must be located along all public roadways within and abutting the
plat consistent with City standards. The pedestrian trail must be provided along West
Circle Drive consistent with the Hartman Farms GDP.
5. A condition an the General Development Plan required the applicant to dedicate 50 feet
of right-of-way abutting 191h Street NW at the time of platting the first subdivision or
when the City notified the owner. The plat must be revised to include the dedication of
right-of-way for 191h St. NW or the necessary land can be deeded to the City with this
first plat.
6. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, a Traffic Design Analysis must be completed and
approved to determine the roadway cross sections that will be needed on each local
street approach to West Circle Drive. Access control must be shown on Lots 3 and 9,
Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 4 toward the interior of the proposed plat from the right-of-
way of West Circle Drive (CR 22) as determined by the Traffic Design Analysis but in no
case be less than 75 feet back from the right-of-way of West Circle Drive.
7. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, an agreement regarding the construction and
funding of turn lanes along West Circle Drive at the entrances to the development must
finalized with the Olmsted County Public Works Department. Also an agreement with
the City of Rochester/Olmsted County regarding expected cost contributions towards
future traffic controls must be finalized.
6. If the applicant owns the property to the barbed wire fence, the right-of-way boundary
for "42" Ave. NW", north of its Intersection with "26th St. NW", must be dedicated to
the applicant's property line (barbed wire fence).
9. The applicant must work with the Olmsted County Public Works Department on the
portion of the proposed right-of-way for "26`" St. NW" which is owned by Olmsted
County. Olmsted County must be in agreement to allow the portlon of their land to be
platted. The land that is owned by Olmsted County has not been annexed. The
roadway alignment may need to be changed if Olmsted County is not in agreement
with the proposed roadway.
1'73
1 Page 4
\\\ Circle 19 Plaza
June 29, 2000
Planning Staff and Recommendation.
The developer has executed a development agreement with the City, which outlines the owner's
and City's obligations. The applicant submitted a revised plat on Wednesdag, June 28, 2000
correcting roadway names, adding controlled access on the north side of 26 Street NW, and a
10 foot pedestrian easement along the west side of the plat. The Planning Staff has reviewed the
submitted final plat and finds that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat, staff would
then recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1. Easements for a temporary turn -around at the westerly end of Heritage Place NW and
at the southerly end of Superior Drive NW must be executed with the City Public Works
Department prior to the recording of the final plat.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
6/27100
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
CIS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 106
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final
Plat #99-34 on the Circle 19 Plaza property area. The following are Public Works
comments on the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for development of this
property.
2. Access control is required as shown on the Final Plat. In addition,
controlled access is required along the north line of 26Ih St NW.
3. Right of way shall be dedicated up to the northerly line of the property.
4. Pedestrian facilities shall be located along all public roadways within
and abutting the plat consistent with City standards.
5. A temporary turn -around is required at the westerly end of Bishop
Place NW, and at the southerly extent of Deacon Drive NW.
Charges and fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed
in the Development Agreement, with the exception of the following:
•:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic
Division:
10 Street name Signs
4 Stop Signs
2 Speed Limit Signs
2 Trucks Prohibited Signs
Q%TEMP1FP#99.34.d0c
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING (I I '-'
DATE 7-5-00
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
6 -C
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-27 to be known as Phone Station First.
PREPARED BY:
BrentSvenby,
June 28, 2000
Planning Department Review:
See attached Staff Report dated June 28, 2000.
The developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for the final plat. The Council will act on the
Development Agreement on July 5, 2000. If the Development Agreement is approved on July 5, 2000, staff would
recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1. The Owner grants an 8.00 feet right-of-way easement, at no cost to the City, along the West side of the
property abutting 101h Avenue NW for access, snow storage and roadway maintenance prior to Plat recording.
2. The 20 foot utility easement for the existing watermain on the property be dedicated on the final plat
documents.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant)
1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications
2. Recording Statement
3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement
4. Recording Fee
5. Title Opinion
6. 1 Original Plat Mylar
7. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat
Attachment.
1. Staff Report dated June 28, 2000.
Distribution:
1. City Attorney
2. Planning Department File
3. Planning Department —GIS
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
5. GGG Engineering
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: ` Second by: to:2
L OnV
n
n 7"O
R
r V)
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
TO:
Rochester Common Council
ADMINISTRATIOW
PLANNING
GISIADDRESSING/
FROM:
Brent Svenby, Planner
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
BUILDING CODE
DATE:
June 28, 2000
WELL/SEPTIC
FAX
RE:
Final Plat #00-27 to be known as Phone
Station First.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: City Auto Glass Incorporated
116 South Concord Exchange
St. Paul, MN 55075
SurveyorslEngineers: GGG Engineering
14070 Highway 52 SE
Chatfield, MN 55923
Referral Comments: 1.
Planning Department - Wetland LGU
2.
Planning Department —Addressing
3.
RPU Operations Division
4.
RPU Water Division
5.
Rochester Fire Department
6.
MnDOT
7.
Olmsted County SWCD
8.
Rochester Public works Department
Report Attachments: 1.
Referral Comments (2 Letters)
2.
Location Map
3.
Copy of Final Plat
Plat Data:
5071285-8232
507/285-8232
507/285-8224
5071285-8213
5071285-8345
5071287-2275
Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of 38s'
Street NW, east of 101" Avenue NW.
Zoning: This property is zoned B-4 (General Commercial)
district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of .98 acres of land to be
subdivided into 2 lots for commercial development.
City Auto Glass is located on Lot 2.
�G`� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2 IS1
Phone Station First
June 28, 2000
Streets: This plat does not dedicate the right-of-way for any
new public streets.
Drainage: Grading and drainage plans have been approved for
this property.
Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. These
maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this
site.
Public Utilities:
Spillover Parking:
Parkland Dedication:
General Development Plan:
Preliminary Plat:
Sewer and water services are available to the
property. Electric power to this site is provided by
RPU.
Parking requirements will be reviewed with a specific
development proposal.
There are no parkland dedication requirements with
this Plat.
This property is not included within an approved
General Development Plan.
There is no preliminary plat for this property. Since no right-of-way is being dedicated, a
preliminary plat is not necessary.
Planninq Staff and Recommendation:
The developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for this Plat. The Council
will act on the Development Agreement on July 5, 2000. If the Development Agreement is
approved on July 5, 2000, staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or
modifications:
1. The Owner grants an 8.00 feet right-of-way easement, at no cost to the City, along the
West side of the property abutting 10'h Avenue NW for access, snow storage and
roadway maintenance prior to Plat recording.
2. The 20 foot utility easement for the existing watermain on the property be dedicated on
the final plat documents.
I/
a�
rpu
toe pledfe, we deliver
June 21, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type IIl, Phase I, Final Plat #00-27 to be known as Phone Station First
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced fmal plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. The 20' public utility easement for the existing water main within both lots should be shown.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly your
s,
"'JA
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
GGG Engineering
City Auto Glass, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
6/27/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
1s3'.'
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 #00-27 on
the Phone Station First R(_eplat of Lots 1 2 3 Block 1. Hartman Square)property. The following
are Public Works comments on the proposal:
A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
2. Grading & Drainage Plans have been approved.
C:\TE MP\FP#00-27.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ( /
DATE: 07-05-0
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
fo 40
I DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00-06 by Rodney Younge to vacate a portion
PREPARED BY:
of a platted water main utility easement located on Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1 and Lot 1,
TheresaFogarty,
Block 4. Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision and 41h Street SW, Aspen Place SW and
Planner
Eagle Lane SW. The property is located west of Highland Court SW, south of
j7
Country Club Road and north of Eagle Lane SW.
June 28, 2000
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated June 14, 2000.
1. The City maintain rights to the existing water main until replacement of the new main is
completed as a part of the utility construction of Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision.
2. Any costs for relocation of existing utilities shall be the responsibility of the owner.
3. This vacation cannot be recorded until the final plat documents for Eagle Ridge 4'
Subdivision are recorded.
ouncil Action Needed:
1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City
Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as submitted.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated June 14, 2000.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
4. Planning Department File
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 4th Street SE.
Yaggy Colby Associates
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: _ Second by: to:
101AA
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GI&ADDRESSING! 507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
TO: City Council BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner FAX 507/287-2275
DATE: June 14, 2000
RE: Vacation Petition #00-06 by Rodney Younge to vacate a portion of a
platted water main utility easement located on Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, and
Lot 1, Block 4, Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision and 4' Street SW,
Aspen Place SW and Eagle Lane SW. The property is located west of
Highland Court SW, south of Country Club Road and north of Eagle
Lane SW.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner(s):
Rodney Younge
214 4'" Street SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Reason to Vacate: The petitioner is requesting to vacate the existing
water main, installed in 1988 because it has been
abandoned due to changes in street and utility
alignment.
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division
1. Vacation Petition
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments - 1 letter
Upon review of this request staff recommends approval of this vacation petition with the
following conditions:
1. The City maintain rights to the existing water main until replacement
of the new main is completed as a part of the utility construction of
Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
181.
Page 2
Vacation 00-06
June 14, 2000
2. Any costs for relocation of existing utilities shall be the
responsibility of the owner.
3. This vacation cannot be recorded until the final plat documents for
Eagle Ridge 4h Subdivision are recorded.
I
S %f?dSY AM = x
! ^
a�rav �
� "' `I fix!! � '�!. � u•�cr ...�.��, o�.�+ate � ��
•M.IfiLL %.l0Y — �_ l-
N ' VMNn 03L1i; i •�,d
L '
.N•+ nri Y, m Z
N
LD
I} n p
cc
it mod• � i .4. d' 3� `{E m
• O. � � 5 4�
9 y 4.e0.011i1 YCIM .CO.LIJLI
LL
N • 1 7
W $� oiliSb�w3�b ns 378Y3 Q� '� _ • I�! 3 Y
b
JQZ[l�
w � . a Nasyvoans
� � � � alloa3s 3aw�r 3-pY3
4
l
2t
aFF�,7
ru
we plerige, we deliver
June 8, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
ft
REFERENCE: Vacation Petition #00-06 by Rodney Younge to vacate a portion of a platted
water main utility easement located on lots 1-3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 4 Eagle Ridge Fourth
Subdivision and 4`h St. SW, Aspen Pl. SW and Eagle Ln. SW.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. There is currently an existing water main within this easement that is being replaced by a
new main as a part of the utility construction of Eagle Ridge Fourth Subdivision. We will
need the rights to maintain this existing water main until such time that it has been replaced.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
064A 46�L
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Younge Development
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING I I J
DATE: 07-05-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
fo � 7
_.A DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00-05 by the City of Rochester to vacate the
PREPARED BY:
platted Right -of -Way for 15`h Avenue SE adjacent to Lot 1, Block 9 and Lot 6,
Theresa Fogarty,
Block 5 and the recreation areas of Homestead Trails First Replat. The platted
Planner
Right -of -Way is located north of King Court SE and South of Graham Court SE.
June 28, 2000
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated June 6, 2000,
The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this vacation request at the June 14, 2000 meeting. The
Commission recommended approval of the vacation petition.
Mr. Burke moved to approve Right -of -Way Vacation Petition #00-05 by the City of
Rochester. Mr.
Brede seconded. The motion carried 6-0.
Council Action Needed:
I. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should
instruct the City
Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as submitted.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated June 6, 2000.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
4. Planning Department File
5. MCA Land Surveyors
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
'(n�
i
Q(;' �a
�3I
Q311 Vidhw(1
6�Q � : saxac C� i 1 11
cx
3 O �
ti;a3�Sg121�0� yam.;%•�. � �. t- o � a i �
go O rn,:' 3 w
Ln
Vn
cr
iR lr.•-''�� .-•Ml •, �'V .:i wily, -..�i i
L,LI LCL
.,.C7 OD : --------------
M aa @cr
.......
... ....^' Z ._.... ft. .......... ..... m v
1 i......
4§- ^... U . •!, K2 . %' - _^------------ !!.l._------- yl
•: O ..-1 ty.. y674{'tC906p6� �• Yytm '4 Y vl
,o'
.............. ._.- .----
_
I to
j 1iw�
O .Si• n .:' � � 6g3 er a
M:
10
"CL
351�2'lt. O C K P D 0
N 0
E
5�
Ir�e���a4rnatS,�
No��bA...al1
i Avg&
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/2B5-8232
PLANNING
GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
wELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner � FAX 5071287-2275
DATE: June 6, 2000
RE: Vacation Petition #00-05 by the City of Rochester to vacate the platted
right-of-way for 151h Avenue SE adjacent to Lot 1, Block 9 and Lot 6,
Block 5 and the recreation areas of Homestead Trails First Replat. The
platted right-of-way is located north of King Court SE and South of
Graham Court SE.
Plannina Department Review.
Petitioner(s): City of Rochester
Mr. Terry Spaeth
201 Fourth Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Reason to Vacate: The right-of-way is presently used for parkland
purposes and there is no future need to extend
15'h Avenue SE beyond its present end.
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
1. There were no comments received from the
referral agencies.
1. Location Map
As originally platted, 151h Avenue SE was intended as a north -south connection between
4' Street SE and 8 112 Street SE.
„q,.„` AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
i
ROW Vacation 00-05
\\\ 06/06/00
The City Council adopted a resolution in May, 1979, vacating the right-of-way of 15th
Avenue SE south of Graham Court SE and north of Mayo Run.
The City Council also considered a right-of-way vacation petition at their February, 1986
meeting which included the 15`h Avenue SE right-of-way. On March 3, 1986, the City
Council adopted Resolution 133-86, the vacating of the east -west walkway platted
between Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Homestead Trails First Replat, the north -south walkway
platted between Blocks 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Homestead Trails First Replat, the portion of
Jorgenson Court platted in Homestead Trails First Replat which lies easterly on the
southeasterly extension of the lot line between Lot 4 and Lot 5,
Block 7, Homestead Trails First Replat EXCEPTING THEREFROM the 60 foot wide
(30 feet on each side of the centerline as platted) street right-of-way known and
platted at 15'h Avenue SE in said Homestead Trails First Replat.
The vacating of the right-of-way of 151h Avenue SE was not included because the City
still felt there existed a possibility of creating a north -south link between 41h Street SE
and 8 1/2 Street SE sometime in the future.
Staff recommends vacating the right-of-way of 15" Avenue SE since the development of
this area is unlikely and the right-of-way for 15th Avenue SE to the north of this request
was vacated in 1979.
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 957/
Heating Date: June 14, 2000
Ms.Nsketersson responded that it would be in addition to.
Mr. St.Ner stated that he was unsure as to what they are trying to accomplish with a fence and
Discussion c\sued regarding additional plantings.
Ms. Baker sum razed that the Commission's motion to approve is based on
findings and condihQns and also the following additional conditions:
1. A storm shN
Ner shall be provided on the property. If possible, it c d be
incorporated to the bathhouse.
2. A fence be pro ed along the south side of the utility ease t for the overhead
lines, if one exist in addition to additional plantings to fill ' the gaps where the trees
are bare.
3. A copy of the park ru be provided with a final plan placation.
The Commission recommended
Discussion ensued regarding who
I Thp rAntinn<rartled 6-0-
TABLED ITEMS:
The applicant withdrew
Council not waive;Ke final plan review requirement.
the easerpdnt, with regard to junk lying in it.
Ms. Bake tated that the Commission needs to make a motion to table the request ktheir June
28, 20Q9meeting. She explained that the applicant is trying to work out negotiations ' h City
a10
t Citgey Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: June 14, 2000
Ms. Baker presented the staff report, dated June 6, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is
on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Burke moved to approve Right-of-WayVacation PetI#on #OQ-OS by the City of
Rochester, seconded by Mr. Brede. The motion carrtec=Q,
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. As may be brouqht up with members.
Ms. Baker stated that Mr. Wheeler would have a summary of what is being done for the land
use study of the land north of Wh Street by the next meeting.
ADJOURN:
Motion made by Ms. Petersson to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Burke. Mr. Suk, Chair,
adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Philip H. Wheeler, AICP
jlg
Mr. Charles James Sulk, Chair
R:VPLANDATAVENNIFERIWINWORDICPZC\20M MINUMNTINIUNEMDOC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING III
DATE: 07-05-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO,
1LIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
£ ��
r �r.l DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-10 by Meryl Groteboer to annex
PREPARED BY:
60 acres of land located along the west side of 18th Avenue SW (County Road 147), north of
40th Street SW, across from 36" Street SW.
Theresa Fogarty,
a er
June 29,2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on June 28, 2000. The Commission found that this
property is adjacent to the city limits and the property can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary sewer. The
Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of this request.
Motion by Ms. Petersson to approve Annexation Petition #00-10 by Meryl Groteboer. Seconded by
Mr. Brede. The motion carried 8-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated June 22, 2000.
Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township.
For the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and
10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township Taxes on the property for 1999 are
$145.56.
Council Action Needed:
1. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN
Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning.
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated June 22, 2000.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director. Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 5, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the
Rochester) Olmsted County Government Center.
7. McGhie & Betts
tUNC IL ACTION: Motion by; Second by: h r ell
INNEXATION EXH1131T
U
DESCRIPTI❑N�
THE EAST 1983,72 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SECTI❑N 22,
T❑WNSHIP 106 NORTH, RANGE 14 WEST,
❑LMSTED COUNTY, MINNES❑TA.
C❑NTAINING 60.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS,
N
� LILLIE
w
00
00
0
o0 37TH ST
_ L 2 L z
�_ Zm Z W � S U~i
Ay9<<�
o z 1
O p
o
I �
HALL PL.
Z
CO cn
MINSTER ��20�n iyoso�' ' Q
SCALE 1" = 600' -
FOR
MOC LLC
140 ELTON HILLS DRIVE
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
McGhie
Co m thq ErQheers
Betts,iu�.
Lnne Surveyors
SCALD V = 600' _
DRAVN BY- LKR
DATE, 05/24/00
ACCT. NO..: 1209/0043
QED]m
IE-43
- 7,0
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner JJ-
DATE: June 22, 2000
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSIN&HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
5071287-2275
RE: Annexation Petition #00-010 by Meryl Groteboer to annex 60 acres of
land located along the west side of 18`h Avenue SW (County Road 147),
north of 401h Street SW, across from 361h Street SW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: MOG, LLC
Meryl Groteboer
140 Elton Hills Drive NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Location of Property:
The property is located along the west side of W Avenue SW
(County Road 147), north of 401h Street SW, across from 36'
Street SW.
Existing Land Use:
This property is currently a vacant farmstead with a housing
unit and four outbuildings, some sheds and silos.
Size:
The property proposed for annexation is approximately
60 acres of unplatted land.
Existing Zoning:
The property is zoned A-2 (Agricultural Protection) District on
the Olmsted County zoning map.
Future Zoning:
Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed
Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning
map.
Land Use Plan:
This property is located outside the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan but is located within the Olmsted County
25 Year Urban Service Area for the City of Rochester on the
Olmsted County Land Use Plan. The land use designation for
this area is considered "low density residential" use.
Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its eastern
Limits: boundary.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
i
Page 2 RQ
Annexation #00-10
June 22,2000
Sewer & Water: The Willow High Level Water System service is available to
this property.
Municipal sewer and water is available to serve this area.
Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a
municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric
utility service may change if the land is annexed to the
municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant.
Townboard Review: Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard
members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days
prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public
hearing on this item on July 5, 2000. The City Clerk will send
the certified notice 30 days prior to that date.
Referral Comments: RPU Operations Division, RPU Water Division, Rochester
Public Works
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
1. Annexation Map
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments (3 letters)
This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary
sewer and water lines from their present ends. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to
adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3).
tpo
we pledge, we deliver
June 8, 2000
Rochester-Ohnsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexation Petition #00-10 by Meryl Groteboer to annex 60 acres of land
located along the west side of 18a' Ave. SW across from the Bamber Ridge Area.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
determines the applicability of these fees.
2. Willow High Level Water System service is available on the east side of 18`h Ave. SW near
the NE comer of this property.
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,
"UA (• Q. L
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Meryl Groteboer
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
r
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
0 ROCHEST�R a�3
Minnesota
6/15/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for
ANNX00-10 on the Meryl Groteboer property. The following are Public Works
comments on the proposal:
City water & sewer can be extended to serve this property.
CATEMPANNEX00-10. doc
a ♦ �
lu
we pledge, we deliver
507/280-1579
June 1, 2000
TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning Department
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #00-10 by Meryl Groteboer to annex 60 acres of land located
along the west side of 18'" Avenue SW (Ct. Rd. 147), north of 40a' Street SW,
across from 36`s Street SW.
RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this annexation petition and has no objection as it is
outside our service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Engle
ks
c: W. Lorber
T. Adkins, City Attorney
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507.2B0.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.orc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING Ad 5 le
DATE: 7/5/00
ercNDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
S ,g
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Expand Residential Permit Parking Zone 2 onto 15th
PREPARED BY:
Avenue SW; 200, 300 and 400 blocks
LyLD. Rossma I
This is a public hearing to consider a petition to add Residential Permit Parking on the east side of
Wh Avenue SW from 2"d Street to 5"' Street, between the hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm, Monday thru
Friday.
The area is shown on the attached map. The petition has been analyzed in the following 4 areas:
1) Is this area residential in nature? Yes. However, there are two commercial establishments on the
north end. These should be excluded from the zone.
2) Is the zone requested at least 32 dwelling unit in size? Yes, it is 40 units, and it is part on Zone 2
"St. Mary's West Zone" which is bounded by 14d Avenue on the east, TH 52 on the west and south,
and Second Street north Two other streets in the zone presently have Permit Parking.
3) Is the street congested with parking from an outside source? On street parking has been a
problem in the past. It currently is controlled with No Parking restrictions. The residents would like
to see the partial day restriction on the east side of 15' Avenue removed so that they and their guests
can use the parking.
4) Is the petition signed by 60% of the residents or landowners? Yes, 27 of 40 residents (67%).
There has been several phone calls since the petition was submitted, indicating that some petitioners
have moved away and others may have changed their minds. A rescinding petition was received on
Wednesday 6-28-00, which was signed by 5 residents who wished to remove their names from the
original petition. Therefore, at this time only 22 residents (55%) are in favor of the permit parking.
Additional information: 15' Avenue from 2"d Street to 5" Street is 30 feet wide on a 66 foot R/W.
Average traffic volumes are around 500 vehicles per day. There are two existing restrictions on the
block. One can be removed and replaced with the new permit parking. That is the restriction on the east
side of the street that reads "No Parking from 6am to 9am and from 3:00pm to 5:30pm". The restriction
of "No Parking Any Time" on the west side of the street should remain due to the street width. The
petition has been discussed with the City Police Department and they have requested that the hours be
limited to 8:00 am to 4:00 pm so that proper enforcement can be provided. Staff recommends approval
of the request.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution adding paragraph (3) to permit parking zone #2 "St Mary's West
Neighborhood" of Section L "Permit Parking" of the Comprehensive Traffic And Parking Resolution
Book, to read:
3) 15th Avenue SW; on the east side only, from a point 100 feet south of 2"d Street to 5'h Street,
8:00am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: _ to:
7/
mi
503 15°i Ave. SW
Rochester, MN 55902
24 June 2000
Marcia Marcoux
City Council
201 4" St. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Mrs. Marcoux:
We are constituents in your city -council ward, and we write to ask for your help with a
matter scheduled to come before the Council in a couple of weeks.
Some fellow residents of 15°i Ave. SW have presented a petition to the city asking that
parking regulations on our street be changed. In response to the petition, the city traffic
engineer will make his own recommendation to the Council. The matter will be
discussed at a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. July 5.
We oppose the proposals contained in the petition and those put forth by the traffic
engineer. We would be very grateful for your help in maintaining the current parking
regulations on 150' Ave. SW.
Those regulations prohibit parking from 6 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 5:30 p.m. Although slightly
inconvenient at times, these restrictions are not a huge burden on local residents. They
simply require residents to park in their driveways at certain times of day, when children
are traveling to and from school on foot and by bus. The current restrictions have the
added benefit of overlappinvith all three shifts at St. Mary's, thus preventing hospital
workers from parking on 15 Avenue. The current regulations are a very good
compromise between local residents' needs to park their cars, and to keep children safe
and the road relatively free of Clinic traffic.
The petition calls for a resident permit -parking scheme to operate from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Under this proposal, each "dwelling unit" would be allowed to park on the street as many
vehicles as are registered at that address. The vehicles could be parked anywhere within
the permitted zone; there is no requirement that a vehicle be parked in front of or near its
owner's house.
The city traffic engineer is making a slightly different recommendation: that resident
permit -parking be allowed from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and that parking be unrestricted from 4
p.m. to 8 a.m.
We see two major problems arising from these proposals. First, the resident -permit
scheme would allow householders to park as many vehicles as they own on the street, all
aa9
day. This would create a significant safety hazard, particularly for children: those
walking to and from Folwell School, and those boarding and exiting school buses. It also
is worth remembering that traffic on 15a' Avenue is likely to increase during and after
construction on Highway 52. Solid rows of parked cars represent an additional and
unacceptable traffic hazard.
Second, the traffic engineer's proposal to allow unrestricted parkin overnight would
enable evening and night-time workers at St. Mary's to park on 15 Avenue. The current
parking restrictions prohibit this hospital "spillover"; the proposed change would not.
Hospital workers are very likely to take advantage of this loophole. As it is, once Folwell
School dismisses for the summer, the street in front of the school is lined all day with
Mayo employees' cars.
We should note that the proposed parking changes would take effect on 15u Avenue
between Second and Fifth streets SW. Because our house is immediately south of Fifth
Street, parking adjacent to our home wouldn't be affected. For that reason, we were never
shown the petition before it was presented to the city.
But as homeowners who routinely drive down 15`s Avenue, we definitely are affected by
the proposed changes. Increased parking poses a traffic hazard for all of us, and for our
children who walk north to friends' homes down the avenue.
Mrs. Marcoux, we know how strongly you are committed to maintaining safe and
pleasant residential streets in your ward. These proposed changes in parking regulations
are a misguided attempt to solve a problem that is virtually nonexistant. Please help us
keep our current parking regulations, and keep our neighborhood safe and pleasant.
If you have any questions, please feel free to phone us on 281-8311.
Thank you so much for your help.
Very truly yours,
&114� 174Z:--ZL,
Barbara Toman
iG
Ian Jarman (at-
1L✓l,_e_�
0
June 13,2000
Ms Marcia Marcoux
Rochester City Council
201 4th Street SE, Room 135
Rochester, MN 55904-3742
Dear Ms Marcoux:
Robert Anglin
434 151h Avenue SW
Rochester, MN 55902
I am sending this letter to you in order to voice my opposition to the proposed permit parking expansion on
15" avenue SW.
I am a seven-year resident of this neighborhood with two young children. I value the current parking
restriction on our street for two reasons. First, the aesthetics of our neighborhood is enhanced due to the
rclati:cly few number of automobiles which are parked on our street. Second, and most importantly, the
traffic danger in our neighborhood is reduced through improved visibility due to the relatively few vehicles
which are parked on our street.
If this parking permit expansion is approved, the traffic safety in our neighborhood will be eroded. There
are many children living on our street. Parents supervise their kids and teach them to never go in the street,
but the risk of a child entering the street is ever-present. I have personally had to stop my vehicle, while
driving on 15a avenue, to avoid striking a young boy who ran in front of me while chasing a basketball. I
was able to stop because I could see him run into the street in front of me. I may not have seen him if he
had run into the street from between two parked cars.
The second safety concern is the ability to see traffic while backing on to the street from the driveway.
Visibility is good with the current parking restriction in place. Visibility will be greatly reduced when
having to back on to the street from between two parked cars/minivans/sport-utility vehicles.
We are currently allowed to park on the street from evening through early morning as well as during mid
day. This allows us to temporally place a vehicle in the street when the need arises. It also allows our
guests to park while visiting. However, these cars must be moved in the morning and late afternoon. This
mandatory movement prevents our neighborhood from becoming a parking lot and improves our safety and
the safety of our children.
My preference would be to deny the permit parking expansion. If this can not be done, the parking should
be kept to a minimum. This can be effected in at least two ways: 1) Limit the number of permits to one
permit per household. 2) Make the permits very expensive to purchase (say $1000.00 or more). If both of
these provisions are implemented, the members of our neighborhood who are required to park on the street
may do so. The people who would do it out of convenience, only to add to the number of vehicles on the
street, would not.
I hope to attend the Public Hearing on July 5", however, if am unable to attend, please accept this letter as
notice of my opposition to this expansion. Please call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this
subject further.
Regards,
Robert Anglin
Home: 288-5710
Work: 533-9613
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 0?1 1�
DATE: 7/05/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
' lic Hearings
CHARTER COMMISSION
b � /SIBY:J
=rA DESCRIPTION: Hearing for charter amendment by ordinance — repeal Section 11.05
PREPARED
of the Charter concerning election requirements for development projects.
Charter
Commission
The Charter Commission, upon the request of the City Attorney's office, proposes that the City Council
repeal Section 11.05 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter. This section was inadvertently left in the charter
following the charter re -codification in 1985.
Prior to 1985, the charter required that the council call for an election by the voters prior to the HRA or
other public agency initiating any proposed "public project of urban renewal." The charter exempted
development district (TIF) projects from this election process. The 1985 re -codification removed the
election requirement for public urban renewal projects. The charter is left with an exemption provision
but no requirement to be exempted from. As a result, there is no need to retain section 11.05.
Under Minn. Stat. §410.12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter may be made. by ordinance upon
recommendation by the charter commission. Following the public hearing the council may adopt the
ordinance amending the charter by affirmative vote of all its members subject to the public's right to object
by petition within 60 days of publication. In no event is the ordinance effective until 90 days after
publication.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the proposed ordinance repealing Section 11.05 of the
:hester Home Rule Charter by affirmative vote of all members present. If it wishes the Council may
pend its rules by affirmative vote of all members present and give the ordinance both readings. The
council can not waive the 90-day requirement referred to above.
%.vUNCIL ACTION: Moeonby: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 7/05/00
Alhlic Hearings I CHARTER COMMISSION 9 1 r
..—.A DESCRIPTION: Hearing for charter amendment by ordinance - ordinance adoption I PREPARED BY:
procedure during declared emergency disaster. I Charter .
Commission
The Charter Commission, upon the request of the City Attorney's office, proposes that the City Council
amend the Rochester Home Rule Charter to establish a process for ordinance adoption during a declared
disaster emergency without the publication requirement. The proposed amendment to Section 6.07 is
identified in bold print as follows:
SECTION 6.07. (Publication). Every ordinance passed as aforesaid shall be recorded by the city clerk in a book provided
for that purpose. Except as hereinafter provided, it shall not be in force, however, until signed by the mayor, attested by the city
clerk and published once in the official paper of the city. Ordinances adopted during a declared emergency disaster shall be
in force upon adoption without the need for publication. In the case of lengthy ordinances the common council may, by vote
of five of its members, direct that only the title of the ordinance and a summary be published, conforming to Minnesota Statutes
Section 331A.01, subdivision 10 as amended. Such summary statement shall also contain a notice that the entire text of the
ordinance is available for inspection at the Office of the City Clerk, at the community library, and at any other public location which
the common council may designate. Prior to its publication the title and text of the summary shall be approved by the common
council upon determination by the council that the summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
Before any such ordinance shall be recorded, the publication thereof as aforesaid shall be proved by the affidavit of the foreman or
publisher of such paper. This affidavit shall be recorded therewith and shall at all times be deemed and taken as sufficient
evidence of such publication.
An example of when this change may be necessary is the City's attempt to declare "no -fly zones" following
isaster. The FAA has indicated that it will not enforce no -fly zones until a municipality has adopted a
..ally enforceable ordinance. Under the Charter as it presently reads, this can not be done until the
ordinance is approved, signed and published. The act of publication takes several days to accomplish and
the need for the ordinance may be over before the ordinance is effective and enforceable.
Under Minn. Stall. §410.12, subd. 7, amendments to the charter may be made by ordinance upon
recommendation by the charter commission. Following the public hearing the council may adopt the
ordinance amending the charter by affirmative vote of all its members subject to the public's right to object
by petition within 60 days of publication. In no event is the ordinance effective until 90 days after
publication,
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the proposed ordinance amending Section 6.07 of the Rochester
Home Rule Charter by affirmative vote of all members present. If it wishes the Council may suspend its
rules by affirmative vote of all members present and give the ordinance both readings. The council can not
waive the 90-day requirement referred to above.
__UNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
u.ME
II
t
7.0 .
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ar'7
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDAS
Reports & Recommendations
annexation of 100%
Cascade Township
ORIGINATING DEPT:
City Administration
F-1
PREPARED
T. Spaeth
There are several areas within Cascade Township that have been completely surrounded by the City of Rochester.
These properties include the 55th Street Estates Subdivision, the Hunter property, the Kuehn property, the Till property,
several parcels along Valleyhigh Drive NW, and several parcels in the Manor Woods area.
On May 11, 2000, staff sent a letter to all property owners in the 100% surrounded areas indicating that the City may
initiate annexation of these properties, and than an informational meeting would be held. On June 20, an open house
informational meeting was held in City Hall and approximately 12 citizens attended and asked questions of staff. The
informational meeting went very well.
One of the major issues discussed was zoning for the 55`s Street Estates Subdivision. Staff explained the various zoning
options and indicated that staff would send out written information to those property owners. The most feasible zoning
options for that area would be either the R-Sa zoning district, which would maintain the status quo so to speak. Another
option would be to zone the property R-1 upon annexation. This would permit future subdivision of the properties if so
desired by the property owners. Staff indicated that the Council would take into consideration what the zoning district
the neighborhood would like to see.
ff also indicated that our recommendation to the Council would be to initiate the annexation at this time, but that the
..,..tiexation of those properties not become effective until January 1, 2002 (This is a consistent time frame with the
annexation of the Hunter property in Cascade Township on the south side of 55a' Street NW, west of 18th Avenue NW.).
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A motion to initiate annexation of the 100% surrounded properties within Cascade Township and schedule a public
hearing to consider the annexation for the August 21, 2000 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
i¢ rl 7
__ I
Site
Site
Site
7
-T ..........
I Viw, 1-i
City Limit
Major Road
Parcels-2000.shp
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
a10 '
DATE: 7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Reports & Recommendations
City Administrator
r I.W+X
ITEM DESCRIPTION Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Certain County Road
PREPARED BY:
Improvements and Costs
T. Spaeth
The City has proposed to establish a TIF distict to help facilitate the construction of a 200,000 square foot
manufacturing facility for Celestica Corporation (public hearing scheduled for 7/17/2000) to be located at the SW
comer of the West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and Valleyhigh Drive (CSAH 4) intersection. The County has determined
that the proposed development will substantially increase the use of CSAH 4 and will thereby require construction of
roadway improvements to CSAH 4, such as expansion to 4 lane roadway with appropriate center lanes for left turn
movements and additional right-of-way, along with the potential for installation of curb and gutter, storm water facilities
and related improvements, and that a portion of these costs should be paid from the tax increments.
The County has estimated that the costs of these roadway improvements along CSAH 4 between 50d' Avenue NW and
West Circle Drive will be approximately $2,000,000. The City and County are proposing to enter into an Agreement as
a memorandum of understanding that a portion of the costs of the County Roadway Improvements will be paid by the
TIF District.
The basic tenets of the Memorandum of Understanding are as follows:
• The County roadway improvements are to be substantially completed by December 31, 2005.
That the City share ($1,000,000) of these costs will be paid by the City to the County from the TIF District.
• The City is relying on the County's share of expenditures to help the City meet its obligation to make a "qualifying
local contribution" to the TIF district.
• That the $1,000,000 City share will be payable as needed to pay for the costs as they are incurred by the County.
The payment by the City for a portion of the County Road Improvements shall not in any way be utilized by either
the City or the County to establish or give credence to a precedent for City payment for County costs for improving
County roadways within the City of Rochester.
City staff has discussed this Memorandum of Understanding with County staff, and they appeared to be comfortable
with the terms. This item will be scheduled for County Board action at their July 11, 2000 meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council authorization for Mayor & City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Understanding Agreement as prepared.
Approval of funding is contingent upon upon the subsequesnt creation of a TIF District and the construction of the
Celestica facility.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
N
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Certain County
Road Improvements and Costs
This Memorandum of Understanding (the "Agreement') is dated as of July 17, 2000; is by
and between Olmsted County, Minnesota (the "County"), and the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the
"City"); and provides as follows:
Recitals.
(a) The City has proposed to establish its Tax Increment Financing District No.
16-1 (the "TIF District") located generally in the City in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of County Road 4 (Valleyhigh Drive NW) and County Road 22 (West Circle
Drive NW).
(b) The County has determined that the TIF District and its related TIF Plan will,
in the judgement of the County, substantially increase the use of County Road 4 and will
thereby require construction of road improvements and the incurrence of the related road
costs respecting County Road 4. The County has also determined that said improvements
are not scheduled for construction within five years under the County capital improvement
plan or any other formerly adopted County plan and, in the opinion of the County, would not
reasonably be expected to be needed within the reasonably foreseeable future if the TIF
District and Plan were not implemented.
(c) It is the judgement of the County that, as a result of the TIF District, County
Road 4 will, between County Road 22 and 50's Avenue NW, need to be expanded to a four
lane roadway with appropriate center lanes for left turn movements and additional property
or rights -of -way may need to be acquired, along with the potential installation of appropriate
curb and gutter, storm water facilities, pedestrian facilities and related road improvements
(collectively, the "County Road Improvements").
(d) The estimated total cost of the County Road Improvements is $2,000,000.
(e) The County and the City are entering into this Agreement as a memorandum
of their understanding and of the County's election that a portion of the costs of the County
Road Improvements will be payable out of the tax increments to be generated by the TIF
District.
2. Preliminary Agreement. The County will proceed to plan and install the County
Road Improvements, which shall be substantially completed by December 31, 2005. It is understood
that a significant portion of these costs (the "County Share") will be borne by the County and be paid
from generally -available funds of the County and that $1,000,000 of these costs (the "City Share")
will be home by the City and paid by the City to the County from tax increments from the TIF
1178260.4
District or from tax increment bonds, including internal, interest -bearing City borrowing of its own
temporarily available funds. It is also understood that the City is relying on the County's expenditure
of the County Share from generally -available funds of the County to help the City meet its obligation
to make a "qualifying local contribution," within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section
273.1399, Subdivision 6(d), which requires a contribution of at least 5% of the tax increment to be
generated by the TIF District.
In each of the years 2002, 2003, and 2004, the County agrees to expend at least $16,750 of
its own generally -available funds for planning, designing and other costs associated with the County
Road Improvements. The County shall also provide the City with a statement of these preliminary
costs, as so incurred and paid, and shall also provide the City with the final accounting of the costs
of the County Road Improvements, including the total County Share paid directly by the County
from its generally -available funds. The $1,000,000 City Share will payable as a 50150 match of
County funds, as needed to pay the costs. The County and the City agree to meet and work out the
details of implementing the general understanding of this Agreement, including the planning and
construction of the County Road Improvements and the other payment and financing details. The
payment by the City for a portion of the County Road Improvements shall not in any way be utilized
by either the City or the County to establish or give credence to a precedent for City payment for
County costs for improving County roadways within the City of Rochester.
This Agreement for the installation of the County Road Improvements and the Citys
contribution of the City Share to the cost thereof are contingent on the creation of the TIF District
and the subsequent construction therein of an approximately 200,000 square foot manufacturing
facility for Celestica Corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the City have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed, pursuant to approval by their respective governing bodies, by their duly authorized
representatives.
COUNTY OF OLMSTED, MINNESOTA CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
M
Its Board Chair
Its County Administrator
1178260.4 2
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Clerk
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 7/5/00
" �,ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Reports & Recommendations City Administrator F-�
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law related General Development PREPARED
Plan # 151 (40th Street SW) I T. Spaeth
At the June 5, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council considered an application requesting approval for the General
Development Plan # 151 located south of 40d' Street SW and west of T.H. 63. Upon review of the record, the City
Attomey has prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law and order relating to said General Development Plan.
Attached for the Council's review are the findings of fact prepared by the City Attorney.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The Council may adopt, modify or revise the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order as needed.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
7-0
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 2000
TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator
FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney
SUBJECT: Findings of Fact for Kottschade General Development Plan #151
On June 19, 2000, the Council considered Mr. Kottschade's proposed General Development
Plan for an area south of 40t' Street S.W., and west of Highway 63. The Council directed me to
prepare for their review and consideration a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
document which approves the proposed GDP with those conditions recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Planning and Zoning Department staff.
I enclose that draft document for presentation to the Council. The Council may adopt, reject or
modify the document as it pleases.
Enclosure
43 '
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
In Re: General Development Plan
#151 (40"Street)
Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law,
and Order
On June 5, 2000, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings of the
public hearings held on March 22, 2000, April 26, 2000, and May 10, 2000, in response to
General Development Plan #151. The Council's public hearing was continued until June 19,
2000.
On June 19, 2000, the Council resumed its consideration of the proposed General
Development Plan #151. At the hearing, there was public testimony offered on the application.
During the public hearing, the Council considered those documents submitted to it by the
Planning and Zoning Department staff (attached hereto and identified as Ext..ibit A) as well as
the June 5, 2000, memo submitted to it by Charles Reiter, Senior Transportation Planner
(attached hereto and identified as Exhibit B), a copy of the June 5, 2000, letter from the
Applicant to the Public Works Director (attached hereto and identified as Exhiblt C) and the June
15, 2000, Technical Report of Impacts of Proposed General Development Plat; #151 (attached
hereto and identified as Exhibit D).
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Common Council of the City of
-tochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
1
aa4
JaIRLD11ROM612
1. At its March 22, April 26 and May 10, 2000, public hearings on this application, the
Planning and Zoning Commission considered the issue of whether General Development Plan
#151 satisfied the conditions of ROCHESTER, MINN., CODE ORDINANCES §61.215 (1999).
2. R.C.O. §61.215 provides that a general development plan must comply with all of
the following 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.
B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access
and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible
future use of adjacent property.
C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and
Housing Plans.
D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital
improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's
current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted
Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan,
Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the
City. Street system improvements required to accommodate
proposed land uses and projected background traffic are
compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted
Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if
the development is phased in, to serve the properties under
consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner
that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with
this ordinance.
1. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's
It
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.
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.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level
of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed
phasing plan for development.
F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled
through normal engineering and construction practices, cr that, at
the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these
matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been
identified.
G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot
density for residential development are consistent with the
subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and
compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent
parcels.
3. R.C.O. §60.532 (5) authorizes the approving body to impose modifications or
onditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance
3
0
with §61.215.
4. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the following findings:
A. 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 with 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 I use
with densities between 5.5 — 8.71 as a type II use. The zoning
ordinance and land development manual does allow increases
above the type I density up to the maximum type II density by the
inclusion of certain design features in the development plan which
qualifies the applicant to increase the density.
B. 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.
C. The development density is consistent with a low density
residential land use designation of the Land Use Plan and is
generally consistent with the Housing Plan.
D. Access to the site is proposed from 40'h Street S.W., and 11"
Avenue S.W. The adopted Thoroughfare Plan designates 40"
Street S.W., and 11' Avenue S.W., as collector roadways.
According to the City's current 6-year Capital Improvement
Program, 40' Street S.W., is scheduled to be upgraded to a
collector standard in the year 2002. The required right-of-way for a
collector roadway (50 feet from centerline) needs to be dedicated
for this reconstruction of 40" Street S.W., and eventually 111h
Avenue S.W. A contribution will be required for the future
reconstruction of 4011 Street S.W., 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
4
n 07
a9c
component being added to the substandard street reconstruction
charge.
E. Improvements to 401h Street S.W., are scheduled for the year 2002,
which will upgrade the roadway to a collector standard. The private
roadway connection to public streets will need to meet the City
intersection sight line standards. The applicant will need to enter
into a Development Agreement with the City that will outline the
developer's responsibility for improvements.
This area is within the Main Level Service Area, which is available
for connection in 401h Street S.W.
The GDP does not propose any storm water detention ponds on
the property. However, the grading plan submitted shcws three
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'h Avenue S.W., and 40`' Street S.W. Since 40'h
Street S.W., is planned for reconstruction in the near future, a
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement between the City and the owner
will be required.
F. 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 three
sedimentation basins, while the GDP identifies zero. Tree 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.
G. The lot, block and street layout and density appear to be generally
consistent with the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance ? nd Land
Development Manual. When the property is developed, 'Lille 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.
5. Following its March 22, 2000, April 26, 2000, and May 10, 2CGl), public
hearings on this proposed General Development Plan, the Planning and Zoning
1=
11
f
Commission recommended approval with the following conditions:
A. The GDP should be revised to include the following:
• 50 feet of right-of-way shown as being dedicated for 40'h Street
S.W., and 11th Avenue S.W., consistent with the adopted
Thoroughfare Plan;
Pedestrian facilities along the east side of 111h Avenue S.W., and
the south side of 40'h Street S.W., 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;
B. Stormwater management must be provided for this development.
C. Controlled access must be provided along the entire length of 40"
Street S.W., with the exception of the private street access that is
shown across from Willow Heights Drive S.W., and along 111h
Avenue S.W., with the exception of the private roadway shown in
the southwest corner of the GDP. The existing access immediately
east of Willow Court S.W., must be closed upon construction of the
private roadway.
D. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the
City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating tc, 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 and contributions for future reconstruction of 401h
Street S.E 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.
E. If the development of this property occurs prior to the
reconstruction of 40`h Street S.W., grading of this properly must be
compatible with the street profile and cross-secticns being
proposed for the 40'h Street S.W., reconstruction in the Street
Layout Plan. The private roadway connections to public streets
G
aaq
must meet City intersection sight line standards.
F. The applicant agrees to dedicate a total of 50 feet of right-of-way
from the centerline of 40" Street S.W. 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, whichever comes first.
G. The applicant must agree 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 six
units/acres.
H. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department
reflecting all required modifications.
6. At the May 10'h public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Applicant's legal counsel objected to the following conditions proposed to be adopted by the
)mmission:
A. The required revision of the GDP to include 50 feet of right-of-way
shown as being dedicated for 40fh Street S.W., and 11' Avenue
S.W., consistent with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan;
E The required revision of the GDP to include the site details (haul
roads, stockpiles, proposed excavated ponds) of the approved
conditional use permits covering this property and the adjacent
properties;
C. The 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.
D. The requirement that, if the development of this property occurs prior
to the reconstruction of 40'" Street S.W., grading of this property
must be compatible with the street profile and cross -sections being
proposed for the 40' Street S.W., reconstruction in the Streit Layout
Plan. The private roadway connections to public streets rrust meet
7
A30
City intersection sight line standards.
E. The requirement that the Applicant must dedicate a total of 50 feet of
right-of-way from the centerline of 40'h Street S.W. 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, whichever comes first.
7. At the June 5 and June 19, 2000, public hearings, the Planning and Zoning
Department staff recommended the addition of the following condition (see page one of Exhibit
A):
I. The private roadway running parallel to 40" Street S.W., be
relocated on the GDP outside of the proposed street profile and
cross sections for 40"' Street S.W., as indicated on the preliminary
plans prepared for 40'" Street S.W., as reflected in the street plan of
the City of Rochester's current 6-year Capital Improvement Program.
8. At the June 19, 2000, public hearing before the City Council, Applicant's legal
counsel entered into the record: (a) 13 pages of cross-section drawings, and one preliminary
layout plan drawing as prepared by Yaggy Colby Associates, for 111' Avenue S.W., and 401
Street S.W.; (b) a copy of the June 5, 2000, letter from the Applicant to the Public Works
Director (Exhibit C); and (c) a copy of the June 15, 2000, Technical Report of Impacts of
Proposed General Development Plan #151, prepared by City Engineer Richard W. Freese
(Exhibit D) and sent in response to the Applicant's letter.
9. After entering the above -described documents into the record, Applicant's legal
counsel entered a general objection to each and every one of the conditions of approval
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Legal counsel did not refer to the
criteria stated by R.C.O. §61.215, make any statements as to how the Applicar.t satisfied any of
the criteria, or explain why the proposed conditions of approval were arbitrary, capricious or
0
On( el
nreasonable. Legal counsel concluded his presentation to the Council by asking for approval
of General Development Plan #151 without the imposition of any conditions.
10. The June 15, 2000, Technical Report of Impacts of Proposed General
Development Plan #151 (Exhibit D), there is information provided in response to the approval
criteria provided by R.C.O. §61.215. Essentially, the Technical Report makes the following
findings:
A. The Applicant has been aware since 1995 that the planned
improvements to 40"' Street S.W., and 11"' Avenue S.W., would
require a 100-foot right -of --way.
B. The Applicant's GDP #151 and its proposed use of the right-of-way
needed for the planned improvements to 40' Street S.W., and 11°i
Avenue S.W., is inconsistent with the provisions of Section
61.215(4), (7) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances.
C. The Applicant's GDP #151 does not comply with the provisions of
Section 64.122 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances relating to
grading of the property to match the planned improvements to 401'
Street S.W., and 11' Avenue S.W., and integration into the
stormwater runoff control system.
D. The Applicant's GDP #151 does not comply with the provision of
Sections 64.136 and 64.137 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances
relating to right-of-way dedication for 40°i Street S.W.
E. The amount of right -of --way dedication required from the applicant
does not exceed the amount of right-of-way needed to
accommodate the amount of traffic generated by the Applicant's
proposed GDP #151 development.
11. The Rochester Common Council concurs with the findings of fact and the
conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the findings of the
June 15, 2000, Technical Report, incorporates them within this document and adopts them as its
wn.
9
rml
1. R.C.O. §61.215 provides that the Council shall approve a general development
plan if the following criteria are satisfied:
A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for
reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be
processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment
request.
B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access
and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible
future use of adjacent property.
C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and
Housing Plans.
D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital
improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's
current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted
Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan,
Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the
City. Street system improvements required to accommodate
proposed land uses and projected background tr=ffic are
compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted
Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if
the development is phased in, to serve the properties under
consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner
that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with
this ordinance.
1. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street
system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing
and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street
system without creating safety hazards, generating auto
stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting
traffic flow on any street, as identified in the tragic impact
report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Cacscity from
improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year GIG shall be
N
?3
included in the assessment of adequacy.
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.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the
level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the
proposed phasing plan for development.
F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled
through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at
the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these
matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been
identified.
G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot
density for residential development are consistent with the
subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and
compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent
parcels.
2. R.C.O. §60.532 (5) authorizes the Council to impose conditions on its approval of
a general development plan.
3. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the June 19,
2000, hearing, it is hereby determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that
General Development Plan #151 complies with the requirements of §61.215 if the Applicant
satisfies the eight conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
11
� A
one condition recommended by the Planning and Zoning Department.
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §61.215 does hereby
approve General Development Plan #151 subject to the nine conditions described above.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of July, 2000,
Fof zone\Gendev.151
John Hunziker, President of the
Rochester City Council
12
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 22C
DATE:
7/5/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Reports & Recommendations
City Administrator
F„ `'1
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law related to Appeal of Variance
PREPARED BY;
request # 00-09
T. Spaeth
At the June 5, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council considered an appeal ro the Rochester Zoning Board of
Appeals' denial of RPU variance request related to the setback requirements for accessory buildings to be located
adjacent to the Baihly Summit water tower.
Upon review of the record, the City Attorney has prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law and order relating to
said appeal. Attached for the Council's review are the findings of fact prepared by the City Attorney.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The Council may adopt, modify or revise the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order as needed.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
7— 0
Ap
11
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 2000
TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator
FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney
SUBJECT: Findings of Fact for Baihly Summit Water Tower Variance (#00-09)
On June 19, 2000, the Council considered an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals' denial of
Rochester Public Utilities' variance request involving the setback requirements for accessory
buildings to be located in the immediate area of the Baihly Summit Water Tower (Variance
Request #00-09). Following the hearing, the Council approved the variance request.
Although the Council did not direct me to prepare a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order document, I believe such action is appropriate. As I prepared the Findings document, I
became concerned that the Council had not addressed some of the factual statements that I
was including in the document. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate to bring the proposed
Findings document to the Council's attention so that they may formally adopt or modify the
findings.
I enclose that draft document for presentation to the Council. The Council may adopt, reject or
modify the document as it pleases.
Enclosure
a307
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
In Re: Appeal #00-01 by
Rochester Public Utilities
Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law,
and Order
On June 19, 2000, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public hearing,
upon notice to the public, to hear the appeal of Rochester Public Utilities (hereinafter "Appellant")
concerning a decision of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denying three variances. The
variances concern the Baihly Summit Water Tower located at 2301 Baihly Heights Drive S.W.
AT&T Wireless, Northern PCS and APT of Minneapolis intend to install telecommunications
_cilities on this water tower. Because AT&T will provide analog service (rather than digital
service), its accessory or support building will be larger than those used by Northern PCS and
APT of Minneapolis. The Appellant sought this variance in order to place all of the buildings in
the least offensive position (from an appearance or aesthetic perspective).
On May 3, 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied Appellant's request for a variance
(Type III, Phase I, #00-09) of 18 feet from the front yard setback requirement on the south side
and of 25 feet from the west side yard setback requirement which would allow a more
"aesthetically -pleasing" placement of one 12' X 28' telecommunications equipment shelter and
one 8' X 12' telecommunications equipment shelter. The Board also denied Appellant's request
for a variance of four feet from the maximum fence height.
Al D
i
At the June 19' public hearing, Appellant amended its variance request to include only
the variance of 25 feet to the allowed setback to the west side property line.
At the public hearing, Appellant's representatives, the legal representative for APT of
Minneapolis and the legal representative for AT&T spoke in favor of the variance. Numerous
neighbors appeared and testified in opposition to the variance. No one appeared on behalf of
Northern PCS. In total, the Council spent nearly four hours discussing the variance appeal as
well as the broader issue of telecommunications facilities located within residential zoning
districts. The Council considered the information contained in its agenda packet a copy of which
is attached, incorporated herein by reference, and identified as Exhibit A.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Common Council of the City of
Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
1. This appeal is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733.
2. AT&T Wireless representatives testified that a cellular telephone antenna is
needed in the area of the Baihly Summit Water Tower located at 2301 Baihly Heights Drive
S.W., in Rochester in order to maintain and improve wireless communications services. They
stated that there were "gaps" in their telecommunication services coverage and that this antenna
placement would adequately respond to that problem. They also noted that their competitors
(Northern PCS and APT of Minneapolis) were also seeking to place antennas on this water
roer for the same reason.
3. AT&T and APT will install support or accessory buildings in the immediate area of
the water tower. These buildings will house communications equipment. In the case of AT&T,
the accessory buildings will be larger than the APT accessory buildings. AT&T will use an
analog system (which requires a larger support building) while APT will use a digital system
(which requires a smaller support building). Specifically, AT&T will install one 12' X 28'
telecommunications equipment building in the immediate area of the water tower. APT will
install 8' X 12' telecommunications equipment building in the immediate area of the water tower.
Northern PCS will not install an accessory building and will, instead, install their equipment
cabinet on a 4' X 10' concrete pad.
4. Pursuant to the Rochester Code of Ordinances, AT&T and APT must locate their
u,;cessory buildings 40 feet from the west property line. In order to accommodate an improved
placement of all accessory buildings at this location (which would lessen any aesthetic harm to
the adjacent residential landowners), the Appellant applied for a Type III Phase I variance of 25
feet from the West Side yard setback requirement. If granted, the variance would allow
placement of these accessory buildings within 15 feet of the west property line.
5. The Appellant sought the variance in the belief that it would provide greater
flexibility in the placement of, and in the design of a landscaping buffer for, the accessory
support structure that will accompany the telecommunications antennas. The Appellant's
representative testified that the variance will allow the neighbors and the telecommunications
companies to work together in designing the most effective landscaping and buffer plan. The
aqD
s
plan will exceed the minimum amount of mitigation required by current city ordinances and will
minimize to the greatest extent possible any unsightliness or discomfort caused by the
placement of the accessory support buildings. The representative stated that a generous
landscaping and design plan is a reasonable use of the property, but can only occur if the
variance is granted.
6. Several persons testified that there was a need for input from the
telecommunications companies, the affected neighbors and Rochester Public Utilities as to the
landscaping plan and the design of the accessory buildings. Rochester Public Utilities, several
neighbors and the legal representatives for both AT&T Wireless and APT of Minneapolis agreed
with this recommendation.
7. The Common Council reviewed the application for the variance and considered the
criteria provided by R.C.O. §60.417. This ordinance provides that the Council may grant a
variance to the provisions of the Land Development Manual if it finds that:
a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical
conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within
the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and
b) the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved;
and
c) the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially
injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
d) the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property.
IVA
ai
8. R.C.O. §60.417 also provides that extraordinary conditions or circumstances
cannot be the result of an action of the applicant or property owner in control of the property.
9. R.C.O. §60.417 also provides that a variance cannot be granted if the
development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with the development of adjacent
parcels under the same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable
economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of the ordinance.
10. The April 26, 2000, Planning and Zoning Department staff report stated the
following:
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 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 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.
i
11. Numerous neighbors testified in opposition to the variance request. They testified
that they did not want the variance to be granted as they did not want any telecommunications
facilities located on the Baihly Summit Water Tower nor anywhere else in this or any other
residentially zoned district. The neighbors testified that (a) the placement of these
telecommunications facilities will decrease their property values, (b) the placement of these
telecommunications facilities constitute a commercial use which is inappropriate in a residential
zoning district, (c) these telecommunications facilities will cause health problems to the families
located in this residential district, (d) these telecommunications facilities are unsightly and
provide a displeasing appearance for the neighborhood, and (e) the telecommunications
companies should be told to find other alternatives.
12. The vast majority of neighbors who testified requested the Council to issue a 180-
day moratorium (interim ordinance) to allow time for the adoption of new zoning ordinances that
would prevent the placement of telecommunications facilities within residential zoning districts.
13. None of the neighbors who testified at the June 19' public hearing provided any
testimony as to whether this request for a variance satisfied the criteria provided by R.C.O.
§60.417.
14. According to the Rochester City Attorney, Congress passed the 1996 Federal
Telecommunications Act to encourage the expansion of telecommunications technology
throughout the country while restricting the ability of local governments to prohibit the placement
of telecommunications facilities. The City Attorney indicated that an U.S. District Court decision
involving Maplewood, Minnesota, held that the 1996 Act prohibits a city from using its zoning
0
Dwer to prevent the provision of telecommunications services or to unreasonably discriminate
among telecommunications providers.
15. There was no testimony provided to the Council indicating the presence of viable
or feasible alternative sites for any of the three telecommunications facilities planned to be
placed on the Baihly Summit Water Tower.
1. This appeal is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733.
2. Based upon the substantial amount of testimony received at the public hearing, the
r:ommon Council determines that:
a) There are extraordinary conditions or circumstances which are peculiar to the
proposed location of the tower and do not apply to other land in the same area.
The size of the lot makes it difficult to locate all three sites with the required
amount of setback from the property lines while providing adequate landscaping
and buffer for the benefit of adjoining properties;
b) The variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved. It
is reasonable for the City to encourage the co -location of telecommunications
towers in order to lessen the number of such towers and to minimize aesthetic and
property valuation concerns;
c) The variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially
Injurious to other property in the area. In light of the severe restrictions placed by
Congress on the authority of local govemments in the placement of
telecommunications facilities, there are few issues which a local government can
address in responding to requests for the use of public property in conjunction with
the placement of telecommunications facilities. This variance will lessen
appearance concerns which works to the general benefit of adjacent property
owners; and,
A�
d) The variance, if granted, would be the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property. The placement of the accessory support buildings
in the most "aesthetically -pleasing" position and with similar exterior finishes is a
reasonable use of this property.
3. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determined
that the criteria for the granting of a variance listed in R.C.O. §60.417 have been satisfied and,
as such, the Council must grant the variance in this case.
4. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determined
that the granting of the variance in this case does promote the public health, safety, morals, or
general welfare.
5. By a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Common Council determined
that there is a legal basis to reverse the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals and that such
decision should be reversed consistent with this Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order
The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733, does hereby
reverse the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Appeal #00-01 and does hereby grant
the variance requested by the Appellant from the setback requirement to the west side property
line for the reasons stated in this document.
The Council further orders that the granting of this variance is subject to the condition that
Rochester Public Utilities, representatives of the affected neighborhood and the three
Sys
ecommunications companies (APT, Northern PCS and AT&T Wireless) meet and provide
input as to the landscaping plan and the design of the accessory buildings.
Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of July, 2000.
John Hunziker, President of the
Rochester City Council
Fof.zcneWar an balhlyfaf
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
i
MEETING RV
?
DATE: 7/5/2000
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
iOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
G
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TERRY ADKINS
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS O,a.
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. 4'.
E-ro /ec�ir rM. lye
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).`"`1 04,
a) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property from the M-1 District to the R-1 District, and Amending
Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located at 128 18" Street SE aanndp1805 2"n Avenue SE.
b) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Subdivision 9 of Sectiorf 60,.424afnd Section 61.301 of
the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to Design Modification 90 Concurrent Review.
roved
c) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately .2 acres of Land Located in a
Part of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 107 North, Range 13 West,
Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the North ayt<d East Side of East Circle Drive
Across from Rocky Creek Drive NE. HIJSProY�d
/�
G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS
COUNCIL ACTION: Moeonby: second by: to: