Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILlBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4TH STREET SE MEETING NO. 14 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS ONH (3-12) 1) Kel Krosschell Requests to Address the City Council JULY 17, 2000 7:00 P.M. (13-14) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (15-16) 2) Grant for Downtown Redevelopment Consultant (17-18) 3) Appointment of the Director of Building Safety (19-22) 4) Building Repairs at Rochester Civic Theatre (23-26) 5) Transfer of Silver Lake Motel Site to HRA for River's Edge Apartments (27-28) 6) Professional Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Perform Wildlife Hazard Assessment (29-30) 7) Accept FAA Grant for Phase II Runway 02-20 Extension with Taxiway & Connection of Terminal and Air Cargo Ramps (31-32) 8) Award of Bid for Phase II Runway 02-20 Extension with Taxiway & Connection of Terminal & Air Cargo Ramps (33-34) 9) Award Bid to KME, Inc. to Purchase One New Four -Wheel Drive 1,500 Gallon Fire Truck with Accessory Equipment (35-36) 10) Bid Proposals for Five On -Airport Rental Car Concessions (37-40) 11) Revocation or Suspension of Registration Certificate Ordinance (41-42) 12) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (43-44) 13) Approval of Accounts Payable (45-52) 14) Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department (53-54) 15) Real Estate/McQuillin Field/Kepp Property (55-56) 16) Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Boulder Ridge Development EAW (57-58) 17) Tire Deflation Grant Application Council Agenda July 17, 2000 Page 2 (59-60) (61-62) (63-64) (65-66) (67-68) (69-70) (71-72) (73-74) (75-76) (77-80) (81-84) (85-88) (89-90) (91-92) (93-94) (95-96) (97-98) 18) Land Acquisition/16"' Avenue 19) Development Agreement/Valley Side Subdivision 20) Development AgreementlRoyal Plaza Subdivision/Kings Run Commercial Area 21) Development Agreement/Deerhaven Subdivision 22) Revocable Permit for 1251 4"' Avenue SE 23) Revocable Permit for Charter Communications 24) Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Emmanuel Baptist Church 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) Advertise for Bids/Construct Fox Valley Drive SW from Baihley Heights Area to Fox Croft Area Advertise for Bids/Construct Wellner Drive NE from 315t Street NE to Rocky Creek Drive Utility Connection Agreements/23`d Avenue and 4th Street SW Utility Connection Agreements/23nd Avenue and 5"' Street SW Utility Connection Agreements/Riverview Subdivision Consideration of Bids/Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Five Areas in Marion Township Award of Contract/Install Traffic Signal at 55"' Street and CSAH 22 Award of Contract/Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 & 200 Block Between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW Advertise for Bids/Reconstruction of Portion of 48"' Street SW and 11"' Avenue SW Advertise for Bids/Reconstruction SW to 4"' Street SW of 91h Avenue SW from 2°d Street (99-100) 35) Award of Contract/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15"' Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway (101-102) 36) Bids for the Year 2000 Restoration of the Second Street Ramp E) HEARINGS (103-108) 1) Continued Hearing/Request to Expand Residential Permit Parking Zone 2 onto 15t" Avenue SW; 200, 300 and 400 Blocks (109-126) 2) Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) by Fred Schmidt to be Known as Emerald Hills 3`d Sub. & Design Modification (127-136) 3) Final Plat to be Known as Crown Subdivision (137-148) 4) Type III, Phase I, Final Plat to be Known as Deerhaven (149-158) 5) Final Plat to be Known as Royal Plaza Subdivision (Formerly Known as Kings Run Commercial Park) Council Agenda July 17, 2000 Page 3 (159-162) 6) Vacation Petition by Curtis Williams to Vacate Portion of Utility and Drainage Easement Along West Line of Lot 1, Block 1, South Pointe Second Subdivision (163-172) 7) Vacation Petition by MT-1 Investment Properties to Vacate Old Right - of -Way for Highway 52, West of Bandel Hills Road NW (173-188) 8) Final Plat to be Known as Circle Drive Business Center (189-204) 9) Final Plat to be Known as Circle Drive Business Center Second (205-206) 10) Establishment of Development District #16 and Tax Increment Financing District #16-1 for Celestica Development Site F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (207-208) 1) City Administrator- Development Assistance Agreement for Celestica Tax Increment Financing Project (209-210) 2) Finance -Awarding the Sale of $17,925,000 Temporary General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A, of the City of Rochester (211-212) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS (213-234) 1) Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related to Appeal of Variance Request #00-09 1) OTHER BUSINESS J} ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING UA I t: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD I CITY ADMINISTRATOR I A .. _M DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD 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 opporhmity 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. JNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 1/ LETTERS AND PETITION DATE: 7/ ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CITY ADMINISTRATOR 0 -' _M DESCRIPTION: KEL KROSSCHELL REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE CITY I PREPARED BY: COUNCIL S. KVENVOLD Kel Krosschell has requested an opportunity to address the council on a couple of issues (see attached). Mr. Krosschell was given a ticket by the Rochester Police on July 4, 2000, for flying a kite in the area the fireworks display was being prepared. The City Attorney's Office did void this ticket and explained to Mr. Krosschell that the ordinance provision, which he refers to in his e-mail message, has been repealed (see attached). INCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: Page 1 of 2 Kvenvold, Steve From: Kai Krosschell (kitenut@millcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 2:29 AM To: skvenvold@ci.rochester.mn.us; jscherr@ci.rochester.mn.us Cc: ccanfield@ci.rochester.mn.us; jhunziker@ci.rochester.mn.us; tadkins@ci.rochester.mn.us Subject: Petition for council action at July 17 meeting Dear City Administrator and City Clerk, I petition the City Council to take action on two related items at the July 17 meeting: 1) Request to repeal City Ordinance RCO 45.18 2) Request to direct Chief of Police to establish safety policy for use of mobile computer terminals by police officers. I had discussed the repeal of RCO 45.18 with the city attorney over a year ago. At that time he agreed the ordinance was bad as he could not even explain the meaning of some of the language in the ordinance. He indicated that the council attitude was to "let sleeping dogs lie." The sleeping dog has been awakened. I was ticketed for violation of the ordinance on the 4th of July (that day we celebrate FREEDOM). While the motivation of officers involved will be addressed in another forum, the underlying responsibility falls to the city council to remove the bad law from the books to prevent further abuse. As an alternative I would advise the council that if the ordinance stays on the books I am prepared to seek the ending of all ball playing in city parks as the ordinance specifically mentions ball playing along with kite flying. I'm sure the Watson Sports Complex and the new soccer field expansions would be pretty much waste land if the police were to apply this ordinance to ball playing as well. I think the council should consider the outrage of hundreds if not thousands of upset parents and children if the little league programs were stopped because the council allows this ordinance to stand. In addition this could mean the end of the Rochester Honkers playing in the Mayo Field city park stadium. Additionally frisbees would have to be banned under the "any game" clause since frisbees had not been invented when the ordinance was passed. The list of possibly "illegal activities" is potentially unlimited. This is a classic example of BAD LAW, and the city should be embarassed to have this kind of readily abused law on the books. For the second issue, I would ask the council to direct the Chief of Police to establish safety guidelines for use of mobile computer terminals by our city officers. Our police officers should NOT drive while distracted by typing and reading a computer screen. There is no reason that this non-emergencyjob duty must be performed while driving in traffic. I have personally seen squad cars wander out of lanes as well as cross the center line while approaching me because they were NOT paying attention to driving. It is a crime in Minnesota to drive without giving proper attention to the road... criminal vehicular operation. We have recently witnessed an incident where a pedestrian was struck by a police squad car. I ask that action be taken before the next tragedy occurs. For more information on this incident visit www.cieocities.com/rochtruth . Thank you in advance for your cooperation. I would like to ask that I be given an opportunity to address the council as early as possible in the meeting as I have another conflict later in the evening. Please advise if that can be arranged... or if I should address the council during the "5 minute" open slots, while leaving this letter speak to my formal petitions to the council. Kel Krosschell 1334 SE 4th Ave #3 Rochester, MN 55904 7/12/00 Page 2 of 2 i t) (507) 252 8842 kitenutdmilicomm com Attachment: RCO 45.18 45. USE OF PARKS AND PARKWAYS 45.01. Definitions. The term "park" used in this chapter shall be construed to include all public ground and squares maintained as pleasure grounds in the city. The term "parkway" used herein shall be construed to include all the thoroughfares and park approaches subject to the jurisdiction and control of the board of park commissioners. 45.18 Dangerous Games. No person shall play any ball, fly kites, pitch quoits or engage in any game or exercise which shall be liable to frighten horses, injure travelers or embarrass the passage of vehicles on any boulevard or parkway, or within the limits of any park. 7/12/00 Page 1 of 2 Goslee, Dave From: Goslee, Dave Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 10:52 AM To: 'kitenut@millcomm.com' Cc: Adkins, Terry Subject: RE: RCO45.18 History Dear Mr. Krosschell: Terry Adkins has asked me to reply to your email request included below. Please also be aware that Rochester Code of Ordinances (RCO) Chapter 45 was repealed and replaced by RCO Chapter Chapter 45B that was effective following publication. The City Clerk informs me that publication was on June 24, 2000. 1 have attached a copy of Ch. 45B for your convenience. You first ask for the history of RCO section 45.18. This section was a part of the original park ordinance adopted in April of 1913. You next ask for the history of citations issued for violations of specific park sections. This office does not maintain records of citations issued for any particular violations of city ordinances or, for that matter, of any particular violations of state statutes. Additionally, I don't believe that law enforcement has ever had a record storage system that allows information to be retrieved relative to the number of citations issued for any particular offense. The State does record gross misdemeanor and felony information based on "MOC" codes. However, ordinance violations are misdemeanors. I hope this information is helpful. David M. Goslee Deputy City Attorney -----Original Message ----- From: Adkins, Terry Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 10:23 AM To: Goslee, Dave Subject: FW: RCO45.18 History -----Original Message ----- From; Kel Krosschell [mailto:kitenut@millcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 3:03 AM To: tadkins@ci.rochester.mn.us Subject: RCO45.18 History Dear City Attorney, Can you explain the history of RCO45.18... I can't decipher from the dates at the bottom of chapter 45 when 45.18 was introduced or potentially changed. My guess would be that it was thereat the 1913 date... since the horse drawn carriage issue was potentially minimal by 1944... I'd also like any information you might have on any history of citations issued under specifically 45.18 but also under similar sections of chapter 45, i.e: - 45.07 and sales of the lighted necklaces at the 4th of July celebration, 45.12 and playing music, playing cards, or orating[a first ammendment infringement]. 45.19 and radio controlled boats as well as fishing, 45.21 and the Rochesterfest parade Thanks, Kel . 7/12/00 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING CHAPTER 45B OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF PARKS AND PARKWAYS IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 45 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Chapter 45B of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 45B. USE OF PARKS, PARK TRAILS, AND PARKWAYS 45B.01. Definitions. The term "park" used in this chapter shall be construed to include all public ground and squares maintained as leisure grounds in the city. The term "parkway" used herein shall be construed to include all the thoroughfares, park approaches, and trails subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Rochester Board of Park Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as "Board." 456.02. Firearms and Fireworks. Subdivision 1. No person shall do any of the following ,..thin a park or upon the parkways or trails: a. carry, fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm;; b. possess or shoot off any rocket or other fireworks of any description, except as is hereinafter provided ; or, C. throw any stones or missiles. Subd. 2. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the board of park commissioners may issue a permit allowing fireworks to be discharged within any park or parkway subject to the conditions imposed by the board. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, state certification under Minn. Stat. Chapter 624, obtaining certificates of insurance, and executing indemnification agreements in favor of the city. 45B.03. Protection of Trees Plants and Structures. No person shall, within any of the parks, parkways, or park trails, do any of the following: a. climb any trees, or pluck any flowers or fruit, whether wild or cultivated; b. break, cut down or trample upon or remove, or in any manner injure or deface any statue, ornament, tree, plant, shrub, flower bed, curb, or any of the buildings, fences, bridges or other construction; or C. write on any building, structure, statue, fence, bench, rock or stone within such parks or parkways. 458.04, Regulation Of Traffic. Subdivision 1. No person shall drive, ride, or operate any bicycle, motorcycle, horse or other animal used for riding or pulling a vehicle, or any other vehicle upon any part of the park or park trail, except upon the streets or drives within a park, or upon such other trails, footwalks, paths or other places specifically designated for such purpose. Subd. 2. No person shall park or leave a vehicle or animal pulling a vehicle at any location other than at such places as the board of park commissioners shall designate for such purpose. Subd. 3. No person shall ride or drive a bicycle, automobile or other vehicle within the parks or upon the parkways or park trails at a speed faster than a posted speed limit or faster than is reasonable under the circumstances. Subd. 4. The board of park commissioners, in its discretion, may forbid any automobile, motorcycle, bicycle or other vehicle from entering upon or traveling over any of the parks, parkways or trails, or upon or over any portion of the same, whenever the board deems the restriction necessary for the safety of the public or preservation of public property. The park board may call for the erection or use of signs, barricades or other devices to prevent such entry or travel. No person shall enter upon or travel over such designated areas. 45B.05. Commercial Transactions. No person shall engage in the commercial sale or display of goods, merchandise, or any other articles in the parks or upon any drive therein, without having first obtained a permit for such activity. Permits for commercial sale and display shall be issued by the park department under the direction of guidelines and criteria established by the Board. 45B.06. Carriage Rides. No person shall offer or provide for -hire horse carriage rides for passengers within or upon any park or parkway without first obtaining a permit from the Board. The Board may charge a reasonable application fee for such permit and may adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the permitted activity. 45B.07. Signs Restricted. No person shall post or affix any printed or written bill, sign, placard, notice or other paper upon any tree, structure or thing within the parks or parkways, or upon any gate, fence, or enclosure within the limits thereof, except that park notices and other authorized bulletins or signs may be put up at the direction of the superintendent of parks. 45B.08. Restricted Areas. The parks and every part thereof are for the use and enjoyment of the public, subject to such restrictions as may be lawfully made for their orderly government. All visitors are free to go upon the grass, lawn or turf of any park or parkway except in any space indicated by visible lines of enclosure on which is posted a sign prohibiting such entry. 45B.09. Miscellaneous Activities. No person shall, within any park or upon any parkway or trail, do any of the following: 11 a. play any music in a manner that violates Section 85.10 or Chapter 117 of this Code; b. keep or offer for sale, or post or display any sign or placard, flag, target, transparency, advertisement or device of business, unless by the permission of the Board, and subject to such rules and regulations as the Board shall prescribe; C. beg or publicly solicit subscription or tell fortunes; d. utter loud, threatening or abusive or indecent language or any language tending to cause a breach of the peace; e. engage in any indecent, obscene or disorderly conduct; or f. make any oration or harangue in such park or parkway without the written permission of the Board. 45B.10. Animal . No person shall take, ride, drive or conduct into a park or upon any parkway, any quadruped or other animal except the following: (1} dogs that are under control of the person by command, leash, chain, cable or suitable enclosure;. (2) horses that are being used for carriage rides pursuant to a permit issued by the park board under the provisions of this code; and (3) such other animals as shall be permitted under the direction of the superintendent of parks. Nothing in this section is intended to supercede the provisions of RCO Chapter 106A relating to the regulation of animals. 45B.11. Permits for Exclusive Park Use. Athletic games, sports, picnics and other forms of recreation or amusement sanctioned by the Board may be held or practiced in such parts of the parks as shall be designated for such use, subject to such regulations as may be made by the Board, and subject to the orders of any policeman or other officer connected with the park on duty enforcing the rules of the Board. Permits for the exclusive use of any picnic shelter or park area for any specified date or time, may be granted at the discretion of the Board, and no person shall in any manner disturb or interfere with any club or party occupying the ground under such permit without their consent. 45B.12. Rubbish. No person shall throw, deposit, place or dump, or cause to be thrown, deposited, placed or dumped, any dead carcass, filth, dirt, stone, wood, ashes, garbage matter, substance or rubbish of any kind, upon or within any park, parkway, or park trail. 45B.13. Hours. No person, except police officers and the employees and servants of the Board, shall be present in any park or parkway between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. each day, except that the Board may designate different hours for individual parks or parkways deemed appropriate. Enforcement of park closing hours, when different from the general ,_:k closing hours indicated above, shall not be made until such time as signs clearly indicating to r the closing and opening times are erected at all entrances to the park or parkway. This section is not intended to prohibit pedestrian travel along improved trails within a park unless the signs at the entrances to the park or parkway indicate that such travel is prohibited. 4513.14 Golf Prohibited.. No person shall play or practice golf, or otherwise hit any golf balls within the limits of any park, except at the city's three municipal golf courses, the Hawthorne Hills Golf Learning Center, and at such other parks or locations within parks where the hitting of golf balls is expressly allowed by the Board. 45B.15. Water Activities. No person shall swim, bathe, fish or float watercraft in the waters of any park or in any other public waters within the limits of the city's parks, except in places designated by the Board. No person shall kill, injure, molest or unnecessarily disturb the fish in said waters, or any water fowl or other birds, or any animal properly within any park; provided however, that fishing may be permitted in park waters at places designated by the Board. 45B.16. Golf Courses. Subdivision 1. No person shall be or remain within the boundary limits of a municipal golf course between the official opening and closing dates of each year, except employees of the city, authorized caddies, golfers who have paid their green fees and authorized guests, and spectators during tournament play. Subd. 2. No person shall possess or consume any intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating malt liquor within the boundaries of a municipal golf course at any time, unless the same was purchased from a person licensed to dispense said intoxicating liquor or non -intoxicating malt liquor on the municipal golf course premises. Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit any person from bringing intoxicating liquor to a municipal golf course if the golf course concessionaire has obtained a Bottle Club License for private parties during the off season. The term "off-season" shall refer to the time period between the official closing and opening dates. 45B.17. Alcoholic Beverages in Parks. It is unlawful for any person to bring upon, possess or consume the contents of a container of an alcoholic beverage that contains or has a capacity of two gallons or more in a park. This section shall not apply to a person licensed to sell alcoholic beverages on parkland, to an employee or agent acting on behalf of such licensee, nor to a person delivering an alcoholic beverage to such licensee. Section 2. Chapter 45 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby repealed. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its publication. I PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF .2000. ATTEST: PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF .2000. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) ora2000%45H REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 13 DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-3 M DESCRIPTION: ABY: PREPACONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G. NE lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can ianoppormnity l of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers 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. Grant for Downtown Redevelopment Consultant D-3. Appointment of the Director of Building Safety D-4. Building Repairs at Rochester Civic Theatre D-5. Transfer of Silver Lake Motel Site to HRA for River's Edge Apartments D-6. Professional Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to Perform Wildlife Hazard Assessment D-7. Accept FAA Grant for Phase 11 Runway 02-20 Extension with Taxiway & Connection of Terminal and Air Cargo Ramp D-8. Award of Bid for Phase 11 Runway 02-20 Extension with Taxiway & Connection of Terminal & Air Cargo Ramps D-9. Award Bid to KME, Inc. to Purchase One New Four -Wheel Drive 1,500 Gallon Fire Truck with Accessory Equipment D-10. Bid Proposals for Five On -Airport Rental Car Concessions D-11. Revocation or Suspension of Registration Certificate Ordinance D-12. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-13. Approval of Accounts Payable D-14. Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department D-15. Real Estate/McQuillin Field/Kepp Property D-16. Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Boulder Ridge Development EAW D-17. Tire Deflation Grant Application D-18. Land Acquisition/16d' Avenue D-19. Development Agreement/Valley Side Subdivision D-20. Development Agreement/Royal Plaza Subdivision/Kings Run Commercial Area D-21. Development Agreement/Deerhaven Subdivision D-22. Revocable Permit for 1251 4d' Avenue SE D-23. Revocable Permit for Charter Communications D-24. Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Emmanuel Baptist Church D-25. Advertise for Bids/Construct Fox Valley Drive SW from Baihley Heights Area to Fox Croft Area INCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Request for Council Action Approval of Consent Agenda Items July 17, 2000 Page 2 D-26. Advertise for Bids/Construct Wellner Drive NE from 3 Vt Street NE to Rocky Creek Drive D-27. Utility Connection Agreements/23 d Avenue and 4d' Street SW D-28. Utility Connection Agreements/Riverview Subdivision D-29. Utility Connection Agreements/23'd Avenue and 5d' Street SW D-30. Consideration of Bids/Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Five Areas in Marion Township D-31. Award of ContracVInstall Traffic Signal at 55�' Street and CSAH 22 D-32. Award of Contract/Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 & 200 Block Between Broadway & 1" Ave SW D-33. Advertise for Bids/Reconstruction of Portion of 48d' Street SW and l ld' Avenue SW D-34. Advertise for Bids/Reconstruction of 9a' Avenue SW from 2nd Street SW to 0' Street SW D-35. Award of Contract/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15d' Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway D-36. Bids for the Year 2000 Restoration of the Second Street Ramp COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (!57 - DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR _ LM DESCRIPTION: GRANT FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD Peoples Natural Gas had previously informed the Mayor that they would provide up to $5,000 to fund an urban design consultant to provide the Mayor with advice relating to the proposed Time Square and Royal Management downtown development proposals. Peoples indicated that they would provide this assistance in the form of an economic development grant. Peoples has submitted a grant agreement which requires the City Council's approval to sign the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. _ _ JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: i 0 June 21, 2000 Charles Canfield Mayor City of Rochester City Hall 201 4th St. SE Rochester, MN 55904-3708 Dear Mayor Canfield: 2665 1451n Street West P.O. Box 445 Rosemount, MN 55068-0455 651-423.8910 Fax: 651-423-3306 UTILICORP UNITED ENERGY11NE Calvin W. )Cal) Clark Director of Economic Development Minnesota Peoples Natural Gas (PNG), a division of UtiliCorp United, is pleased to have approved a grant of $5,000.00 for your "Downtown Redevelopment Consultant' project. We hope this will assist you in carrying out this important economic development effort. After you have signed and returned the enclosed agreement (please keep a copy for your files), you will then be authorized to obligate our funds. As expenses are incurred, please complete the attached Cooperative 1).farketing Program, Request for Payment form and mail with expense documentation to the address shown at the bottom of the form. We ask that you keep us informed of your project as it progresses. Please feel free to call upon us for assistance at any time. Sincerely, Calvin W. Clark Director Economic Development Enclosures ENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR .. _M DESCRIPTION: APPOINTMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF BUILDING SAFETY MEETING r 11 DATE: 7/17/00 ITEM NO. D-3 PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD 11 Ronald Boose, the current Director of Code Administration for the Village of Oak Park, Illinois, is recommended for appointment as the Director of Building Safety for the City of Rochester. Mr. Boose's starting salary will be $79,000 per year. Mr. Boose is expected to begin his employment with the City approximately the middle of August, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion appointing Ronald Boose as the Director of the Building Safety Department. 1NCIL ACTION: motion Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT AGENDA .. _M DESCRIPTION: BUILDING REPAIRS AT THE ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR CIVIC THEATRE MEETING f 1 DATE: 7/17/00 ITEM NO.. D _ I S. KVENVOLD The Rochester Civic Theatre is requesting funding to replace the air compressor and repair the roof at this City owned building (see attached). I recommend that the Council approve proceeding with the replacement of the air compressor and the long-term roof repair for a grand total of $21,522. The necessary funds should be appropriated from the Future Construction Account. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion approving the replacement of the air compressor and the repair of the roof at the Civic Theatre and appropriating $21,522 from the Future Construction Account to fund the work. NCIL ACTION: Motion bx second ab rochesfer c is theatre July 11, 2000 To: Mr. Stevan Kvenvold City Administrator From: Mark L. Colbenson Re: Building Maintenance issues. In follow-up to our meeting of June 29, I am forwarding the bid information regarding the roof repairs and the main compressor on the air conditioning unit here at Rochester Civic Theatre: Air Compressor: Replace original 1968 compressor unit with all labor and materials. Winona Heating and Ventilation: $4,105.00 Tonna Heating and Coolint?: $3,980.00 K&S Heating and Air Conditioning: $7,530.00 Roof Repair: Complete roof inspection and all repairs to restore proper seal and drainage conditions. Schwickert's of Rochester: $4,770.00 (Includes patching of 5/17, which will be billed separately if this bid not accepted). Merit Roofine: $17, 417.00 (Merit is proposing this as a long-term repair, assuming we do not want to redo the entire roof. They emphasize this is not a patch job for short-term fix.) As we discussed, the roof repair was left undone last year in anticipation of the Civic Center project, which would have originally brought the facilities together and included reworking of the roof. With the changes in the Civic Center project, the facilities will no longer adjoin on the east side, now making the roof repair essential. These two bids vary greatly which appears to correlate directly to the scope of the work proposed. Based on the age of this roof, both contractors are still recommending annual inspection. The air conditioning system is original equipment from 1968. It is a two -stage system with the main compressor being out of service. We are currently maintaining the system on the second -stage compressor, which cannot carry the load when we have the auditorium filled for shows. The system is forced to run continually, and we are concerned that we will bum out the second -stage compressor if this continues. We have experienced very uncomfortable evenings during our current show, and our summer show Rochester Civic Theatre • 220 East Center street • Rochester, MN 55904 Box Office: 507-282-8481 • Administrative: 507-282-7633 • Actors' Extension: 507-282-8747 • Fax: 507-282-0608 Adult and Children's Productions • Towing Shows • Educational Programs • Social Services Support • Community Assistance • Theatrical Resources opens on July 19. Additionally, going forward, we will be cooling a larger area due to the expansion of our lobby area. The air system at RCT is also not part of the facility upgrade, thus requiring our attention. Although the Tonna estimate is $125 lower than WHV, WHV has been our servicer here for a number of years and is familiar with our system. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss these items. Thank you for your consideration. Sincere , Mark L. Colbenson Managing Director REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING R3 ' DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Administration 7) _ 5 _M DESCRIPTION: Transfer of Silver Lake Motel Site to HRA for River's Edge PREPARED BY: Apartments Doug Knott The Council authorized staff to work with the HRA on the development of a low and moderate income housing project on the former Silver Lake Motel property. The HRA hired an architect and prepared preliminary plans and a cost estimate for the project. They intend to start construction this fall. Staff is requesting approval from the Council to transfer the site to the HRA. The City purchased this property in connection with the flood control project. The area to be transferred to the HRA represents 1.53 acres of a 2.4 acre parcel. The .87 acres that the City will be retaining includes the recreation trail and the rip rapped bank area (see attached survey). We will retain an 8' construction easement along the south side of the recreational trail for maintenance purposes. River's Edge Apartments is a three-story structure with an elevator containing eight one -bedroom units and 31 two -bedroom units. The building has been designed to meet the existing zoning requirements. No rezoning or variances will be required. A copy of the site plan is attached. Parking includes 18 garages and 45 stalls in a surface lot. The total project cost is estimated at $3.9 million. Of this amount, $2.7 million will come from bonds issued by the HRA with the County providing the G.O. backing. The balance of the budget is intended to ---te from First Homes, the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, and interest earnings. We will not edule a closing on the sale until the HRA has a firm commitment for these funds. The proposed rents for the project are: 4- 1 BR units @ 60% of statewide median income: $495 per mo. 4- 1 BR units @ 80% of statewide median income: $660 per mo. 16- 2BR units @ 60% of statewide median income: $595 per mo. 15- 2BR units @ 80% of statewide median income: $795 per mo. Under the terms of the proposed purchase agreement, the City would sell the parcel to the HRA for $1.00. The HRA is obligated to start construction of River's Edge by April 1, 2001 at the latest and complete work within one year of that date. If they don't proceed with the project, the property will revert to the City. If the HRA sells or transfers the property after completion, the City is entitled to receive the fair market value of the land as determined by appraisal. We have provided the HRA's legal counsel with an updated abstract and will give them a quit claim deed to the property. Council Action Requested Approval to sell the property described as parcel "A" in the attached survey to the HRA. Authorization for the Mayor and Clerk to execute documents related to the sale of the property. r 1NCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: gq CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY HENKE'S REPLAT BLOCK 29, NORTHERN ADDITION ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 0 50 100 200 MONUMENTS t O Set 3/4" Iron Pipes SCALE IN FEET • Found Monuments (Pipe, Rod, Etc.) All monuments set have a plastic cap stamped L.S. 20703. Q� tea. I1f~> GLT i J U 1 50' j50'Zj I 1 r I„ ♦ y..., .. V9DA> VJAY 91 PA CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0 DATE: 7/17/00 ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO, Rochester International Airport y � 16 _:M DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of PREPARED BY: Agriculture to Perform a Wildlife Hazard Assessment Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to perform a Wildlife Hazard Assessment for the Rochester International Airport. The Federal Aviation Administration has recently mandated that a Wildlife Hazard Assessment must be completed at most commercial service airports to include the Rochester International Airport. Agreement is not to exceed $20,000.00 Funding: Currently 100% Local -but pursuing 60% State participation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/17100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEMEW.Leqve I CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport M DESCRIPTION: Accept an Federal Aviation Administration Grant for Phase II Runway PRE 02-20 extension with taxiway and connection of the Terminal and Air Cargo Ramp. Stev The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Accept an Federal Aviation Administration Grant for Phase 11 Runway 02-20 extension with taxiway and connection of the Terminal and Air Cargo Ramp along with the purchase of one new four-wheel drive 1500 gallon airport fire truck with accessory equipment. This grant will provide 90% funding for the runway project and the fire truck purchase. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the grant documents. NCI ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 31 / DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Rochester International Airport 1 V M DESCRIPTION: Award the bid for Phase II Runway 02-20 extension with taxiway and PREPARED BY: connection of the Terminal and Air Cargo Ramps. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: I Award the bid to Progressive Contractors Inc. for concrete paving of Phase H Runway 02-20 2100 foot extension with adjacent bituminous taxiway and concrete paving of the area between the Terminal and Air Cargo Ramps. Award of this contract will be contingent on receipt of an Federal Aviation Administration Grant. This project is in the Airport CIP. (J6911) Contract Amount: $3,162,611.95 Engineer's Estimate: $3,378,712.50 Bid tab and engineer's recommendation attached. Funding: 90% Federal 10% Local --JNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizirxg the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract. INCILACTION: t d,.by: Second by: m: Rochester Minnesota land Surveying Urban - land Planning Consulting - Civil Engineering Geotechmical Engineering Construction Material Testing ON July 11, 2000 Mr. Steve Leqve Rochester International Airport Helgerson Drive SW Rochester MN 55902 RE: Recommendation for Award 2000 Runway 02/20 Extension Rochester International Airport Dear Steve: Bids were received for the referenced project. There were a total of two bids received. The bids were: CONTRACTOR Schedule A Schedule B Total DBE Goal Progressive Contractors Inc. $2,495,361.35 $667,250.60 $3,162,611.95 7.32% Fred Carlson Company $2,445,091.35 $795,442.72 $3,240,534.07 4.16% Engineer's Estimate $2,715,964.75 $662,747.74 $3,378,712.50 Landscape Architecture As you are aware, the DBE goal of this project was set at 7.32% and Progressive Contractors Inc. indicated that their participation was 7.32%. Therefore, it is our opinion that their bid is responsive and complies with the project specifications. We also find other requirements of the bid proposal are in order and should the City decide to award a contract, it is our recommendation that Progressive Contractors Inc. be considered the lowest responsive bidder and offered a contract. Should you have any questions regarding our recommendation, please contact us. Very truly yours, McT" B TTS„INS. (-David L. Morrill, P PC: Progressive Contractors Inc. ACSG, Chris Greene Mn/DOT - Division of Aeronautics, Kathy Vesely 1648 Third Avenue S.E. Rochester, MN 56904 Tel, 507.289.3919 Fax. 507.289.7333 11 e-mail. meghiebetta.com Established 1946 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 3 i DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA i ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester International Airport ITEM NO. L) _ q M DESCRIPTION: Award the bid to KME, Inc. to purchase one new four-wheel drive 1500 PREPARED BY: gallon fire truck with accessory equipment. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Award the bid to KME, Inc. to purchase one new four-wheel drive 1500 gallon airport fire truck with accessory equipment for the Rochester International Airport. Award of this contract will be contingent on receipt of an Federal Aviation Administration Grant. This equipment purchase is in the Airport CIP. (J6999) Bids: Oshkosh Truck $425,198.00 KME, Inc. $339,397.00 Rosenbauer $409,900.00 Funding: 90% Federal 10% Local UNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract. JNCIL ACTION: Mofion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/ 17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester International Airport ITEM NO. JDVI Consent rip DESCRIPTION: Award the bid to Oshkosh to purchase one new four-wheel drive 1500 PREPARED BY: gallon fire truck with accessory equipment. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: i Award the bid to Oshkosh to purchase one new four-wheel drive 1500 gallon airport fire truck with accessory equipment for the Rochester International Airport. The bid from Oshkosh was deemed the lowest responsive bid as the others did not meet the testing requirements in the specifications for Airfield Rescue and Firefighting Equipment as set forth in Federal Aviation Administration's Advisory Circular No. 150/5220-1OB dated 10/20/97. Award of this contract will be contingent on receipt of an Federal Aviation Administration Grant. This equipment purchase is in the Airport CIP. (76999) Bids: Oshkosh Truck $425,198.00 KME, Inc. $339,397.00 Rosenbauer $409,900.00 Funding: 90% Federal 10% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract. COUNCIL ACTION: N,otionbyy Seoudby: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3S DATE: 7/17/00 CONSENT AGENDA I Rochester International Airport I 1_ /U I DESCRIPTION: Bid proposals for five (5) on -airport rental car concessions. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Execute on -airport rental car agreements with the five highest bidders for five (5) on -airport rental car concessions. The existing agreements will expire on December 31, 2000. A total of six bids were received for the five available on -airport concessions. One of the bidders, Enterprise, was deemed to have an unresponsive bid as they used a company check vs. a cashiers check for the bid security and also they did not indicate receipt of Addedums 1 and 2 on the outside of the envelope containing the bid documents as required by the bidding instructions. We have proceeded with the bid process at this time because we needed to determine who the on -airport rental car agencies will be to allow final completion of the rental car counter areas under the terminal building remodeling project. These new agreements will become effective 7anurary 1, 2001 and will run through December 31, 2006. The successful bidders were: Hertz National Budget Avis Thrifty COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the new agreements. NCIL ACTION: Nmtiw Sewnd REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT AGENDA ..EM DESCRIPTION: REVOI CERTIFICATE ORDINANCE ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MEETING �- DATE: 7/ 17/00 D-I TERRY ADKINS At the July 5, 2000, City Council meeting, the Council directed me to prepare an ordinance providing for the suspension or revocation of a rental registration certificate, or the right to receive such a certificate, if the certificate holder or applicant failed to comply with any provision of the Rochester Code of Ordinances (such as front yard parking). In my research, I discovered that there were several ordinances currently on the books which somewhat addressed this issue. However, the current ordinances were not entirely clear in their meaning and did not fit well together. Accordingly, in compliance with the Council's directive, and with a desire to "clean up" this issue, I created a new section (Section 38.125) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances to address the suspension and revocation of a rental registration certificate or the right to receive a certificate. This new ordinance brings together several existing ordinances and creates some new language. This ordinance makes it clear that the Council has the authority to suspend or revoke a registration certificate, or the right to receive a certificate, if the certificate holder or applicant fails to comply with any applicable statute, rule or ordinance. I enclose a copy of the proposed ordinance. Fromm . ;". Motion to instruct the City Attorney to give the proposed ordinance its first reading. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second 3q ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING SECTION 38.125, AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 38.12, AND REPEALING SECTION 38.025 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A RENTAL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 38.125 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 38.125. Suspension or Revocation of Registration Certificate Subdivision 1. Any registration certificate issued by the City pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may be suspended or revoked upon a finding that the certificate holder, during the term of the certificate, failed to comply with any provision of Chapter 32 (Housing Code), Chapter 34 (Minimum Housing Standards), Chapter 35 (Housing Code- Dwellings and Apartments), Chapter 38 (Registration of Rental Units), or Chapter 55 (Fire Prevention) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, any applicable federal or state statute or administrative rule, or any other city or county ordinance. Subd. 2. A person's right to apply and receive a registration certificate may be suspended or revoked upon a finding that the applicant has let to another for occupancy any dwelling, or any apartment or rooming unit in any dwelling, without first obtaining a registration certificate as required by this chapter and, during such time, has failed to comply with any provision of Chapter 32 (Housing Code), Chapter 34 (Minimum Housing Standards), Chapter 35 (Housing Code - Dwellings and Apartments), Chapter 38 (Registration of Rental Units), or Chapter 55 (Fire Prevention) of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, any applicable federal or state statute or administrative rule, or any other city or county ordinance. Subd. 3. Whenever it appears to the council that adequate grounds may exist for the suspension or revocation of a registration certificate, or the right to receive a registration certificate, the council shall by resolution specify the nature of the alleged grounds and order that a hearing on the matter be held as provided below, Subd. 4. No such suspension or revocation shall be effective until the license or permit holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing under sections 14.57 to 14.70 of the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act. Subd. 5. Upon a finding that the registration certificate holder or applicant has violated any such statute, rule, or ordinance, the council may invoke any of the sanctions provided in Section 38.153, subdivision 3. Section 2. Section 38.12 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: 38.12. Certificate Renewal and Non -transferability. Subdivision 1. All registration certificates shall expire one year after date of issuance and must be renewed annually. All information required by Section 38.04 of this chapter must be submitted at the time of renewal. Whenever the applicant certifies that no change has been made in a registered dwelling, apartment, or rooming unit, and the registered unit has been inspected within the preceding 12 months, a renewal registration certificate may be issued without reinspection by the Director of Building Safety, provided the owner certifies that the units are in compliance with this code, including any applicable provisions of the zoning, building, fire safety, or health ordinances. Subd.2. Every person who transfers title to property registered under this chapter shall provide the Director of Building Safety with the name, residence address, telephone number, and date of the transfer of title to the new owner within 10 days of the date of such transfer. Within 30 days of the date of such transfer, the new owner shall apply for a new registration certificate. In the case of an option contract where the holder of the option is collecting rents and/or is paying on the mortgage to the property while the option remains unexercised, the holder of the option shall be deemed to be the owner of the property for purposes of this section and shall be required to apply for a rental registration certificate in his/her name. The date the option contract is created shall be deemed to be the date the holder of the option becomes the "owner" for purposes of this section, Subd. 3. Registration certificates may not be transferred or assigned. Section 3. Section 38.025 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby repealed. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2000. ATTEST: PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF — , 2000. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) om2000M.125 J - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D - 12 ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED By: DONNAJSCHOTT The following ADDENDUM licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. HAVC Dimension Plumbing & Heating 1985 North Broadway Rochester, Mo. 55906 MASTER INSTALLER Jeffrey Bantley 6919 Hadley Valley Rd NE Rochester, Mn. 55906 SOUND AMPLIFICATION Eastside Pioneers Neighborhood Association Band to Play for Neighborhood Night Out Party 8/1/00 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM St. Francis Church East Parking Lot MISCELLANEOUS Olmsted Medical Center Stride for Fitness Walk/Run 9/23/00 8:00 AM to 11:00 AM From Olmsted Community Hospital to University Center & Back Rochester, Mo. 55904 Downtown Business Association Annual Sidewalk Days 7/27/00 to 7/30/00 7:00 Am to 8:00 PM Downtown Business and Peace Plaza 1 COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to: so ADDENDUM LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 JULY 17, 2000-07-17 Martin T. Brooks DBA Action Stunts Inc, 850 East Ave. Zumbrota, Mn. 55992 Fireworks Display for Olmsted County Fair 7/31/00 Olmsted County Fairgrounds Grandstand COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above ADDENDUM licenses. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D -la, A DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING OFF SITE — TEMPORARY Dover Fire Relief Association PO Box 65, 223 N. Chatfield Dover, Mn. 55929 Premise for Olmsted County Fair - 7/31/00 to 8/6/00 HAVC Comet Heating & Air, Inc. 26613 608" St. Mantorville, Mn. 55955 HOUSE MOVERS Crews House Moving for Hoglund Properties Rt 3 Box 145 Austin, Mn. 55912 Houses to be Moved from 1201 & 1203 4d' St. SE to Dodge Center 7/30/00 — 7/31/00 Rochester, Mn. 55904 SEWER AND DRAIN Chad Braaten DBA Braaten Construction 2813 60' Ave NW Byron, Mn. 55920 Dan Fitzpatrick DBA Fitzpatrick Construction, Inc. 8770 Fitzpatrick Ln NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 SIDEWALK — CEMENT Corey Lukes Masonry Rt 2 box 56 Zumbro Falls, Mn. 55991 ( NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: l �OzCENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PAGE 2 DULY 17, 2000 SOUND AMPLIFICATION Amateur Ballroom Dancers Association Dance at Peace Plaza to kick off National Ballroom Dance Week 9/15/00 8:00 PM to 9:30 PM Skyway Dance Between Radisson & Galleria 9/18/00 8:00 PM to 9:30 PM (Please Waive 8:00 PM time Period) Rochester Elks Lodge #1091 917 15' Ave SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Parking Lot Dinner & Dance 7/22/00 (Please Waive 8:00 Time Period) 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM Salvation Army, Oak Hills Wesleyan Church & Church of the Nazarene 20 15i Ave NE Rochester, Mo. 55906 Outdoor Concert in front of Salvation Army 8/6/00 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church 2810 40" Ave SE Rochester, Mn. 55904 Church Service & Picnic 8/6/00 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM Bear Creek Park Name Recognition Parry for DFL Endorsed Candidate Jerry Janezich Soldiers Field Park 8/2/00 4:30 to 6:30 Rochester, Mn. 55904 MISCELLANEOUS Northpark Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Night Out Picnic 8/1/00 5:30 PM to 9:30 PM North Park 55' St. NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Wells Fargo Bank 21 1" St. NW Rochester, Mn. 55901 Wells Fargo Stagecoach Rides at Central Park 7/21/00 9:30 AM to 3:00 PM Mayo Park to Peace Plaza to Central Park COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous uses. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �5 DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. b „1 3 _M DESCRIPTION: Approval of Accounts Payable PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $1,544,658.49. Less: Any exceptions INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: Organizational/Consent DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Human Resources MEETING l s DATE: 7/17/00 ITEM NO. D-4 L The City of Rochester Police Department received approval through the Universal Hiring Grant, therefore three (3) new positions of Police Officer have been created upon approval of this grant. 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 Andrea L. Burdick, Donald P. Kullot, and Angela M. Eaton 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. 1.V V NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: 0 iIF Tr R. ill\. how AL6BMERICA CITY ROCHESTER ... =-...` r���crce�a�a POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION BOB MOORE JOY FOGARTY MICHELLE LEAK July 13, 2000 Honorable Mayor Canfield City Hall Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Dear Mayor Canfield, The City of Rochester Police Department received approval through the Universal Hiring Grant to hire three (3) new Police Officers. 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 Office Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates: 1. Andrea L Burdick 2. Donald P. Kullot 3. Angela M. Eaton Police Chief Roger Peterson requests that these appointments be effective July 17, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, �17 rt�A 4v- Joy Fogarty Secretary Police Civil Service Commission An EaualD000Mdtu Emo(ouer 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 ALL-A%ERICA CITY Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Officer, I am appointing Andrea L. Burdick to the position of Police Officer effective July 17, 2000. 3ZV4 rap�& Mayor Ch es Canfre City of R hester Cc: Human Resources Director 7- t-00 Date 1('V `�IL9TER . kLry °f i *� fG: AUGUST~• 5 •' 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 ho ALL -A t Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Officer, I am appointing Donald P. Kullot to the position of Police Officer effective July 17, 2000. Mayor Chafes Canfielf City of Rochester Cc: Human Resources Director -7-t-Od Date FA 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 hog ALL-ANERICA CITY Based on the Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates for the position of Police Officer, I am appointing Angela M. Eaton to the position of Police Officer effective July 17, 2000. 6944ro-711w�- Mayor Chajfes Canfiell City of Rochester Cc: Human Resources Director 7-1-Od Date C % A SK COPS Unwtcsal U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing services (COPS) Ojce of the Dimexor 1100 Vermont Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 May 12, 2000 Chief Roger Peterson Rochester, City of 101 SE 4th Street Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Grant for: MN05501 Rochester, City of 95CCWX0232 Dear Chief Peterson: It is with great pleasure that I write to inform you that your Department will receive a COPS Universal Hiring Program grant award for 8 new, additional full-time officer(s) and 0 part-time officer(s) at an estimated cost of $600,000.00. This is an estimated amount of federal funds to be awarded to your jurisdiction for a three-year period. The grant award start date is May 1, 2000 which means that you can be reimbursed for salaries and expenses of additional officer(s) hired after this date. If you have not previously received a COPS Universal Hiring award, your Universal Hiring Program budget information currently is being reviewed. Upon budget approval, we will forward to you your Universal Hiring Program Award, budget clearance memorandum and Grant Owner's Manual. The memorandum will provide the actual award amount and will identify any disallowed costs such as uniforms or overtime. Some departments also will receive COPS assistance in developing community -policing strategies. If this condition applies, a special notice pertaining to technical assistance will be enclosed. You must sign and return it to the COPS Office along with your grant award. To accept your grant, please sign the award document and special condition, if applicable, and return it to the COPS Office within 90 days. MN05501 Rochester, City of May 12, 2000 Page 2 If you have previously received a COPS FAST, AHEAD, or Universal Hiring Program, this grant award will, supplement your previous award. Upon budget approval for the additional officers, you will receive a supplemental grant award which will provide your actual award amount for this announcement. To accept your grant, please sign the award document and return it to the COPS Office within 90 days. Failure to submit the signed award document in this 90 day period could result in COPS withdrawing you from the grant program and de -obligating your agency from the grant program. If you requested a waiver of the 25% local match, such requests are currently under review. You will be notified whether a waiver has been granted at the time your Universal Hiring Program Award and budget clearance memorandum is sent to you. We are pleased that your Department has elected to participate in the Universal Hiring Program and look forward to working with you in a productive partnership to further your community policing efforts. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the COPS Office at 1-800-421-6770. Your grant advisor will be happy to provide you with assistance. Sincerely, Thomas Frazier Director 54 --chaster _ ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 12, 2000 TO: STEVE KVENVOLD FROM: Roy Sutherland SUBJECT: KEPP PROPERTY ACQUISITION For the last 3 years we have been negotiating with Mrs. Kepp to acquire the 80 acres that she owns just south of the McQuillin Field Sports Complex. After many delays she and her family have decided that they want to sell as soon as possible. In their new proposal we will purchase the Kepp property and the house of her daughter which is located at the northeast corner of the Kepp property. Her daughter does not want to live there when the road goes through and people start using the fields. It is our intention to sell the house after the daughter moves out. We are proposing that the $280,000 required for the land acquisition would come from the $225,000 that we have in the McQuillien Field CIP account and the balance from the Department's future acquisition and development account. The $170,000 needed for the house would be borrowed internally and paid back as soon as the house is sold. With sky rocketing land costs, the opportunity to buy much needed land adjacent to an existing complex for $3,500 an acre is to good of a deal to pass up. Although we will not have money to develop the property in the near future this property plays a key role in the Department's long-range plans. When it is developed it will be in cooperation with other community groups. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 69' e DATE: 7-17-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING D_'/_ :M DESCRIPTION: Decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the PREPARED BY: Boulder Ridge Development EAW. Brent Svenby, Planner 41 July 11, 2000 An EAW was prepared for the Boulder Ridge development in May 2000 to determine the potential environmental effects of this development that includes approximately 110 acres of land located east of Bandel Road west of 18" Avenue NW in part of Sections 9 and 10 of Cascade Township. The 30 day comment period on the EAW expired on June 28, 2000. One comment letter was received (see attached). Responses to the written comments from MCPA is enclosed. Minnesota Rules require that a decision on this matter must be made by the RGU (Common Council) no later than 30 days after June 28, 2000 (end of comment period). Council Action Needed: Adoption of a resolution setting forth the City's declaration on the EAW adequacy. The resolution should include specific findings. This resolution will be transmitted by the Planning Department to the Environmental Quality Board. ichments• 1. Copy of July 11, 2000 memo from Planning Staff which includes a copy of the Boulder Ridge EAW, comment letter received and responses to the agency comments. Distribution: 1.City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 17, 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Rochester -Olmsted Government Center Building 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. JNCIL ACTION: moron by: second by: to: w TO: FROM: 4 t•V,DCHF.STER•, !v . O? C0YNTY OF �/ C� .•` 1 R'�TEO:AUCUst• ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE Rochester Common Council Brent Svenby, Planner ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071265-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING DATE: July 11, 2000 HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Boulder Rid g ELL/SEPTIC FAX Background: The 1973 Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, administered statewide through the Environmental Quality Board, is the basis for the present Environmental Review Program of the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 - .7900 were promulgated to administer the mandates of the Policy Act, spell out the specific environmental review procedures, and define when and how they must be employed. The intent of the environmental review program is to identify early the potential impacts of a project and provide time for the decision makers to require that mitigative measures are incorporated Into the project design before local permits are granted. The first level of environmental review under the program is known as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or "EAW". The specific content, environmental scope, and procedures for an EAW are specified in Minnesota Rules. The rules mandate what type of projects must go through the EAW process and who will act as the responsible unit of government to determine if additional environmental review is necessary in the form of a much more detailed Environmental Impact Statement or "EIS". The Boulder Ridge development project exceeds a mandatory EAW category in that it will eventually result in the permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural land to a more intensive use (Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 36). The rules assign the responsibility for the EAW preparation and determination of adequacy to the local unit of government which is charged with the responsibility to approve or deny permits for the project to proceed. In this case, the local responsible governmental unit would be the Rochester Common Council. EAW Process: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Boulder Ridge was transmitted to the Environmental Quality Board on May 22, 2000. The Planning Department notified and provided a copy of the EAW to the various state and federal agencies prescribed by Minnesota Rules. Copies of the EAW were made available to the City Clerk, County Administrator, and Public Library for public display, as well as a copy at the Planning Department. A press release was made to the Rochester Post Bulletin which explained the procedures for submitting comments. 5071285-8224 5071265-8213 507/285-8345 5071287-2275 `-'Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 2 Boulder Ridge EAW On May 29, 2000, the notice of availability was published in the EQB Monitor. The 30-day comment period expired on June 28, 2000. The following comments were received regarding this EAW: 1. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (see attached) Rochester's Responsibilities in the Process: Under Minnesota Rules the City of Rochester is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) to determine the need for further environmental review of a project by preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The decision facing the City is whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects and compare the impacts that may be expected to occur from the project with four criteria outlined in the rules (and listed below). This report could act as a record of the findings made by the City and a basis for the decision that is made. The City must make either a negative or a positive declaration. If a negative declaration is made on the need for an EIS, then the City must notify all persons or agencies that originally received copies of the EAW. The Environmental Quality Board shall publish the decision in the EQB Monitor. If a positive declaration is made, meaning an EIS must be prepared, then it should include the scope of what specific issues must be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. A positive declaration should include the time, date and location of the public meeting to discuss the scope of the EIS. Response to Comments: Under the environmental review process, the RGU's record must provide written response to substantive comments received during the EAW comment period. In this instance we received written comments from those agencies listed above. The comments received generally related to: 1. Physical Impacts on Water Resources 2. Erosion and Sedimentation 3. Stormwater Ponds 4. Wildlife Corridor Please see the attached letter from McGhie & Betts Environmental Service, Inc., dated July 11, 2000 for responses to the concerns and issues raised by the MPCA Criteria for Determining Significant Environmental Effects: In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City must consider the following factors as outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 subp. 7: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's. 3 Boulder Ridge EAW Findings: The Planning Staff recommends that based on the following findings that the City makes a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for the Boulder Ridge Development and that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects: The anticipated environmental effects of this project are found to be the same as those experienced with any residential development in the City of Rochester. This site has no unique environmentally sensitive features which warrant more detailed investigations. A determination has been made that a portion of Wetland A is not a calcareous fen. The functions and values of this wetland remain moderate to high and the developer has proposed to avoid this portion of the wetland. 2. Water quality of surface waters from the runoff or waste waters from the site should not be significantly degraded because of this project. Erosion and water quality of runoff will be controlled by the installation of stormwater detention ponds and sediment traps. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual provides for an ongoing regulatory authority of the City over erosion control practices. Wastewater from this project will be treated at the City of Rochester Wastewater Treatment Plant which is capable of accepting the estimated amounts of wastewater generated by this project. 3. The potential for groundwater contamination is found to be reduced by the use of a stormwater collection system which employs detention basins as compared to the existing unrestricted overland flow in the property's present state. Spills on the ground surface will have the potential to be intercepted in the stormwater detention areas before they leave the property. 4. The anticipated cumulative loss of agricultural lands within the urban service area of the City of Rochester (where sewer and water service is available) to urban land uses is an anticipated effect of the orderly growth of the City. Land use policies direct development to growth centers such as Rochester to reduce the pressure on agricultural lands in the outlying area to be converted to residential uses. The more efficient use of land for residential purposes where increased densities can be realized because of sewer and water availability is expected to help conserve truly prime agricultural areas. 5. Dust and noise, which will be generated because of the construction of this project, will be no more than typical for any residential development. The City of Rochester has a noise ordinance which will protect nearby residents from unreasonable noise from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Methods for controlling dust will need to be implemented by the developer. Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City prior to construction and will need to incorporate erosion control measures. 6. This property is within the City of Rochester 25 year Urban Service Area according to the Olmsted County Land Use Plan. Cumulative effects of development within the Urban Service Area will include the loss of prime farmland and wildlife habitat. The loss of terrestrial habitat and prime farmland caused by this development should actually help the efforts to retain more significant habitats and farmlands in less developed areas of the County by removing residential pressures and concentrating them in planned areas where the density of development creates a more efficient use of land. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Boulder Ridge EAW 2. Letter from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Pollution Control Agency June 14, 2000 Mr. Brent Svenby, Planner City of Rochester 2122 Campus Dr. SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Boulder Ridge Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Mr. Svenby, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Boulder Ridge Development EAW, in the City of Rochester, Olmsted County. Based on the information contained in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the Environmental Review staff believe that significant effects related to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency may occur as a result of the project. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) may be warranted to address the cumulative environmental effects that result from this project and any impacts that may result due to the proximity of this project to the Badger Ridge Development, the Weatherstone Development, the Summit Point Development and the Hidden Oaks Valley/ Bandel Hills Development and the Ridgeview Manor Development. At a minimum, the EAW should be supplemented to address, in more detail, the cumulative effects to the environment from the substantial development currently under construction in this area. It should also be noted that The City of Rochester's Comprehensive Plan does not substitute for an appropriate environmental review and would not substitute for the information that would be obtained either through the preparation of an EIS or a more complete EAW. According to Minn. R. 4410.1700 DECISION ON NEED FOR EIS Subp. 7. Criteria. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the following factors shall be considered: B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects And According to Minn. R 4410.0200 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS Subp. 11. Cumulative impact. "Cumulative impact" means the impact on the environment that results from incremental effects of the project in addition to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects regardless of what person undertakes the other projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Also to be considered: Item 12: Physical impacts on water resources. Item 8 refers to the Section 401 Clean Water Act Certification and yet this item states that there will be no impact to any wetlands. Also, there is no mention of the 404 Certification required by the Army Corps of Engineers that would be required in the event that a 401 Certification would be required. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY) St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Mr. Brent Svenby Page 2 Item 16: Erosion and Sedimentation. All site grading efforts have a significant potential for erosion and sedimentation since much of the native soils will be displaced and the underlying highly erodible parent sub -soils will be exposed. It is important to ensure that the project owner hold the NPDES construction stormwater permit throughout all phases of the development and that persons or companies be specifically designated the task of installing and maintaining all erosion and sediment control best management practices. It is also important to note that these controls should be in -place before grading starts. Item 17: Water Quality, Surface Water Runoff. The EAW notes a 3-acre stormwater pond but fails to show where this pond will be located and is vague as to exactly where a regional stormwater pond may be. It also mentions that there may be one or two regional ponds. Much of this development is along steeper slopes. Is stormwater going to be routed down the natural drainageways before entering pond(s)? It is important that there be a more clear explanation of stormwater management prior to approval of this project. Item 24: Odor Noise and Dust. The EAW appears to be incorrect; dust control is not a requirement of the stormwater permit. Noise and dust issues are regulated under air quality rules. Item 26: Visual Impacts. The EAW mentions that the adverse impacts can be minimized by providing a wildlife corridor to other habitat areas but fails to specifically mention a plan for doing this. No explanation is given if this is Please note that, as the responsible governmental unit for the EAW, you are required to provide specific responses to these comments pursuant to Minn. R. pt. 4410.1700, subp. 4. These responses must be received prior to issuance of necessary MPCA permits or approvals for the project. We look forward to receiving the required responses to our comments, and your decision on the need for an EIS. If you have any questions regarding our comment letter, please call (651) 297- 8236. Sincerely, Denise Leezer Project Manager Operations & Planning Unit South District cc: Dave Morrison, Rochester, CAW Judy Mader, St. Paul, CAW Tom Balcom, DNR, St. Paul Jon Larsen, MN Planning St. Paul saw ��► .ice MR,,r� 1648 Third Avenue S.E., Rochester, MN 55904 507-289-3919 Fax 507-289-7333 July 11, 2000 Mr. Brent Svenby Senior Planner Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: EAW Comments for the Proposed Boulder Ridge Development; MBI #1204/9630 Dear Mr. Svenby: Thank you for forwarding the comments you received regarding the Boulder Ridge EAW. Our response to these comments follows. Response to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency comments: EIS requirements: We do not believe that an EIS is warranted for this City subdivision. The proposed Boulder Ridge Development is independent of any other potential projects within this rapidly growing area of Rochester and therefore does not constitute a "phased" action as defined in MN Rules 4410.0200 sub 60. The City of Rochester Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the facility plan, identify the Boulder Ridge Development within the 25-year urban service area. These plans have anticipated and have accounted for the growth, the infrastructure needs and associated impacts that are now occurring within -this area of Rochester and therefore this individual proposal is not subject to the "cumulative impact criteria" as defined in MN Rules 4410.0200 sub 11 and 4410.1700 sub 5. In the City of Rochester Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Urban Service Area Designation, the RGU has already taken into account the cumulative impact of expanding urban development. Sufficient information concerning cumulative impact is analyzed for the 25 year urban service area in the City Water supply Study, the Wastewater Facilities Study, the Draft Stormwater and Wetland Management plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. William E. Tointon. CET, President James E. Swanson, RLS. Secretary David L. Morrill, PE. Treasurer Jeffrey S. Broberg, CPG, Vice President Bruce Campbell George Poch Lenore E Marken Registered Environmental Manager Certified Environmental Auditor Certified Soil Scientist Environmental Specialist An Equal Opportunity Employer EAW Comments for Boulder Ridge MBt # 1204/9630 Page 2 Item 12: No wetland impacts are proposed as part of the proposed Boulder Ridge Development. Therefore, a 404 Certification and a 401 Certification under the Clean Water Act are not required. We apologize for the confusion caused by including the 401 Certification under Item 8, "Permits and Approvals Required" of the EAW. Item 16: Comment noted. Item 17: As stated in the EAW, the City of Rochester will require compliance with the City Storm Water Management Plan. The developer will be required to pay fees that will be dedicated to the funding of regional stormwater facilities or the developer shall be responsible for constructing on -site treatment facilities. The preliminary plans suggest that stormwater for the western portion of the property will be treated on -site through a private stormwater facility. Stormwater facilities which treat runoff from a contributing basin less than 50 acres does not qualify as a regional, public facility under the City of Rochester Storm Water Management Plan. Therefore, the runoff within the western portion of the property will be routed to a private stormwater pond. Surface water will be routed to the pond via a storm water sewer system constructed within the road right-of- way. The stormwater will be treated in the private pond prior to its release to the on -site wetland or road -side ditch. Stormwater runoff on the eastern, larger portion of the property is proposed to be routed through stormwater sewers located within the road right-of-ways to a regional stormwater facility located downstream of the project site. All stormwater facilities will be constructed in accordance with the City of Rochester Storm Water Management Plan and NPDES requirements. Construction and operation of the stormwater facilities in accordance with these plans and permit requirements should prevent significant environmental impacts to surface water resources. Item 24: The goal of the NPDES Storm Water Permit appears to be prevention of soil loss including soil loss from wind erosion. That is why we referred to the NPDES for dust control in the EAW. We have since received clarification from the MPCA that dust generation is not regulated under the NPDES requirements. However, Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7011.0150, administered by the MPCA, does address the prevention of airborne particulate matter. In accordance with Chapter 7011.0150, "No person shall cause or permit a building or its appurtenances or a road, or a driveway, or an open area to be constructed, used, repaired, or demolished without applying all such reasonable measures as may be required to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne." There are no permit requirements under this chapter, but the intent of the developer is still to control dust and prevent soil loss caused by dry and windy conditions as stated in the EAW. EAW Comments for Boulder Ridge MBI #1204/9630 Page 3 Item 26: The information provided under Item 26 of the EAW is a summary of the more detailed description of wildlife corridors listed under Item I I of the EAW. Under Item 1 I it is stated that "the impacts to wildlife will be minimized by preservation of the wetland and preservation of a portion of the forest and meadow area within the northeast portion of the site". As stated in the EAW, the forest and meadow area that will be preserved on the site connects with a forested tract to the east. The connection of these two natural areas will provide some habitat and a small corridor for wildlife. Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the comments you received regarding the EAW. If you have any questions regarding our reply or you need additional information, please call me at 289-3919. Sincerely, McGHIE & BETTS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. A Lenore Marken Environmental Coordinator C: Mr. Larry Frank, Arcon Development Andy Masterpole, McGhie & Betts, Inc. David Morrill, McGhie & Betts, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to preparers: This form is available at www.mnplan.state.mn.us. EAW Guidelines will be available in Spring 1999 at the web site. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW is prepared by the Responsible Governmental Unit or its agents to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared. The project proposer must supply any reasonably accessible data for— but should not complete — the final worksheet. If a complete answer does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary. The complete question as well as the answer must be included if the EAW is prepared electronically. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project title: Boulder Ridge Development Proposer: Arcon Development Corporation Contact person: Mr. Larry Frank Title: Project Manager Address: 7635 Metro Boulevard City, state, ZIP: Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (612) 835-4981 Fax: (612) 835-0069 E-mail: 3. RGU: Rochester/Olmsted Planning Dept. Contact person: Brent Svenby Title: Planner Address: 2122 Campus Drive City, state, ZIP: Rochester, MN 55904 Phone: (507) 285-8232 Fax: (507) 287-2275 E-mail: 4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one) EIS scoping X Mandatory EAW Citizen petition RGU discretion Proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number: Land Use Conversion 4410.4300 Subpart 36 5. Project location County: Olmsted City/Township: Rochester/Cascade 110.13 Acres in the NW'% of the NW %, Section 10, Township 107N, Range 14W and the S % of the NE''/, Section 9 , Township 107N, Range 14W Attach each of the following to the EAW: • County trap showing the general location of the project; • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); • Site plan showing all significant project and natural features. 6. Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. The development within the City of Rochester is proposed to consist of 208 townhouses and 173 single-family residences on 110.13 acres of cropland, including the construction of road and stormwater facilities, and the installation of municipal utilities and landscaping. Boulder Ridge EAW Page 1 of 13 b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. The Boulder Ridge Development is proposed to consist of 173 single-family residences and 208 townhouse units within the Rochester Urban Service limits. The development will proceed following the annexation of the property into the City of Rochester and will include a conversion inland use from pasture and agricultural cropland to mixture of attached and detached single-family residences. Construction will include the demolition of the existing home and farm buildings, removal of some of the vegetation, grading of the site for roads and buildings, installation of water, sewer and other utilities, construction of stormwater facilities, roads and houses, and installation of landscaping. The project will require the extension of municipal utility lines for sewer and water service. Roadway extensions will be required from 19`h Avenue, 65`s Street and Bandel Road Northwest. A water well used by the former farmstead will need to be abandoned with permits from Ohnsted County and the Minnesota Department of Health. Long-term alterations to the site and surrounding area associated with the proposed residential development include increased noise, light, glare, traffic, water consumption, sewer capacity and treatment, and an increased need for public services such as schools and emergency response. The proposed long-term alterations will decrease acreage of agricultural raw crop production and decrease the available farmland wildlife habitat. Long-term alterations also include the establishment ofpermanentgroundcover, which will minimize the amount of erosion and sedimentation occurring on the site. Construction is proposed to begin in thefall oftheyear 2000 with projected occupancy ofthefnrstphase by the fall of 2001. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The project purpose is to create 381 residential units within the City of Rochester. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlets planned or likely to happen? _Yes X No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? _Yes X No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. 7. Project magnitude data Total project acreage 110.13 Acres Number of residential units: unattached 173 attached 208 maximum units per building Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): total square feet: 0 Building height: two to three stories typical of residential buildings Boulder Ridge EAW Page 2 of 13 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Unit of eovernm ent Type of application Status Cascade Township Annexation (orderly) Pending City of Rochester Annexation (orderly) Pending Zoning Change To be applied for General Development Plan To be applied for Wetland No -Loss Certificate To be applied for Preliminary Plat To be applied for Final Plat To be applied for Grading & Drainage Plan To be applied for Infrastructure%onstruction Plan To be applied for Sewer & Water Connection To be applied for Demolition Permit To be applied for Building Permits To be applied for Occupancy Permits To be applied for Uniform Fire Code Compliance Review To be applied for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Permit To be applied far NESHAPS Demolition Notification To be applied for Section 401 Clean Water Act Certification To be applied for Sanitary Sewer Extension To beappliedfor Minnesota Department of Health Well Abandonment Permit To be applied for Water Extension Permit To be applied for Pre -demolition Asbestos Removal License To be applied for 9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The 110.13 acres of land proposed far the Boulder Ridge Development has been consistently devoted to agricultural practices since the early 1900's. The parcel was originally part of the Bandel farmstead and was later divided into smaller tracts. The property has been in the same ownership from the early 1930's until present time. A small farmstead including a single-family residence, barn and numerous outbuildings, is located within the southwest quadrant of the site. Aerial photos from 1935, 1985 and 1991 show the location of the farmstead, with a small pasture area south of the residence. The remaining portion of the site within Section 9 has been used far crop production. The other portion of the site located in Section 10 has no structures and is primarily agricultural land with wooded and meadow tracts in the north central portion of this area. The site is bordered by agricultural and undeveloped tracts to the east, with residential and public services to the south. Bandel Road adjoins the site to the west with small industries and retail west of Bandel Road. An approved residential development borders the site to the north, but is not yet under construction. Boulder Ridge EAW Page 3 of 13 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands 1.47 1.47 Lawn/landscaping .50+ 49.66+ Wooded/forest 14+ 9+ Impervious surfaces .30+ 40+ Brush/Grassland 15+ 7+ Other (describe) Stormwater facilities 0 3+ Cropland 78.86+_ 0 TOTAL: 110 + acres 110 + acres If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: During development activities on the site a portion of the wooded and meadow areas will be cleared for the construction of homes and residential units. All of the cropland will be utilized in the development, but the wetland, mhd portions of the forest and meadow areas will be preserved. 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. The site is primarily occupied by agricultural cropland with little wildlife habitat except for the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, and the wooded and meadow areas in the northeast portion of the site. Wildlife expected to utilize the site have adapted to farming activities and would include non -game birds, pheasants, geese, skunks, raccoons, rabbits, deer, coyotes, snakes and amphibians. The proposed development will change the available wildlife habitat by alteration of the vegetation communities from cropland, open grassland, and forest to lawns, houses, and roads. More noise, light and glare will be emitted by the proposed development disrupting travel, foraging, breeding, and nesting of those species less tolerant of urban activities. The impacts to wildlife will be minimized by preservation of the wetland and preservation of a portion of the forest and meadow area within the northeast portion of the site. The forest and meadow area on the site connects with a forested tract to the east providing same habitat and a small corridor for wildlife. b. Are any state -listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? X Yes No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20000864. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. During a review of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Biological Survey and Natural Features Database, it was found that Timber Rattlesnakes have been reported within the vicinity of the project site. Timber Rattlesnakes are a threatened species within the State of Minnesota. The construction crews doing work on the site and the residents within the subdivision and townhouses will need to be aware that Timber Rattlesnakes are protected by Minnesota state law (Minnesota Statute 84.0895) and the taking of Timber Rattlesnakes is prohibited. 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? _Yes X No Boulder Ridge EAW Page 4 of 13 If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI: Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. 13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? X Yes _No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if ]mown. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. The existing farmstead includes a water well and windmill pump system which is not registered with the Olmsted County Well Index and not registered with a Unique Number. The well is located in the SW `'1 of the NE `/, of Section 9 and was probably installed in the early 1900's. The depth of the well is unknown, but it is believed to be drawing water from the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer. This well may be maintained for non potable water, however, annexation of this parcel would result in the connection to the City of Rochester municipal water system. If the well is no longer used, it would either need to be abandoned or maintained with a Minnesota Department of Health - Well Maintenance Permit. The project will be connected to the City of Rochester municipal water supply system that is designed and operated to serve the water demands for potable water and fire protection in the city. The Cityof Rochester System is operational by Rochester Public Utilities and operates under MN DNR Appropriations Permit #795076. 14, Water -related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes X No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. 15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? _Yes X No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 90; cubic yards 500.000±, Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. The project will disturb approximately 90 acres of soil for road and building construction, construction of storm water facilities, and installation of utilities. There will be equal amounts of cut and fill on the site so that no material will need to be imported to or exported from the project site. The average depth of cut and fill on the site will be four feet. Some facilities, such as installation of the sewer lines and construction of the stormwater facilities will require excavation deeper than four feet. This project will be phased so that no more than 30 acres will be disturbed at any given time. Best management practices will be utilized on the site to prevent erosion of steep slopes including Brodale-Bellechester complex (898F, 25 - 60% slopes), Timula silt loam (321C & 322D, 6 -12%, 12 -18% slopes), and Eyota sandy loam (484C, 6 -12% slopes). Boulder Ridge EAW Page 5 of 13 The site is sloping, rolling land, which rises to the north to an elevation of approximately 1180 feet in Section 9, and to 7140 feel in Section 10. In Section 10 the steepest slopes are encountered in the forested area that are mapped as Brodale-Bellech ester complex (898F, 25-60% slopes). The soils above this area are napped as Racine silt loam (99B, 1-6 % slopes) with Timula silt loam (322D, 12-18 % slopes) soils below. The drainage way through this area is "zapped as Lindstrom silt loam (301B, 2 — 6% slopes). The Racine and Timula soils are mapped as highly erodible. The Brodale-Bellechester soils are moderately erodible, but are fairly protected from erosion on the project site by the existing forest and meadow vegetation. The Lindstrom soils are not mapped as highly erodible and provide surface drainage and discharge from the dense till above. In Section 9 steep slopes are encountered to the northwest, southwest and southeast, immediately below the topographic high areas. The steep slopes within this portion of the site include Salida gravelly sandy loam (42E, 12-35 % slopes) and Timula silt loam (322C & 322D, 6-12%, 12-18 % slopes). Other soils mapped within this portion of the site include Lindstrom silt loam (301B, 2-6% slopes), Port Byron silt loam (285B, 1-5% slopes), and Racine sill foam (99D2, 12-18% slopes). The Timula, Port Byron and Racine soils are moderately to highly erodible. The Salida and Lindstrom soils have low erodibility. The control of sedimentation and erosion will be subject to MPCA Permits for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Sites. The MPCA standards will require the design and implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan and a post -completion water management plan. All site grading and construction will be subject to City Ordinances and an approved grading and erosion control plan will be required. Erosion and sediment control measures implemented on the site may include sedimentation ponds, silt fences, bale checks and mulch. Tracking of soil from vehicles will be controlled by installation of a vehicle stabilization entrance tolexit from the site. Sweeping and/or watering may also be used as necessary to control dust and dirt generated by site work. Any post construction erosion and sedimentation will be controlled by maintenance of vegetation and landscaping materials. The storm water detention ponds will provide some settling of suspended solids, and will release surface water runoff at controlled rates to minimize erosion downstream from the project site. 17. Water quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. Currently all surface water is directed off topographic high areas in the northern portion of the site to drainage areas and low spots located in the southwest and southeast portions of the property. Runoff directed onto the site originates from the adjoining agricultural land. The quality and quantity of surface water runoff leaving the site varies with the amount ofprecipitation and the seasons of the year. More runoff with greater loads of sediment can be expected during large precipitation events when the soil is bare. Currently, due to the lack ofpermanent vegetation on a large portion of the site, there are relatively large amounts of erosion and sedimentation. Sediment buildup was found adjacent to and within the on -site wetland. The City of Rochester will require compliance with the City Storm Water Management Plan. Under this plan the City either requires the payment offees that are dedicated to funding regional storm water quality improvements, or the construction of on -site storm water facilities to treat and detain surface water runoff. The storm water facilities currently proposed as part of this development include the construction of one to two regional detention ponds. By establishing permanent ground cover, and with the construction and functioning of on -site storm water facilities, the quality and quantity of the surface water leaving the site will be improved over the current conditions. Post development water will be those typical of residential developments with contaminants coming from road runoff and lawn chemicals. Boulder Ridge EAW Page 6 of 13 b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Rmroff from the site will be directed through the on -site stornt water poud(s). Through a series of drainage ways and road -side ditches the runofffrom the project site will eventuallyJlow into the South Fork of the Zumbro River. 13. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. All wastewater generated from the proposed development will be domestic household waste. No industrial, commercial or agricultural waste waters will be generated. The domestic sewage will be treated at the City of Rochester Waste Reclamation Plant, which operates under a National Pollution Discharge Efintination/State Disposal Permit (NPDESISDS) issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The total anticipated volume of sewage from the site is 100,013 gallons per day with 226.7 pounds per day BOD, based on Minnesota Pollution Control Agency formulas and estimates. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on -site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. The project will only generate sewage that will be treated by the Rochester Water Reclamation Plant which discharges to the South Branch of the Zumbro River in northwest Rochester. c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. Wastewater from the project site will be treated at the Rochester Water Reclamation Plant. According to the population growth projection made in the Rochester Wastewater Master Plan, published in 1996, the Rochester Water Reclamation Plant has adequate capacity to receive the project wastewater without the need for unscheduled improvements of the treatment plant. Improvements to the sewer line for the local service connections may be necessary and will be evaluated by the developer and the City as the plans are completed. d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. Not applicable. 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 0 feet —minimum (within the wetland); 10 feet — average; to bedrock: 15 feet -minimum; 40 eet -average Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone fomiations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. The site area is mapped with surftcial soils consisting of glacial till and loess with carbonate bedrock of the Prairie du Chien Jordan formations encountered at depths ranging between 25 to 110 below the Boulder Ridge EAW Page 7 of 13 glacial deposits. The Olmsted County Geologic Atlas, Sensitivity Of The Ground Water System To Pollution, Plate 6, identifies the portion of the site in Section 9, as having a low to moderate sensitivity rating in which contaminants will probably not reach the water table for more than a decade. The portion of the site in Section 10 is rated as having a moderate to high sensitivity rating in which contaminants will probably not reach the water table in several years to a decade. The sinkhole probability at the site ranges from low to moderate probability with the nearest sinkholes located approximately 1.0 miles northeast of the site. Because of the glacial cover above the bedrock the probability of sinkhole formation is not a concern for the proposed development, however storage of fuels utilized for construction machinery should be confined off -site, or stored in a secondary containment structures if storage is required on the site. The shallow depth to groundwater is a concern for parts of the site that may require advanced engineering for subsurface drainage. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. The Olmsted County Soil Survey (figure 4) maps the site within the Timula Port Byron Association with nearly level to very steep, silty soils on uplands with primary surface deposits composed of loess. The site is mapped as having nitre major soil types as listed in the table. Steep slopes of the Brodale - Bellechester Complex (25-60% slopes) and Timula soils (6-12%, 12-18% slopes) are mapped in the northeast portion of the site. The Timula silt loam also forms a steep slope area in the southwest portion of the site. Both areas are overlain by dense till and loess which facilitate surface drainage downslope onto the nearly level Lindstrom Silt Loam which farms a drainage outlet in the eastern portion of the site, and a wetland area in the southwest portion of the site. There is little or no risk of the project creating groundwater contamination from domestic sewage since all facilities will be connected to the City sewer system. There is also little or no risk of the groundwater becoming contaminated by hazardous materials because no industrial or commercial activities are proposed on the site. However, because of the lack of dense till overlying the majority of the site, precautions should be taken for storage offuels jar machinery by utilizing secondary containment structures in these areas if on -site storage of fuel is necessary. The following table lists the soil types identified on the site from the Olmsted County Soil Survey. Soils that are highly erodable (HEL), hydric or foodplain are indicated. Crop Equivalency Rating (CER) are also listed jar each soil. As indicated most of the soils types are designated as Highly Erodable Soils. No soils on the site are considered hydric soils and only the Chaseburg soils is considered foodplain. Soil H Name HEL H dric Flood lain CER 19; Chaseburg Silt Loam X 45 41E; Salida Gravelly Sandy Loam 12-35% sloe X 15 99B; Racine Silt Loam (1-6% sloe) PHEL HEL 85 99D2; Racine Loam 12-18% sloe PHEL HEL 85 185C; Port Byron Silt Loam 5-9% sloe X 85 301B; Lindstrom Silt Loam 1-6%Sloe 95 322C; Timula Silt Loam 6-12% Sloe X 70 3221); Timula Sill Loam 12-18%Sloe X 70 340C, Whalan Loam 6-12% sloe 55 484C; E ota Sandy Loam 6-12% sloe X 65 484E; Evora Loamy Sand 12-15% sloe X 65 898F; Brodale-Bellchester Complex 25-60% sloe 10 Boulder Ridge EAW Page 8 of 13 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. Post development waste generated at the site will be household municipal waste and will be disposed at the Olmsted County Waste to Energy Facility. Based upon 3.1 persons per household, and 2.7 pounds of solid waste per person, per day, a total of 381 residential units will generate 3,189 pounds per day of solid waste. Waste haulers operating in the City of Rochester have curbside recycling programs for residents. Olmsted County operates a household hazardous waste program for residents. Demolition debris and construction waste maybe recycled or disposed of private facilities that are permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. There ntay be some asbestos or other hazardous materials present within the old residence and/or farm buildings on the site. The Olmsted County Assessor's records suggest that the residential structure may contain asbestos. An asbestos and hazardous waste material survey should be completed for the property. Future use of toxic or hazardous materials is expected to be in de-minimus quantities and is dependent on individual homeowners in the proposed subdivisions. Surface water from urban lawns and streets can create nutrient loading, increased quantities of nitrogen and phosphorous, in the surface water runofffrom the site. Surface water runoff control and water quality management should be addressed in grading plans and stormwater management. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. .No above ground or underground storage tanks are proposed 21. Traffic. Parking spaces added: 762 (based on an average of spaces per residential unit) Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): 0 Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 3.102 (based on 10 trips per day per single-family residence and 6.5 trips per day per townhouse unit). Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence: AM (6:45 — 7:45) 246 trips. PM (4.45-5:45) 313 trips. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. Two road projects will be implemented by the City of Rochester within the next few years, which will provide a higher level of service to the project site. Bandel Road North, currently a two -Lane frontage road along the west side of the project site, will be upgraded by wideninf of the road and construction of a right hand turn lane for entrance to the site. A new arterial road, 65` Street NW, will be constructed by the City of Rochester and will also provide access to portions of the project site. Boulder Ridge EAW Page 9 of 13 22. Vehicle -related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EA Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. Air quality impacts from the project generated traffic is anticipated to remain within the Minnesota Pollution Control (MPCA) Guidelines. The one hour MPCA Standard for CO is 30 parts per million. It is assumed that CO levels will not exceed the MPCA standard due to increased emission controls and monitoring programs presently operating in the state. 23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EA Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone -depleting chemicals (chloro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. Stationary sources of air emissions will occur at the project site during demolition of existing structures and construction activities. The proposed development will supply natural gas to approximately 173 single-family detached homes and approximately 208 attached residential units that will be heated with natural gas, forced air furnaces with 60,000 BTU rated at 80% efficiency. Air emissions from residential heating units will generate carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen gases. 24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? X Yes _No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Diesel odors will be emitted by demolition and construction equipment during the development phase of the project. No other odors are anticipated during or post construction other than vehicle exhaust during heavy commute times. Noise will be emitted by earth moving equipment and carpentry tools during daylight hours. These noise impacts will be temporary during the construction phase of the development. Post development noise will be those noises typically associated with occupancy of residential units and operation of motorized vehicles. Dust generation can be expected during grading activities on the site. Dust control is a requirement of the Storm Water Permit for Construction Site Activities and will include watering and chloride applications to graded areas. Temporary cover including plastic and vegetation will be utilized on disturbed ground. Longterm measures to minimize dust emissions include stabilizing disturbed soils with vegetation. Asbestos containing material may exist in some of the farm buildings or homestead on the site. An asbestos survey and pre -demolition removal in accordance with state and federal laws is the responsibility of the building owner and has not been provided for this phase of the investigation. Boulder Ridge EAW Page 10 of 13 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? _Yes X No Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? _X Yes _ No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _X—Yes _No Scenic views and vistas? _Yes X No Other unique resources? _Yes X No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project -related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Prime soils exist on the site, however, this area is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban -Expansion) District on the Olmsted County Zoning Map and is within the City of Rochester Urban Service Area where urban development is anticipated. The loss of agricultural land is replaced with the benefits of compact development on urban services. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, in general, "calls for concentrating development, extending public services to areas surrounding the current service area, and thereby helping to protect prime agricultural land and reduce public services cost'. The City of Rochester and the Rochester School District owns the 40-acre parcel west of this proposed development. The site has not been developed yet, but it will be developed in the future as a school and also a city park 26, Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? X Yes _ No If yes, explain. Car lights, street lights, and light from residences may deter wildlife use of the site. These impacts can be minimized by providing a wildlife corridor, of suitable width and vegetative cover, to other habitat areas. 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? X Yes _No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. The proposed Boulder Ridge Development is compatible with the City of Rochester Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The property will be annexed into the City of Rochester and a portion of the property, where the townhouses will be located will need to be rezoned to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed development is also compatible with the City of Rochester Storm water Management Manual. Storm water detention facilities will be constructed on site to detain surface water runoffgenerated by the proposed development. The Boulder Ridge Development is also subject to state and federal regulations: the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems requirements, and Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act. 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? X Yes _No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) Boulder Ridge EAW Page 11 of 13 Utilites: The project will require the extension of sewer services from Battdel Road North for the west portion of the project site, and from just northwest of the intersection of 18`' and 55`" to provide service for the east portion of the project site. Water service lines will need to be extended from an existing water tower west of the site, under Highway 52, then along Battdel Road North, south to the project area. The proposed development will also require the extension of utility lines for natural gas and electric service. Roads: Two road projects will be implemented by the City of Rochester, which will provide a higher level of service to the project site. Bandel Road North, currently a two lane frontage road along the west side of the project site, will be upgraded by widening of the road and construction of a right hand turn lane for entrance to the site. A new arterial road, 65'" Street NW, will be constructed by the City of Rochester and will provide access to portions of the project site. Public Services: New public services for waste collection, emergency response, human services, and education will be required for the 381 residential units. 29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). Cumulative impacts of urban development may include loss of wildlife habitat, loss of prime land and previous. All phases of the proposed Boulder Ridge development are included in this EAW. The proposed Boulder Ridge development is within the City of Rochester 25 year Urban Service Area as defined in the Olmsted County Land Use Plan. The 15 year Urban Service Area defines the area of the county within which growth is anticipated and promoted. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use and Olmsted County Land Use Plan acknowledge potential impacts from urban development but also recognizes that concentrating development and extending public services for development can aid in protecting prime agricultural land and open space. The impacts from the proposed Boulder Ridge development have been anticipated by the City of Rochester and will be similar to other residential developments occurring in the City. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. 31. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Weiland Impacts — Wetland impacts will be further addressed during the wetland review process completed in accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Filing for a Wetland No -Loss Certificate is anticipated at this time since the development plans propose avoidance of the one on -site wetland Wildlife Impacts — Wildlife impacts will be minimized by protecting some of the more natural features on the site including the wetland within the southwest portion of the property and the forested, steep slope area within the northeast portion of the property. Wildlife impacts are anticipated within the City of Rochester Urban Service Area where growth and expansion of the city is focused. By promoting growth within the Urban Service Area, rural areas outside the Urban Service Area will not receive growth Boulder Ridge EAW Page 12 of 13 pressure and farmland and wildlife areas will be retained Water Quality and Quantity Impacts — Water quality and quantity impacts will be further addressed by the City of Rochester Public Works Department and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. All storm water runoff generated by the proposed development will be detained and treated on site in accordance with the applicable regulations or participation in the City's Storm Water Management program. Traffic Impacts — Traffic impacts and related road improvements will be addressed through the review completed by the City of Rochester Public Works Department. Road improvements are currently proposed which will provide a higher level of service to the proposed development and surrounding areas. Increase in Municipal Service Use — The project site is within the Urban Growth limits for the City of Rochester where services such as water supply, wastewater treatment, streets and schools have been planned to accommodate a rapidly growing population. RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EA" ' i W are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature �7--/ —5-1t Date Title P140PJ4;tL Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or www.mnplan.state.mn.us Boulder Ridge EAW Page 13 of 13 T �nrCB v "_� r°a3y� �. - % y• �... r IJ a Gravel Pita r r� r __ '.��I. �f :ter .\\ '%// +_'/�• ,`�` -�`\ / �� :� P .- s ��._ _.��__ ' Cl Ms- - _ t '�• "�j'*.�i1\' d.� a Radio,.. o .7^ i 1. it 1. I JLX � v 4 �! OCHESTEP,4\ '�91' '�'� `• j �=�.- =%, ��."� ;fit-,c, ' � U.S. Gca(orji ca.� 5c,c,+'-v� 1 `"'""'^^niii.t\._ -/��( olo �.'`\,'� i`i. �js �•Cj 1ti'r '�. C)- Qw tl vuviJi tU UUU1v i r, MINNtSU I A - SHEET NUMBER 18 1832C h L IY T R. 14 1 301B (Aker NJ, CTC-Lkk.(� L( REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA Consent Agenda M DESCRIPTION: Tire Deflation Grant Police ITEM NO. r� u-1 ! PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson The Rochester Police Department requests permission to seek grant funding for the purchase of three (3) Stop Stick brand tire deflation devices. Tire deflation devices are maintained in marked squad cars and deployed in an attempt to stop vehicles in a police pursuit situation. These devices, when deployed in the path of the pursued vehicle and if struck by that vehicle, result in a controlled release of air pressure from tires. This action can terminate, or significantly reduce, the speeds of police pursuits, thereby helping to eliminate the risk to public safety and liability. In December of 1999 the Rochester Police Department requested permission from the Council to apply for Department of Public Safety grant funds for the purchase of 28 tire deflator devices. This request was approved and the Rochester Police Department was awarded grant funds for that purpose. Twenty-seven (27) Stop Stick brand tire deflator devices were purchased on 4-18-00 under this grant program and placed in marked squads. The Rochester Police Department has been informed that the State of Minnesota, through the Department of Public Safety, has additional grant funds available to cover 50% of the cost of purchasing tire deflation devices. The department's has received authorization to increase its fleet by (3) three marked squads over the next year. This increase is due to the addition of two K-9 positions within the department and an increase of our authorized strength. This will bring our fleet to 30 marked patrol cars. The Police Department is requesting to seek grant funding for $660.90 from the Department of Public Safety. The City would be required to match this with $660.90. If this grant were not awarded the Police Department would seek funding of these devices in its annual 2001-budget process. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Police Department requests permission to apply for tire deflation funding through the Department of Public Safety. iNCIL ACTION: MoBon by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA :M DESCRIPTION: Land Acquisition - 16th Avenue ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. Public Works D -( 7/17/00 PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur , 16' Avenue NW is a project that has been planned for several years. The Council has previously approved the project in the CIP and also granted approval for land acquisition on this project, which included the use of condemnation. Staff has been working with the owners affected by the project and has held informational meetings to keep the parties informed. To date staff has acquired only a portion of the needed right of way. It now appears that the use of condemnation is needed to obtain the remaining property rights for the project. Staff will continue to negotiate towards a settlement during the condemnation process. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to initiate the 90 day "Quick Take" for land acquisition associated with the 16'° Avenue NW Road Construction Project. This resolution should also authorize staff negotiate a settlement within 10 percent of the value for the property acquired. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (!f ( DATE: 7117/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works '- I ?M DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Valley Side Subdivision PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur 01 The Owners of the Valley Side Subdivision area 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. • Stormwater pond construction • Private sanitary sewer lift station managementloperation • Extension of public sewer and watermain. • Right of way dedication • Controlled access dediction • Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Park Dedication, 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. TH 14 40th Avenue SE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Valley Side Development JNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ...X DESCRIPTION: Commercial Area REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works — Royal Plaza Subdivision — Kings Run MEETING I�3 / DATE: 7/17/00 ITEM NO. D-a PREPARED BY: ,) C M. Nigbur w The Owners of the Kings Run Commercial area, known as the Royal Plaza 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. • Coordination of public and private construction • Controlled access along 18" Avenue and 55" Street NW • Traffic - Limitations on peak hour trips generated by the uses built on the individual lots. 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. III Sim COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Kings Run Commercial area, known as the Royal Plaza Subdivision. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ..;M DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING & S DATE: 7/17/00 ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. Public Works D- a Agreement — Deerhaven Subdivision PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur The Owners of the Deerhaven Subdivision area 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. • Extension of public sewer and watermain. • Turn Lane Construction on Circle Drive • Payment of other development related charges including SAC, WAC, Park Dedication, 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. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6? 11 DATE: 7117/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA !M DESCRIPTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works SE ITEM NO. D-Aa PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur Robert and Carol Nasif have asked the City of Rochester for a Revocable Permit to place a fence within the right of way 13th Street SE The location of the fence is needed to enclose the Owners backyard, circumvent a cement retaining wall and to extend around the patio. The patio is actually a portion of the basement of the home and cannot be moved. Staff has discussed to potential future needs of roadway reconstruction and possible sidewalk into the area. The Owners understand the possibility of requiring removal of the fence at some future date at their cost. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. In addition to the standard conditions the permit should also state the following: • The Owner agrees to restore any areas in the public right of way disturbed as part of their work to the satisfaction of the City. • The Owner agrees to pay the City of Rochester $61.00 for document preparation and recording. 12th Street SE 3rd Avenue SE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: L�L�L_LJ L�LL� Direct the City Attorney to prepare a revocable permit to allow the placement of a fence within the 1316 Street SE Right of way line. 1NCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTAGENDA ..?M DESCRIPTION: (1 7117/00 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D-07 3 for Charter Communications PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur Charter Communications has asked the City of Rochester for a Revocable Permit to place an underground utility line within the Essex Park Property abutting 55' Street NW. The area requested is a typical location for the placement of private utilities abutting streets. US West currently has facilities in this same general location requested. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. In addition to the standard conditions the permit should also state the following: • The Owner agrees to restore areas on the property that may be disturbed, as part of the utility installation, to the satisfaction of the City. • The Owner agrees to pay the City of Rochester $61.00 for document preparation and recording. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6' / DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA :M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Wat Baptist Church (J9696) ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D-;? if & Hydrant to Serve Emmanuel PREPARED BY: M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: • Emmanuel Baptist Church — Emmanuel Baptist Church (Owner) & T. G. Swanson Excavating (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9696 consisting of "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Emmanuel Baptist Church". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9696 "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Emmanuel Baptist Church" JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 13 , DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA 'M DESCRIPTION: WRI ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works Drive SW from Baihley Heights area to Fox Croft area" (J-9651). ITEM NO. b -a5 PREPARED BY: D. Nelson This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received until 11:00 AM at the office of the City Clerk on August 30, 2000 and considered by the Council on September 6, 2000 for the following project: Project No. M023 (J-9651) "Construct Fox Valley Drive SW from Baihley Heights area to Fox Croft area" This project is included in the 2000 C.I.P. (item #10, page 30) with proposed funding from Special Assessments and Municipal State Aid funds. This project will involve the placement of concrete curb/gutter, bituminous roadway construction, storm sewer improvements, utilities and associated restoration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on August 30, 2000 at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning August 4, 2000. Attch: Notice of bid JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: /745- 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: O. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works A 6 M DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FORBIDS: "Construct Wellner Drive NE from 31 st IPREPAREDBY St NE to Rocky Creek Dr" (J-9546),Nelson This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received until 11:00 AM at the office of the City Clerk on August 16, 2000 and considered by the Council on August 21, 2000 for the following project: Project No. 9820-99 (J-9546) "Construct Wellner Drive N.E. from 31" St NE to Rocky Creek Drive NE" This project is included in the 2000 C.I.P. (item #11, page 30) with proposed funding from Special Assessments. This project will involve the placement of concrete curb/gutter, bituminous roadway construction, storm sewer improvements and associated restoration. The project also includes the construction of modifications to the TH 63 intersections with 31"Street NE and 27'h Street NE that will limit access from the city streets to TH 63, as required by MnDOT as a condition of approving the traffic signal installation at TH 63 and Rocky Creek Drive NE. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on August 16, 2000 at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning July 21, 2000. Attch: Notice of bid 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA :M DESCRIPTION: J9193 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works Agreements: 23rd Avenue MEETING 19 i DATE: 7l17/00 ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: 7.y9 J. Loehr Ten property owners on 23r° Avenue and 4" Street SW in Hillcrest and Russel l'siSubdivisions have requested permission from the City to connect their property to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system. The properties are subject to Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges, a Sewer Availability Charge and a Water Availability Charge for the benefit received from the public sewer and water systems. The amount of connection charges and availability charges for each property is shown on the attached spreadsheet. Utility Connection Agreements have been prepared between the City and the property owners for the connection charges and availability charges. The property owners have signed the Agreement for their respective property. Payment of the connection charges and availability charges are not required until July 1, 2000. If payment is not made for a property by that date the connection charges and availability charges will be levied as "unpaid charges" and assessed against that property over a period not to exceed ten years. Interest will be charged at 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance from July 1, 2000, to the date the "unpaid charges" and accrued interest are paid in full. Connection of a property to the public sewer and water systems is not required until December 1, 2001. If connection is not made by that date the City will levy a supplemental assessment against that property in the amount shown on the attached spreadsheet. The 23`tl Avenue and 41" Street SW property owners are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998. The twelve property owners are eligible to receive Allowances for public and private improvements. The Allowances will be credited to the amount that each property owner owes the City consistent with the WQPP Policies. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Utility Connection Agreements. 2. Order the City Clerk to record the Utility Connection Agreement with the Olmsted County Recorder. 3. Authorize the levying of "unpaid charges" against a property if payment of the connection charges and availability fees relative to that property are not made by July 1, 2000. 4. Authorize the levying of a supplemental assessment against a property if that property is not connected to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system by December 1, 2001. Attachments: Location Map Spreadsheet 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: § / b ! § k [ / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING g I -e AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA DATE: 7/17/00 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works I (7-0-k8 :M DESCRIPTION: Utility Connection Agreements: 23rd Avenue and 5th Street SW PREPARED BY: J9353 J. Loehr Fifteen property owners on 23n0 Avenue and 5" Street SW in Hillcrest, Terryville, Gates and Russell's Subdivisions have requested permission from the City to connect their property to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system. The properties are subject to Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges, a Sewer Availability Charge and a Water Availability Charge for the benefit received from the public sewer and water systems. The amount of connection charges and availability charges for each property is shown on the attached spreadsheet. Utility Connection Agreements have been prepared between the City and the property owners for the connection charges and availability charges. The property owners have signed the Agreement for their respective property. Payment of the connection charges and availability charges are not required until July 1, 2000. If payment is not made for a property by that date the connection charges and availability charges will be levied as "unpaid charges" and assessed against that property over a period not to exceed ten years. Interest will be charged at 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance from July 1, 2000, to the date the "unpaid charges" and accrued interest are paid in full. Connection of a property to the public sewer and water systems is not required until December 1, 2001. If connection is not made by that date the City will levy a supplemental assessment against that property in the amount shown on the attached spreadsheet. The 23`° Avenue and 51" Street SW property owners are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998. The fifteen property owners are eligible to receive Allowances for pubic and private improvements. The Allowances will be credited to the amount that each property owner owes the City consistent with the WQPP Policies. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Utility Connection Agreements. 2. Order the City Clerk to record the Utility Connection Agreement with the Olmsted County Recorder. 3. Authorize the levying of "unpaid charges" against a property if payment of the connection charges and availability fees relative to that property are not made by July 1, 2000. 4. Authorize the levying of a supplemental assessment against a property if that property is not connected to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system by December 1, 2001. Attachments: Location Map Spreadsheet JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: ___ second RW J9353 PROJECT 4STSW TS tPA � 6 VACANT " PA PA PA PA Ei 5 STSW P PA a . 5'4 , ti A,s s! y��s�MYP gs i' PA P PA PA PA PA = PREVIOUS AGREEMENT S3] = CURRENT AGREEMENT PA I VACANT .�m■mffo VACANT I VACANT D 10 I i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 9 DATE: 7i17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: 7ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works D -O :M DESCRIPTION: Utility Connection Agreements: Riverview Subdivision, J9352 PREPARED BY: udA-IJ. Loehr Seven property owners in Riverview Subdivision have requested permission froA tie City to connect their property to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system. The properties are subject to Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges, a Sewer Availability Charge and a Water Availability Charge for the benefit received from the public sewer and water systems. The amount of connection charges and availability charges for each property is shown on the attached spreadsheet. Utility Connection Agreements have been prepared between the City and the property owners for the connection charges and availability charges. The property owners have signed the Agreement for their respective property. Payment of the connection charges and availability charges are not required until July 1, 2000. If payment is not made for a property by that date the connection charges and availability charges will be levied as "unpaid charges" and assessed against that property over a period not to exceed ten years. Interest will be charged at 7.5% annually on the unpaid balance from July 1, 2000, to the date the "unpaid charges" and accrued interest are paid in full. Connection of a property to the public sewer and water systems is not required until December 1, 2001. If connection is not made by that date the City will levy a supplemental assessment against that property in the amount shown on the attached spreadsheet. The Riverview Subdivision property owners are eligible to participate in the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998. The seven property owners are eligible to receive Allowances for public and private improvements. The Allowances will credited to the amount that each property owner owes the City consistent with the WQPP Policies. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Utility Connection Agreements. 2. Order the City Clerk to record the Utility Connection Agreement with the Olmsted County Recorder. 3. Authorize the levying of "unpaid charges" against a property if payment of the connection charges and availability fees relative to that property are not made by July 1, 2000. 4. Authorize the levying of a supplemental assessment against a property if that property is not connected to the public sanitary sewer and watermain system by December 1, 2001. Attachments: Location Map Spreadsheet 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: J9352 Proiect Limits MST FIVER CT NE z, CNEVALI NE �A I.. E. m l REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/1 100 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works /� D •3V .M DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Bids: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve PREPARED BY: Five Areas in Marion Township, J9601 J. Loehr Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., July 11, 2000 for the following local improvement project: Project No. M004. J9601 "Sanitary Sewer to Serve Nelson's & Christopher Courts Subdivisions and the South Side of Marion Road SE; and Sewer and Water to Serve 20'h Street SE from Marion Road SE to 200 Feet East of 37'h Avenue SE & Samelians Subdivision". The following bids were received: Bid Alternate "A" Bid Alternate "B" 1. S.J. Louis $1,396,381.60 ("Low" Bid) $1,643.453.00 2. Elcor Construction $1,476,732.95 No Bid 3. Barbarossa Construction $1,688,850.26 No Bid 4. Arcon Construction $1,718,183.30 No Bid Engineers Estimate $1.442,649.00 $1,680,397.00 Bid Alternate "A" requires construction of sanitary sewer and watermain by conventional open -cut methods. Bid Alternate "B" requires construction of sanitary sewer by conventional open -cut methods and construction of watermain by trenchless technology (directional drilling) methods. The Department of Public Works recommends that S.J. Louis be awarded the contract based on the "low bid' for Bid Alternate "A". The project is proposed to be funded from Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Connection Charges and Sales Tax Revenue, consistent with the City of Rochester Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1998, and Sewer Availability Charges, Water availability Charges and Rochester Public Utility share for oversize watermain costs. This project involves the extension of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve 140 developed properties within the project Area. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted awarding the contract to S.J. Louis for Bid Alternate "A". Att: Feasibility Report Location Map 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING ❑EPT: ITEM NO, CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS D-5j .M DESCRIPTION: Award of Contract: PREPARED BY: Install Traffic Signal at 55th Street and CSAH 22 (J6383) R&lm Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., July 14, 2000 for the following local improvement project: SAP 55-622-35 City Project No. 9755 (J6383) Install Traffic Signal at 55`b Street and CSAH 22 The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Road Constructors $ 319,323.09 2. Rochester Sand & Gravel $ 332,656.57 3. Elcor Construction $ 376,126.30 Engineers Estimate $ 274,687.60 The Signal project, engineering and construction will be funded with Municipal State Aid funds and County State Aid Funds and Private Funds The project is included in the 1998-2003 Capital Improvement Program budget (item 5, page 34). The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopted a resolution awarding the contract for J6383, Install Traffic Signal at 55th Street and CSAH 22 to Road Constructors. 2. Adopted a resolution entering into agreement for Engineering Services and Construction with Olmsted County. 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 0 SAP 55-622-35 City Project No. 9755 (J6383) Install Traffic Signal at 551h Street and CSAH 22 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 113 07/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS D - 3a EM DESCRIPTION: Award of Contract: Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 & PREPARED BY: 200 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW (J9511 & R. Kelm J9512) Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., July 12, 2000 for the following local improvement project: Project Name & Number: Project No 63001/2-3-98 (J9511) Reconstruct North South Alley in 300 Block between Broadway and 1st Avenue SW & Project No 6300 1/2-3-99 (J9512) Reconstruct North South Alley in 200 Block between Broadway and 1" Avenue SW The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Doyle Conner $ 95,296.45 2. Innovative Contractors, Inc. $ 119,994.50 Engineers Estimate $ 134,988.80 Project Background: The project hearing and assessment hearing were held at the May 15, 2000 City Council meeting. The City Council authorized the projects to proceed. The two projects have been combined and will be awarded as one construction project, due to location and type of construction. The concrete alley project, engineering and construction will be funded with Special Assessments and the 2000 Capital Improvement Program budget. Proiect Action: The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopted a resolution awarding the contract, "Reconstruct North -South Alley in 300 & 200 Block between Broadway and 1 st Avenue SW" (J9511 & J9512) to Doyle Conner. cuUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 9W RECONSTRUCT NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN 200 BLOCK BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 1ST AVENUE SW Project No. 63001/2-3/99 Project Location J9512 m �1 ` 3T RECONSTRUCT NORTH -SOUTH ALLEY IN 300 BLOCK BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 1ST AVENUE SW Project No. 6300 1/2-3-98 J9511 AGENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works —M DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FORBIDS: "Reconstruction of a portion of 48" Street SW and 11" Ave SW' (J-9545 / J-2270) This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Project Name & Number: SAP 159-154-02 City Project No. 6311-3-00 (J2270) Reconstruct llth Ave SW from Lone Pines Dr SW to 60th St SW MEETING q DATE: 7/17/00 ITEM NO. D-33 PREPARED BY: A R. Kelm 'l� S.A.P.159-155-01 City Project No. 6248-3-99, (J9545) Reconstruct 48th Street SW from llth Avenue SW to West Line of Scenic Oaks Subdivision Project Background: The two projects have been combined and will be awarded as one construction project, due to location type of construction and use of earthwork materials. Project Funding: The Street Reconstruction project, engineering and funds and Water Utility Funds. construction will be funded with Municipal State Aid The project is included in the 2000-2005 Capital Improvement Program budget (item 7, page 30). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on Augus{v30,!'260d at 11:00 AM. Note to City Clerk; Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning Jufy 24, 2000. ---NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: IM SAP 159-154-02 City Project No. 6311-3-00 (J2270) Reconstruct 11th Ave SW from Lone Pines Dr SW to 60th St SW S.A.P.159-155-01 City Project No. 6248-3-99, (J9545) Reconstruct 48th Street SW from 11th Avenue SW to West Line of Scenic Oaks Subdivision o al = J 1 1ation �O. w now REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: R-07 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS D -3 4 �M DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FORBIDS: PREPARED BY: 'Reconstruction of 9th Avenue SW from 2nd Street SW to 4th Street R. Kelm SW- (J9524) This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Proiect Number 6309-3-99, (J9524) Project Name "Reconstruction of 9th Avenue SW from 2nd Street SW to 4th Street SW" Proiect Background: The project feasibility report and assessments were approved during the May 1, 2000, City Council meeting. This project will involve the placement of concrete curb/gutter, bituminous street construction, storm sewer, sanitary, watermain and associated sidewalk repairs. Proiect Funding The project, engineering and construction will be funded with Special Assessments, Water Utility Funds and General Street Resurfacing funds (J-8308 & J-2201). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on duausr at 11:00 AM. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l q DATE: 07/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS D -35 EM DESCRIPTION: Award of Contract: "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of PREPARED BY: R. Kelm . Roadway" (J9609) Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., July 12, 2000 for the following local improvement project: Project Number: 6215-4-00, (J9609) Project Name: "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway". The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Rochester Sand & Gravel $ 104,842.90 2. Elcor Construction $ 105,654.60 3. Road Constructors $ 123,302.70 Engineers Estimate $ 85,710.20 Proiect Background: The project hearing and assessment hearing was held at the June 5, 2000 City Council meeting. The Council authorized the project to proceed. The project, engineering and construction will be funded with Special Assessments and General Street Reconstruction Funds. This project will involve the placement of concrete curb/gutter, bituminous overlay, storm sewer, and associated sidewalk repairs Project Action: The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopted a resolution awarding the contract, "Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway" (J9609) to Rochester Sand & Gravel. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: i Concrete Curb & Gutter in 15th Street NW from Valleyhigh Drive NW to West End of Roadway Project No. 6215-4-00 J9609 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING IO' DATE: 7/17100 AGENDA SECTION: CONCENTAGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: M DESCRIPTION: Bids for the Year 2000 Restoration Public Works ITEM NO. D-36 PREPARED BY: Rossman Bids were received at 11:00 am Wed. July 13,2000 for City Project 8215-31-2000 (J-2594) "2000 Restoration of The Second Street Ramp " The bids received were: Contractor Knutson Construction Services, Inc Brent Anderson Associates, Inc Bid $ 375,950 $ 328,830 The City of Rochester's Structural Restoration Consultant on this project is BKBM Professional Engineers of Minneapolis, and their construction estimate is $ 265,900. The low bid is around 23% above the engineer's estimate. Staff has reviewed the bids with the Engineer and we find that the increase is due to three items. First, local contractors are busy and only 2 bids were submitted whereas 5 bidders were anticipated. The Painting portion of the work was bid at $70,000 and this was estimated at $40,000. The electrical portion was bid at $87,000 while this was estimated at $51,500. The engineer will be reviewing all the items in more detail and his report will be available at the council meeting. Recommended Maintenance: This includes repair to the tops and bottoms of the parking decks, seal random cracks, replace failed expansion joints, recoat the waterproofing membrane in the drive isles, reseal the drive surface, on the exit helix, painting, seal all doors and windows, and repair masonry cracks. Recommended Modifications: Also included is painting of the underside of all decks, installing windows in the southwest stairtower, replacing the emergency exit lights, replacing the lighting in the southwest tower, installing fire alarm detection equipment in the north tower, and installing guest assistance stations. This project is listed on page 342 of the City Budget. It has a project budget of $290,000. The project schedule is to have the work to be completed by October 31, 2000. The schedule has been coordinated by Republic Parking to avoid the major events at the Mayo Civic Center, and the Holiday Inn Hotel. The contract allows a 1-week closure of the ramp to facilitate the work. Total project costs are now estimated as follows: Restoration Contract with Brent Anderson Associates $ 328,830 Engineer Fees $ 18,000 Direct Expenses & Material Testing $ 5,000 Total $ 351,830 Staff recommends that the City Council proceed with the base bid of Brent Anderson Associates. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Accept the base bid of Brent Anderson Associates of 7610 State Highway 65 N.E. Fridley, Minnesota 55432-3574, and authorize City Officials to sign the contract. Authorize additional money from the Parking Enterprise Fund to be transferred to J-2594 to fund this work. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 163 i DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) ?M DESCRIPTION: Request to ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEMG NO. Public Works G — ,mit Parking Zone 2 onto 15th PREPARED BY: Avenue SW; 200, 3.00 and 400 blocks i�k D. Rossman This is a public hearing to consider a petition to add Residential Permit Parking on the east side of 151h Avenue SW from 2"d Street to 5`h 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 14" 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 151h 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. In addition, Council Member Marcouix contacted the residents during the past week and found that the number in favor has dropped to less than 45%. Additional information: 15`h 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 recommendation at this time is to not proceed with this request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Deny 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 5th Street, 8:00am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday. ,�.vUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second to: r � nn nn�n �Off ON -MM0.1 Ions; I - Zi'JNE #2 St Marys Wesf 0 2000 Feet 503 150' Ave. SW Rochester, MN 55902 24 June 2000 Marcia Marcoux City Council 201 4'h 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 15s` 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 15"' 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 overlappintwith 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 ( O(P 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 15a' 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 15s' 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, Barbara Toman �GIan Jarman iUti 1L✓L.�_` (o03 June 13,2000 Ms Marcia Marcoux Rochester City Council 201 4 h 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 relatively 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 15`h 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 167 DATE 7-17-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING e ..� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type 111, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-25 by PREPARED BY: Fred Schmidt to be known as Emerald Hills Third Subdivision and Design Modification #00-08. Brent Svenby, The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 28.44 acres of land into 42 lots for single Planner family development and one Outlot. The applicant is also requesting a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to allow the development to exceed the permitted average daily trips prior to the construction of a secondary access. The property is located east of East Circle Drive, north of Century High School and west of Darcy Drive NE. July 11, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on June 28, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat for the property. The proposed subdivision consists of 28.44 acres to be subdivided into 42 lots for single family residential development and 1 outlot. The applicant is also requesting a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to allow the development to exceed the permitted average daily trips prior to the construction of a secondary access. Dale Allen, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He reviewed the plat and the staff recommended conditions. He stated that they are in agreement with the staff recommended conditions. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and recommends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions: The portion of the roadway that extends to the east from the intersection of Rosemary Lane NE and Colleen Lane NE must be labeled as Colleen Street NE. 2. Outlot A be dedicated to the City. 3. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a induction in the existing dedication credits (1.61 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High School Site was purchased. The 31.94' wide access between Lots 8 and 9 Block 1 must be graded to meet the standards of the Park and Recreation Department for access. Motion by Petersson to approve Preliminary Plat #00-25'to be known as Emerald Hills Third Subdivision and Design Modification #00-08 with staff -suggested conditions; seconded by Burke. The motion carried 8-0. Council Action Needed' 1) The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the fifteen findings for denial in Paragraph 61.225 can be made. 2) The Council may approve or deny the design modification to the requirement of Chapter 64 (specifically 64.127 (10)) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: iF F¢ i 111 QWIC vdd y ((. r:3:; e e NVId 1N3V IV213NT) 3F F`a la s s II • jj@1@ s d1053NNIW 'Y3153HJON IE i3ill�a � SIIIH aIV213W3 55ple� �t''3¢a a 1Vld ANYMW113bd LM g F' dg pi V1O53NNIW'Y31914DON F� CVay:p i t�F.y11. NOISIAIQ8f1S ONiHl SIIIH alVa3W3 ii L, I�C9i.. TN _L _'�_ __ !..x_ l,�r__ a-•�"' � fir. �;�'� r\�t�� n ¢ Y F Mgr{ S�a3 `I e t �1 9 Y W ca n S 1F2 gg JFi• !p 5� A l ��} �� ti � 99'LIZ rit,itS9i A0155tl�/3N39 031LYSdMn TO: FROM DATE: RE: An An '�h1i1Y4��1Ii�w� �IfuarA�»o�C+� ffrrre2fl:c�w_f� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING ' HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 June 23, 2000 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 Type III Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-25 by Fred Schmidt to be known as Emerald Hills Third Subdivision and Design Modification #00-08. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 28.44 acres of land into 42 lots for single family development and 1 Outlot. The applicant is also requesting a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to allow the development to exceed the permitted average daily trips prior to the construction of a secondary access. The property is located east of East Circle Drive, north of Century High School and west of Darcy Drive NE -- - City Planning and Zoning Commission Brent Svenby Planner Planning Department Review: ApplicantlOwner: Surveyors/Engineers: Fred Schmidt 3200 SE 60s' Ave. Rochester, MN 55904 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Department of Public Works 2. Rochester Park & Rec. Dept. 3. Rochester Fire Prevention 4. RPU Water Division 5. RPU Operations Division 6. MnDOT 7. Olmsted County SW CD 8. Planning Dept. Addressing Staff Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (6 Letters) 3. Copy of Emerald Hills General Development Plan AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER �.a. Page 2 . Emerald Hills Third Subdivision June 23, 2000 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat Development Review: Location of Property: This plat is located north of Century High School, east of East Circle Drive and west of Darcy Drive NE. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) in the City of Rochester. Proposed Development: This development consists of 28.44 acres to be subdivided into 42 lots for single family residential development and one Outlot. Streets: The plat dedicates right-of-way for two (2) public roadways. The first roadway is "Colleen Lane NE", an east/west street, ending as a cul-de-sac. This street is designed with a 37' wide surface with a 66' right-of- way width. The cul-de-sac is designed with a 60' cul- de-sac bulb radius with a 45.5' radius to the back of the curb. The second roadway is "Rosemary Lane NE", an north/south, ending as a cul-de-sac. This street is designed with a 37' wide surface with a 66' right-of- way width. The cul-de-sac is designed with a 60' cul- de-sac bulb radius with a 45.5' radius to the back of the curb. The portion of the roadway that extends to the east from the intersection of Rosemary Lane NE and Colleen Lane NE needs to be labeled as Colleen Street NE. The proposed roadways meet the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to be extended from their present ends within Emerald Hills Second Subdivision. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along the streets being dedicated in this plat Drainage: The elevations range from 1,140' in the northern portion of the Plat to 1,250' in the southern portion of the Plat. The property generally drains to the north. Storm sewer is proposed within this plat to capture runoff. Two outlets are proposed which drain storm water to the eastern boundary of the Plat, which then drains north. The owner has voluntarily agreed to participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan for those areas that do not drain to I Page 3 . • Emerald Hills Hills Third Subdivision r June 23, 2000 an approved onsite storm water facility. 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. Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this development would be approximately 50 parking spaces. The proposed roadways should be adequate to accommodate the required spillover spaces. Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication for this plat should be met through a reduction of existing dedication credits from the 1996 dedication of 5 acres when the Century High School site was purchased. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Emerald Hills General Development Plan, which was originally approved in 1997 and amended in 1999. Staff Review and Recommendation: The applicant is also requesting a design modification to the requirement of Chapter 64 (specifically 64.127 (10)) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 64.127 (10) requires a secondary access to be constructed prior to City authorizing construction that would generate traffic in 1,200 average daily trips. Section 64.127 10) Secondary access will be required for any low density residential development that is projected to generate more than 500 average daily trips. Where secondary access is not constructed as part of the initial phase of development, the secondary access shall be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate traffic in excess of 1,200 average daily trips. The need for secondary access for non- residential development fronting on a collector or higher order street shall be determined based on a Traffic Impact Study. The Emerald Hill General Development Plan was originally approved in 1996 and amended in April 1999. The approved General Development Plan consists of a total of 131 lots being served by one access (Cassidy Drive NE). The GDP does provide an access to the north, which will provide a secondary access when that property is developed. The 131 lots will create an average of 1,310 average daily trips through one access. This is approximately a 10% increase over the 1,200 average daily trips that require a secondary access. Since this is a marginal increase, it should not create adverse traffic problems. Approval of this design modification will allow for the completion of the General Development Plan for the Emerald Hills Development. Any future development to the property to the north will require a secondary access being constructed. Staff would recommend approval of the design modification. Please see the attached excerpts from the LDM which outline the Design Modification provisions. f I(p Page 4 ( Emerald Hills Third Subdivision June 22, 2000 The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61.225 (effective 5/15/199). In order to meet the criteria, approval of this plat should require the following conditions or modifications: 1. The portion of the roadway that extends to the east from the intersection of Rosemary Lane NE and Colleen Lane NE must be labeled as Colleen Street NE. 2. Outlot A be dedicated to the City. 3. to outiot be end of th�!M 4. Parkland dedication for this plat shalt be met via a reduction in the existing dedication credits (1.61 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High School Site was purchased. The 31.94' wide access between Lots Band 9 Block 1 must be graded to meet the standards of the Park and Recreation Department for access. REMINDER TO APPLICANT. • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the public roadways and utilities. • This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans will need to be submitted with the final plat application. i Page 5 . Emerald Hills Third Subdivision June 22, 2000 CRITERIA FOR LAND SUBDIVISION PERMIT (PRELIMINARY PLAT) Effective May 15, 1999 61.225Findings for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long - Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands; M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. jt? / (12 Page 6 Emerald Hills Third Subdivision June 22, 2000 N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 60.420 DESIGN MODIFICATIONS: It is the intent of this ordinance to recognize that in certain instances it may be in the public interest to provide an expedient method to modify the site design and public facility standards of this ordinance as applied to certain types of development. 60,421 Purpose: The purpose of the design modification is to permit relief from the strict application of ordinance standards where there is no defined hardship, the proposed modifications will not result in identifiable loss of protection to adjacent properties, or where the proposed development results in an improved design solution to a site design problem and in doing so, still meets the intent of the site design or public facility standards. Guidelines are provided for the approval authority to assess the impact of the proposed design modification. This ordinance also provides for certain types of development identified as incentive development and restricted development which, though not consistent with normal zoning district standards, will be permitted in certain instances. These developments are supported by the Land Use Plan, but may necessitate relaxation of certain design standards in order to meet site constraints. Design modifications will be considered as part of the normal review of these developments, subject to standards established in this section. 60.422 Review of Design Modifications: Design modifications will be processed through either the Type I or Type it review procedures, according to the guidelines established in this section. Where a design modification request accompanies a permit or certificate request that requires processing through a Type III review procedure, the request shall be considered by the Commission and Council as part of the Type III review. 60.423 Guidelines for Approval: The following paragraphs identify specific policies or standards for each type of design modification permitted by the Ordinance. The approval authority shall consider these policies or standards in making the findings to approve or deny a request for a design modification. In addition, the following standards shall apply to all requests for Type II Design Modifications: 1) The burden shall be upon the applicant to show the design solution will result in an improved use of land while preserving the purposes for which the original regulation was enacted. 2) Any such modification shall consider the relationship of the development to its surroundings and shall avoid creating any adverse effects due to noise, traffic circulation, building height or bulk or lack of screening. Page 7 Emerald Hills Third Subdivision • r (_ j June 22, 2000 60.424 Specific Policies: The following paragraphs contain the guidelines applicable to specific types of design modifications which shall be considered by the approval authority. 9) Public Facility Standards: a) Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 may be approved as part of the review of any General Development Plan, land subdivision permit or final plat where the applicant can show by reason of exceptional topography or any other physical condition that strict compliance with these regulations would cause undue hardship or that such relief would not be a detriment to the public welfare and would not impair the intent and purpose of the regulations, i I A0 fOCHEST]fR Minnesota 6/19/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4 h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a Preliminary Plat #00-25 on Emerald Hills Third Subdivision (Fred Schmidt) property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. 3. A grading plan for this phase of Emerald Hills must be submitted and approved. 4.- A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 5. A 30 foot wide Outlot should be provided, and dedicated to the City, for pedestrian access from the end of the cul-de-sac on Rosemary Ln NE, to the area shown as Outlot A. 6. Pedestrian facilities shall be located and constructed concurrent with this development, along both sides of all public roadways. Charges & fees for the following are applicable for the development to this property include: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per acre •:• J9288 "High Level Water Tower in Northern Heights Area" @ $1,021.46 per acre, plus 7.5% interest from 5/4/98. ❖ Voluntary Stormwater Management Fee @ $1,983.50 per acre, if on -site detention is not provided. Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 2 Street Name Signs 1 Dead End Sign / C:1TEM P\PP#00-25.doc 4e ROCHESTER PARK ANAPECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Emerald Hills 3 Preliminary Plat #00-25 Acreageof plat.......................................................... 28.44 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 42 units Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.20 a Fair market value of land.. ............... ........................... The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Reduction in existing dedication credits (1.61 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High School site was purchased. At the applicants request, Outlot A is to be deeded to the City. The Outlot is a steeply wooded ravine. The applicant should be required to grade and sod the 31.94' wide access between Lots 8 and 9 Block 1. Applicant: Fred Schmidt 3200 60 Ave SE \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\HE 2696\EMERALD HILLS 3RD.DOC we pledge, Ive deliver June 9, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-25 by Fred Schmidt to be known as Emerald Hills Third Subdivision, Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. A 20' minimum public utility easement is required through Outlot "A" for the 12" water main loop. 3. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with these comments. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06-JA R Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates Fred Schmidt Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Page 2 0 • a3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 28, 2000 Ms. McGowan moved to approve Right-of-way vacation petition #00-04 by W..1 Investment Properties with staff -suggested findings. Mr. QuInA seconded the motion The mo. carded 8-01 CONDITION Si 1 The applicah# re ate the storm sewer and. drainag@pipe according t he construction plan niplated by Mc!Ghle & Batt a acid dedicate 'the a errant t4 the _: City of Rochester for a drainage ut111ty easement. in the location the relocated drainage pipe. Costs a ociated with the storm sewer drainagiocation 1s the , ownor's obligation.` 2. The applicant�rovlde the C . with a. 40 footright-af way Serpent frpm the centerline of ands] Road N d an addltiklaa(10 fcti t�I+tj easement itring outside the 5046.0 f-way ea�srps 3, Tite applicant shall com ensate tfi„ itx�.Q 9�are foat of useable area of tha v paei.pr; a cart o 13 r74+3 �' -, „ 4 �p.: 4, The ap plicant shall°dedicate l leg 0 foot ,?may q.aserrtent, tie 1( 1o+�t rrtljit�+. easedient and, the tiralnagelstorrr+ sewer a ",ept pfiao to ttlsi rcot dtrtl of tfiiS vacatiot�F. ANNEXATIONS: Mr. Svenby presented the s report, dated June 22, 2000, to "flit report is on file at the Roc ster-Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby indicated t the City Council will hear the annexation stated that staff exp s that a general development plan would be Mr. Quinn aske hat the property would be zoned. Mr. Svenby sponded R-1. Commission. The staff on July 5, 2000. He -d.in the near future. Ms. het sson rgoYed;c eOProve Anttecatlprt patition #Q *10 krtr iVielry] Grp bow i;ecoti 'r1'lfv"tiler. B°r"ells. `fie tisotion tarried fl`-0: Type III Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-25 by Fred Schmidt to be known as Emerald Hills Third Subdivision and Design Modification #00-08. The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 28.44 acres of land into 42 lots for single family development and one Outlot. The applicant is also requesting a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to allow the development to exceed the permitted average daily 3 � • � age ity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Baring Date: June 28, 2000 Mr. Svenby presented the staff report, dated June 23, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant also requested a design modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 64.127 (10) requires a secondary access to be constructed prior to the City authorizing construction that would generate traffic in excess of 1,200 average daily trips. Because the general development plan contains 131 lots through one access point and that the 131 lots will create an average of 1,310 average daily trips, which is approximately a 10 percent increase over the 1,200 average daily trips that require a secondary access (which is a marginal increase), staff supports the approval of the design modification. Mr. Svenby stated that condition number 3 listed in the staff report should be stricken. He spoke to Public Works regarding this condition. Mr. Suk asked if findings are required for the design modification. Mr. Svenby responded that the staff -suggested findings would be that there is a marginal increase over the trips that would require a secondary access and, since it is a marginal increase, it should not create adverse traffic problems. Also, approval of the design modification will allow for the completion of the GDP and any future development to the property to the north will require a secondary access being constructed. Ms. Petersson asked if the Commission could send a recommendation to the Park Department to modify the sidewalk plan to preserve some of the trees. Mr. Svenby stated that the Commission could send a statement to the Park Department and Council. Mr. Dale Allen, of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that he represented Fred Schmidt. He indicated that the applicant approves of the staff -suggested conditions, except for number 3 (which was stricken). Mr. Allen stated that they are trying to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Suk asked if the applicant would support the Commission's recommendation to the Park Department and Council regarding modifying the sidewalk plan. Mr. Allen responded yes. Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Petersson. moved to pp prove Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit �Prehm:Ina rj+ . Plat)#00 251 i Fred.Schm�dk:ta;b knawt� aS i:aierald Hii1i.s Third Sub v�sipn nd.iZ+e. ` Modification #OQ-Q$ it�t staff sug�est� audition a lUlrw $urke So 9nded thQ mafierl The motion carried Page • • 1 aJ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 28, 2000 CONDITIONS: II.. The portion of the roadway that extends to the east from the intersection of Rosemary Lane NE and Colleen Lane NE must be labeled as Colleen Street NE. 2. Outlot A be dedicated to the City. 3. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a reduction in the existing dedication credits (1.1i1 acres) from the 1996 dedication of 5.0 acres when the Century High School Site was purchased. The 31.94° wide access between Lots Sand 9 Block 1 must be graded to meet the standardf t s'ohe Park and Recreation Department for Access.. Mr. Slaver stated that the intersection of Viola Road and Cassidy Drive is currently the only egress for the Century Hills Subdivision. He explained that it is a very busy intersection. Mr. Svenby stated that a secondary access would be constructed for the Century Hills Subdivisions, which should help alleviate congestion at the intersection. Mr. Brede asked if the comments made about modifying the sidewalk plan to save trees is a recommendation from the Commission to the Park Department and Council. Mr. Suk responded that the recommendation should be forwarded. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. De lopment District #16 and Tax Increment Financing D Mr. Svenby stat that, as part of the TIF review and approval process, the mmission must review it for consist with the Land Use Plan. He indicated that th uncil will hold a public hearing on July 17, 20 Mr. Svenby indicated that the is consistent with the I use plan for commercial industrial uses. Mr. Svenby asked if Ms. Third Subdivision is with Ms. Petersson 2. motion to appro the preliminary plat for Emerald Hills Modification. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f /� 7-17-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING E - 3 I DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-28 to be known as Crown Subdivision. PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, SeniorPlanner July 13, 2000 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat. At this time, the Plat needs to be revised to dedicate right-of- way needed for Bandel Road NW. Staff recommends that this Plat be tabled to a future meeting, to allow the applicant to file a revised Plat that includes right-of-way needed for Bendel Road. If the Council does not wish to table this Plat, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. Parkland dedication for this plat be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $15,120, per the July 6, 2000 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. 2. This Plat shall be revised to dedicate an additional 10' of right-of-way for Bandel Road NW. 3. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed, and the owner/developer's expense, along the entire frontages of Bandel Road NW and 59 h St NW. Council Action Needed: 1. if the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated July 13, 2000 Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department GIS Division 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after :00 p.m. on Monday July 17, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street S 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. INCILACTION: Maeonbr.. Second by: to: 3 I r _ I — I r _ I — I EE •i� a� g ri ��• a fit ! a" II fill i i6 JCS' All ---., , —=— ------ I� I I I I Ij w II � I w I I[I aJ � I N jll Ai I[I I jll II s c .a w 111"Is mss r g a � la� Div n 1 l0--?l 4 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: July 13, 2000 IfaeonAruAH1 ffru�•��1.nmc�:�1 : ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071265-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-6224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Final Plat #00-28 to be known as Crown Subdivision. Planning Department Review: ApplicanVOwner: Robert Theel 23941 Amundsen Bay Dana Point, CA 92629 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works 2. Rochester Park & Rec. 3. Olmsted County SWCD 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 Bendel Road NW, south of 59' St. NW. Zoning: Lots 1 is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential), Lot 2 is zoned B-4 (General Commercial). Proposed Development: Specific development of this property has not been proposed at this time. Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. The plat is adjacent to Bendel Road and 59Ih St. NW. Additional right-of-way dedication, is however, �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 July 13, 2000 required for Bandel Road. This Plat will need to be revised to dedicate the needed right-of-way. Drainage: Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City for development of the property. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. Public Utilities: Spillover Parking: Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: Utilities are available to serve this property. Parking requirements for this property will be reviewed at the time specific development is proposed. Rochester Park and Recreation recommends that parkland dedication for this development be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $97,960. There is not an approved General Development Plan for this property. Staff concluded that no new streets need to continue beyond the land to be subdivided in order to complete an appropriate street system or to provide access to adjacent property. Therefore, the requirement for a General Development Plan was not required, consistent with Section 61.211 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. There is no preliminary plat for this property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated with this Plat and there is not a need to provide connections through this plat to adjacent properties. Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat. At this time, the Plat needs to be revised to dedicate right-of-way needed for Bandel Road NW. Staff recommends that this Plat be tabled to a future meeting, to allow the applicant to file a revised Plat that includes right-of-way needed for Bendel Road. If the Council does not wish to table this Plat, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. Parkland dedication for this plat be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $15,120, per the July 6, 2000 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. 2. This Plat shall be revised to dedicate an additional 10' of right-of-way for Bandel Road NW. 134 ` Page 3 July 13, 2000 3. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed, and the owner/developer's expense, along the entire frontages of Bandel Road NW and 59' St. NW. REMINDER TO APPLICANT. Parkland Dedication fee must be paid prior to recording the final plat documents (mylars). 07/13/00 14:22 FAX 507 287 2275 ROCH-OLM PLANNING DEPT. 4 CTY ADMIN Q 002 I u On ROCHES R DATE: July 10, 2000 TO: Jennffer Gamess, Planning FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief Rochester Fire Department 201 4th Street SE, Room 10 Rochester, MN 55904.3726 (507)265-6072 FAX #(507) 2a5-8256 SUBJECT: Final Plat #00-28, Crown Subd., located south of 59th St NW and east of Bandel Road NW. This projects is located at the fringe of the 4 minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire Department and will add 2 commercial lots on 4,88 acres, to the city's fire protection area. With that regard the fire code has the following requirements: An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants must be in place prior to commencing building construction. Due to the close proximity to the Bandel water tank (on grade), fire flows and water pressure must be verified with the Water Division and Fire Department prior to construction. 2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. All fire department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. 3. 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 Robert Theel, 23941 Amundsen Bay, Dana Point, Ca. 92629 McGhie Betts, 1648 3rd Avenue SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904 • ROCHESTER PARK AND INCREATION DEPARTMENT/ 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 56904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 6, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Crown Subdivision Final Plat #00-28 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 2.44 a " Number of dwelling units ............................................. 80 units (max) Density factor............................................................ .0158 Dedication............................................................... 1.26 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. $12,000/acre " Only R3 zoned land subject to dedication. The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $$15,120 (1.26 acres X $12,000/acre). Payment due prior to recordation of final plat. Applicant Robert Theel 23941 Amundsen Bay Dana Point, CA 92629 FROM: Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division City Final Plat 0- The long term traffic projections for Bandel Road indicate future volumes 28 in the range of 10-12,000 ADT, which will require development of a Crown Subd collector type of street cross section. The Long Range Bicycle Facility plan also calls for development of a Neighborhood Connector Trail along this corridor, which will serve to connect residential areas to the north and east of the corridor with the main trail system developed along 55`" St NW. In order to accommodate the improvements required for the projected traffic volumes and the development of a trail, a 50 foot corridor from the centerline will be needed. The proposed plat should indicate an additional 17 feet of right of way along Bandel Road or a combination of right of way and easement area for development of a trail that will equal the needed 17 feet. Em 7/6/00 ROCHESTER Minnesota 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 507-287-7B00 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #00-28 on the Crown Subdivision property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 2. Pedestrian Facilities are required, at the Owner's expense, along the entire frontages of Bandel Rd NW & 59th St NW. Charges/fees that are applicable to the development of the property have been addressed in the Development Agreement, with the exception of : Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: i C:\TEMP\FMO-28.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 13'� AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING DATE: 07-17-00 ITEM NO. e-a ?M DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #00-30 to be known as Deerhaven. The plat PREPARED BY: proposes to subdivide approximately 5.38 acres of land into one lot for a multi -family Theresa Fogarty, residential development. The property is located along the north side of East Circle Drive Planner (CSAH 22), east of 16' Avenue NE q. July 12, 2000 Planning Department Review. See attached staff report dated July 12, 2000 with the following recommended conditions or modifications: 1. The developer shall work with the Planning Department - GIS Addressing staff with the designation of the private roadway. 2. The final plat show controlled access along the frontage of CSAH 22 and 16' Avenue NE, except for the designated access opening 3. Prior to any grading on the site, the boundary of the wetland area shall be surveyed and fenced to avoid any further disturbance of the designated wetland area. 4. The developer agrees to parkland dedication requirement of cash in lieu of land dedication in the amount of $12,000. Payment is due prior to the recording of 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 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 7. 2 Mylar Copies of Plat Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. Yaggy Colby Associates JNCILACTION: Motion by: second V on Monday, July 17, 2000 in the Council Chambers I S 3 v 1 3 o S v I a I\ i t N3hyH 2133G ral J u �/(w/[/)•�'JX. '53111JOSSY 101 o0 9r I; i �a�9 FY TDZ A1M10] Y i �a. �ar 11'19G ------- -jj----- Y� �C1��• �f S'�A � Xl ¢d 1 3N 3AV N191 a s _ a It Qy yVx� 9 gill� s 5p E CO RD 124 / CT Final Plat #00-30 Deer Haven 1,150' Notification Distance Ward 5 (Evans) 06/30/00 0 mo TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner d�- DATE: July 12, 2000 . -r,.:: voiihl» le.D��ypp1 I»1l+� fh�r=eAs-�c�ff l��iiivlw �!! r. ROC HESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/2B5-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #00-30 to be known as Deerhaven. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 5.38 acres of land into one lot for a multi -family residential development. The property is located along the north side of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22), east of 16th Avenue NE Planning Department Review: Applicants/Owners: Deerhaven, LLC W229 S3854 Milky Way Road Waukesha, WI 53186 Surveyors / Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division 2. Olmsted County Public Works 3. Rochester Park & Recreation 4. Planning Department - GIS Division 5. Planning Department - Wetlands, John Harford 6. Planning Department - Transportation Division 7. Olmsted County - SWCD Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (7) 2. Copy of Final Plat 3. Copy of approved Restricted Development Plan 4. Vicinity Map Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located the north side of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22), east of 16' Avenue NE. Existing Zoning: The property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 5.38 acres of land to be subdivided into 1 lot for two 16-unit buildings and one 24-unit building for multi -family residential development. �`r AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Final Plat 00-30 Deerhaven July 12, 2000 Roadways: The plat does not dedicate right-of-way for any new public roadways. Note: The developer shall work with the Planning Department- GIS Addressing staff with roadway designation of the private roadway. The plat shall include controlled access along the frontage of CSAH 22 and 16'" Avenue NE, except for the designated access opening. Wetlands: A wetland related application has been approved by the City. The developer must avoid all impacts to the wetland. Prior to any grading activity on the site, the boundary of the wetland area should be surveyed and fenced to avoid any further disturbance of the designated wetland area. Public Utilities: The public and private improvements (sanitary sewer and water main) plans have been approved by the City. Pedestrian Facilities: The owner has agreed to construct pedestrian facilities along the public roadways within the Project, including pedestrian ramps at the roadway intersections. The owner also agrees to provide a 5 foot wide sidewalk along 161h Avenue NE and a 10 foot wide bituminous path within East Circle Drive right-of-way along the entire property limits. Drainage: Construction of a private stormwater management facility pursuant to the Site Grading Plan has been approved for the Project by the City. The owner also agrees to participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan for those areas that do not drain to the approved permanent onsite stormwater ponds. Spillover Parking: At the time the Restricted Development was approved for this Development, the spillover parking was reviewed. Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be satisfied by cash in lieu of land in the amount of $12,000. Payment due within 12 months of Council approval of the final plat. Restricted Development The City Council approved a Restricted Development Plan for Plan: this property at their February 23, 2000 meeting with seven staff suggested conditions. All conditions have been met. Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat for this property was not required since no public right-of-way is being dedicated. All new roadways will be private. �l Page 3 ��pp Final Plat 00-30 Deerhaven July 12, 2000 Staff Recommendation: The developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for this Plat. The Council will act on the Development Agreement on July 17, 2000. If the Development Agreement is approved on July 17, 2000, staff would recommend approval subject to the fallowing conditions or modifications: 1. The developer shall work with the Planning Department • GIS Addressing staff with the designation of the private roadway. 2. The final plat show controlled access along the frontage of CSAH 22 and 16' Avenue NE, except for the designated access opening. 3. Prior to any grading on the site, the boundary of the wetland area shall be surveyed and fenced to avoid any further disturbance of the designated wetland area. 4. The developer agrees to parkland dedication requirement of cash In lieu of land dedication in the amount of $12,000. Payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. REMINDER TO APPLICANT. • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the public infrastructure and utilities to serve this plat. l 43 W Q w n 0 w d Z A I I Y / 4 a' •s' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMEl' 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/265-8231 July 10, 2000 Jennifer Garness Planning Department Dear Jennifer: The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III,Phase I Final Plat #00-30 to be known as Deerhaven and has the following comments: Access control shall be shown along CSAH 22. Sincerely, % Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:bw tAengindc6planzone. am AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste ar ik � Recrea�'� 4� Park and Recreation Department " City of Rochester _ 201 Fourth Street SE • Room 150 • Rochester, MAY 55904 (507) 281-6160 • FAX (507) 281.6165 .� . , July 3, 2000 To: Jennifer Garness . Consolidated Planning From: Rochester Park and Recreation RE: Deer Haven Final #98-27 Acreage......................................................................... 4.68 acres Number of Dwelling Units ............................................ 56 units Dwelling Unit Density ................................................... 12.0 units / acre DensityFactor............................................................ .16 Dedication Requirement Fair Market Value of Land ................ .75 acres .................... $16,000/acre The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirement for the plat be satisfied by: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $12,000 (.75 acres X $16,000) . Payment due within 12 months of Council approval of final plan. Applicant: Deer Haven, LLC W229 S3854 Milky Way Road Waukesha, WI 53186 N:\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\NE 2896\0EER HAVEN.➢OC 141,0, 0 0 WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: PIA #SD—k "AAkl No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. d, wo-wasm M.F04.2 From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative TRANSPORTATION STAFF I:i 1Mi AMM. Jurisdiction JULY 2000 City Final Plat 0-30 Deerhaven . Final plat should include indication of controlled access along frontage of CSAH 22 and 161' Ave except for designated access opening • Development agreement should address contributions for turn lanes and acknowledgment of future trail construction along frontage of property which may require possible easement area for completion. County C Use 0-12 Access point to CR 133 should be aligned with Kristen Drive on south side of Fitzpatrick West River Road City GDP Amend No comment 150 — Valley Side County ZC 0-11 No comment Olmsted Ca Bd City Final Plat 0-28 The long term traffic projections for Bandel Road indicate future volumes in the Crown Subd range of 10-12,000 ADT, which will require development of a collector type of street cross section. The Long Range Bicycle Facility plan also calls for development of a Neighborhood Connector Trail along this corridor, which will serve to connect residential areas to the north and east of the corridor with the main trail system developed along 55'" St NW. In order to accommodate the improvements required for the projected traffic volumes and the development of a trail, a 50 foot corridor from the centerline will be needed. The proposed plat should indicate an additional 17 feet of right of way along Bandel Road or a combination of right of way and easement area for develo ment of a trail that will equal the needed 17 feet. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1l ( ' MEETING 7-17-00 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-32 to be known as Royal Plaza Subdivision LR (formerly known as Kings Run Commercial Park). July 13, 2000 Staff Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this final plat application and recommends approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. Pedestrian facilities must be provided along 18'h Ave. NW and along Royal Place NW. 2. The Plat shall be revised to add controlled access along both sides of Royal Place NW 150' from the intersections of Royal Place NW and 55t° St. NW and 18'b Ave. NW. 3. There shall be no parking along either side of Royal Place NW. The applicant shall provide "No Parking— Fire Lane" signs, as well as other signs identified by the Public Works Department. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Attachment. 1. Staff Report dated July 13, 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. on Monday July 17, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1 JNCILACTION: Mown by: Semndby: to: of C m� Ing FM ME ME �o of Rl•� �j ;fit �l!it IM fir: �q�Riyi yl�J,t� pggpG�� l�i�� i•R�i 9�i. N a W W Rt' iR8 @ E 555 � y 1 Tfowl IV `<<, asu1103 Hnx s.oxnr v Louno ■ I A NamyA► wBl . FWArZWZAY Yi81 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: July 13, 2000 aril:»L�•....o, , ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285.8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Final Plat #99-32 to be known as Royal Plaza Subdivision (formerly named Kings Run Commercial Park). Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Dakota of Rochester Inc. PO Box 143 Kasson, MN 55944 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3 ° Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Olmsted County Public Works Dept. Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (1 letter) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Copy of Final Plat Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of 18s' Avenue NW and 55th Street NW. Zoning: The property is zoned B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 7.64 acres of land to be subdivided into 5 lots for commercial development. Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for 2 roadways. The first dedication is the existing right-of-way of 18th �Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 �53 Kings Run Commercial Park July 13, 2000 Sidewalks: Avenue NW. The second roadway is Royal Place NW. The roadway is designed with a 32' wide surface on a 56' right-of- way. The proposed roadways meet the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the new streets in the subdivision. Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,010' in the northwest portion of the plat to 990' in the southeast portion of the plat. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this property. Public Utilities: Water and sewer can be extended from existing lines in other Kings Run Subdivisions. Spillover Parking: Parking requirements will be reviewed on an individual lot basis when a site development plan is submitted for development of the lots. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland dedication requirement for this plat. General Development Plan: In 1991, the Kings Run General Development Plan was approved the City Council. The GDP designates this area for commercial uses. At the time the GDP was approved for this site, the access locations for the commercial area were determined. The access locations shown on the plat are from the traffic study done for 55`h Street NW and 181h Avenue NW. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on September 9, 1999 subject to the following conditions/modifications: f. Storm water management plan must be provided for this development. The developer has the option of either providing stormwater management on -site or voluntarily entering in an agreement with the City for stormwater management. ,)� j Page 3 t Kings Run Commercial Park July 13, 2000 2. The RPU Water Division and Rochester Public Works Department approve the needed locations and widths for utility easements prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. The minimum 20' foot utility easement be provided for the watermain on Lot 3, Block2. 3. The roadway named "Royal Lane NW" be changed to "Royal Place NW 4. Pedestrian facilities must be provided along le Avenue NW and the roadway through this development consistent with City policies. 5. Prior to submittal of the Final Plat, the traffic design analysis requested by the CitX Engineer needs to be completed. Access control on Royal Lane at the intersections of 18' Avenue NW and 5e Street NW must be provided as determined by the traffic design analysis with a minimum of 100 feet. 6. The developer is responsible for obtaining an access permit from the Olmsted County Public Works Department and providing and constructing a right turn lane on le Avenue NW. Staff Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this final plat application and recommends approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. Pedestrian facilities must be provided along 18fh Ave. NW and along Royal Place NW. 2. The Plat shall be revised to add controlled access along both sides of Royal Place NW 150' from the intersections of Royal Place NW and 55 h St. NW and 180' Ave. NW. 3. There shall be no parking along either side of Royal Place NW. The applicant shall provide "No Parking — Fire Lane" signs, as well as other signs Identified by the Public Works Department. r55� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 July 10, 2000 Jennifer Garness Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Jennifer: The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase I Final Plat #99-32 to be known as Royal Plaza and has the following comments: Attached access permit has been approved with conditions listed in letter dated 6119100. Sincerely, Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:bw is W n9 ndoclpI.m.ne.tloc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste Administration Building Maintenance i 4:�L PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTME 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-474� 5071285-8231 June 19, 2000 Dakota of Rochester Jerry Nelson 1201 Meadow Lark Ct SW Rochester, MN 55902 RE: Street Access to Co. Rd 112 (18`h Ave NW) Dear Mr. Nelson: Your access permit is approved as shown on the plan submitted to Olmsted County Public Works dated 5/24/00 with the following conditions: 1. Right turn lane 300 feet in length with 180 foot taper. 2. Restore all disturbed areas on public right of way due to this construction. 3. Curb and gutter from street shall end at right of way on south side of access opening. If you have any questions please give Curt Bolles or myself a call. Sincerely, p) � Michael Sheehan County Engineer MS:ss Enc. c: David Kramer, City Public Works Bob Burk, Hwy Maintenance Supervisor Mike Gowan, McGhie & Betts t:\engin\misc\dakota of rochester AN EQUAL OPPORTUN17YIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Administration Building Maintenance surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste E ROCHESTER Minnesota 7/11/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester. MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904.3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #99-32 on the Royal Plaza (Note: Preliminary Plat was named Kings Run Commercial Park) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for development of this property. 2. A City — Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 3. Controlled access is required for 150 feet from the intersections of Royal Place NW with 55' St NW & with 18'' Ave NW. 4. There shall be no parking allowed along either side of Royal. Plaza 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: 4 Street name Signs 2 Stop Signs 6 No Parking Signs C:%TEMPVFP#99.32. doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION QC MEETING l DATE: 07-17-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING - e/'P N DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00-07 by Curtis Williams to vacate a portion of a PREPARED BY: utility and drainage easement located along the west line of Lot 1, Block 1, South Pointe Theresa Fogarty, Second Subdivision. The property is located along the east side of 11th Avenue SW, south South Planner {d_ of Pointe Drive and west of Scenario Lane SW. aIT July 11, 2000 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated July 11, 2000. Staff is recommending approval with the following recommendations / conditions: 1. Vacate only the easterly 5 feet of the north 75 feet of the existing 25 foot wide Utility and Drainage Easement lying over the westerly 25 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, South Pointe Second Subdivision. 2. The floor elevation of the accessory building (garage) be set 1.0 feet above the existing ground elevation south of the proposed building. Council 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 July 11, 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, July 17, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: v b \ a�=20-56,53, ? 8N tar 728.46 OUTLnT "A" Oh17, �ry ; RnO, ti 3 a CD bcb w N > W 4 �6 J �W 5 m 1 Q,2T 6 S6• h a3 a ,ag r- c unnr ! / !��p nos '00 rz C' ` f 93.00 y R 200.90 �.001802'56 0 A c S J18 cq L,� _ �9 0a� 2 , Q Ln 1 0 n_w _ Mm+ L— — �250.00— —_ ft3j0C0 TROLLED�51 80.00 `- COR R (TOWNSHIP ROAD) ACCESS AVENUE -O U 'r' TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: July 11, 2000 a`■i�6iian.• •a ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING! 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285.8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/267-2275 RE: Vacation Petition #00-07 by Curtis Williams to vacate a portion of a utility and drainage easement located along the west line of Lot 1, Block 1, South Pointe Second Subdivision. The property is located along the east side of 11t6 Avenue SW, south of South Pointe Drive and west of Scenario Lane SW. Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): Reason to Vacate: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Staff Recommendation: Curtis and Christine Williams 914 Scenario Lane SW Rochester, MN 55902 Allow construction of a garage that will not be too close to the existing house/deck. Department of Public Works 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 recommendations / conditions: Vacate only the easterly 5 feet of the north 75 feet of the existing 25 foot wide Utility and Drainage Easement lying over the westerly 25 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, South Pointe Second Subdivision. 2. The floor elevation of the accessory building (garage) be set 1.0 feet above the existing ground elevation south of the proposed building. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 1� ROCHESTER Minnesota 7/6/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4 h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Vacation #00-07 by Curtis Williams. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Public Works would support vacation of the Easterly 5 feet of the North 75 feet of the existing 25 foot wide Utility & Drainage Easement lying over the westerly 25 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, South Pointe Second Subdivision, as indicated on the site drawing. C:\TEMP\VACft00-07.D0C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f �3 DATE: 07-17-00 ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. _ =M DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00-04 by MT-1 Investment Properties to PREPARED By: icate the old Right -of -Way for Highway 52, west of Bandel Hills Road NW. The Theresa Fog property is located in the SW 114, Section 9, Cascade Township, Rochester, MN. Planner July 10, 2000 Planning Department Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this vacation request at their June 28, 2000 meeting. The Commission recommended approval of the vacation petition with the following staff recommended conditions: 1. The applicant relocate the storm sewer and drainage pipe according to the construction plan completed by McGhie & Betts and dedicate the easement to the City of Rochester for the drainage utility easement in the location of the relocated drainage pipe. Costs associated with the storm sewer drainage relocation is the owner's obligation. 2. The applicant provide the City with a 50 foot right-of-way easement from the centerline of Bandel Road NW and an additional 10 foot utility easement lying outside the 50 foot right-of-way easement. 3. The applicant shall compensate the City $2.00 per square foot of useable area of the vacated property equal to $9,746. 4. The applicant shall dedicate the 50 foot right-of-way easement, the 10 foot utility easement and the drainage / storm sewer easement prior to the recording of this vacation. Ms. McGowan moved to approve Right -of -Way Vacation Petition #00-04 by MT-1 Investment Properties with staff suggested findings. Mr. Quinn seconded. The motion carried 8-0. Council 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 (Revised), dated June 28, 2000. 2. Minutes of the June 28, 2000 CP&ZC meeting. 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, July 17, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 Wh Street SE, Rochester, McGhie & Betts COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second j(a PROPOSED-STREETC T VACATION EXHIBIT N 89.02'35" NORTH LINE SE1/4 SWI/4 SEC 9 6.88� N CS O. c4 01 A • r N r� r�J DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED: SW� MR: MIKE HAWHINS McGhie 2207 7th STREET N.W. ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901 cz ss N s O. N 50' Right -of -Way easement and 10' Utility I easement to be dedicated to the City Drainage / Storm Sewer easement to be dedicated to the City QW Area remaining after re -dedication to the City sW.1 1 " - 100' $ettS,lnc. DRAWN BY.' 9WC DATE: 03/. LnnC surv.rxn ACG7. N0.: i 1 D: �r--A z \ 33 dew,94 TOTAL P.04 l (� REVISED TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: June 28, 2000 �iii+�4 nP �Isaa�►l►�jofH 11��ac�o��sawE►� !1,►nrr,�4Jvr�� J ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 RE: Right-of-way vacation #00-04 by MT 1 Investment Properties to vacate 507/287-2275 the old right-of-way for Highway 52, west of Bandel Hills Road NW. The property is located in the SW 1/4, Section 9, Cascade Township, Rochester, MN. Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): MT 1 Investment Properties Mike Hawkins 2207 Seventh Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 Reason to Vacate: The old right-of-way for Highway 52 is no longer used. -- Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department, Transportation Division 2. City Public Works 3. MN Department of Transportation Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of proposed Vacation 3. Memo from John Arnold, dated June 26, 200 4. Copy of Construction Plan completed by McGhie & Betts Staff Recommendation: Mr. John Arnold, representative of the applicant, has met with Mr. Mike Nigbur, City Public Works and have come to an agreement with the issues from the City Public Works Department. It has been determined that the original description submitted with the vacation petition is what will be vacated and the requested right-of-way and easements will be dedicated back to the city. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Vacation 00-04 1 �® 06/28/00 ( C Staff is recommending the approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant relocate the storm sewer and drainage pipe according to the construction plan completed by McGhie & Betts and dedicate the easement to the City of Rochester for the drainage utility easement in the location of the relocated drainage pipe. Costs associated with the storm sewer drainage relocation is the owner's obligation. 2. The applicant provide the City with a 50 foot right-of-way easement from the centerline of Bandel Road NW and an additional 10 foot utility easement lying outside the 50 foot right-of-way easement. 3. The applicant shall compensate the City $2.00 per square foot of useable area of the vacated property equal to $9,746. 4. The applicant shall dedicate the 50 foot right-of-way easement, the 10 foot utility easement and the drainage / storm sewer easement prior to the recording of this vacation. JUN-2b-20190 1'/;LY RONALD L. SEEDER M LTON A. ROS$NBLAD PAULA. FBBSETH CANMI, R. BERNDT JOHN B. ARNOLD PETER C. 9ANDSERG TINA L MOHR KENNETH R. MOEN WrLLtAM J. RYAN PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLAS A. BOESE THOMAS W, JACOBSON June 26, 2000 VUNLHY & bLLUEN t'H • • LAW OFFICES DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. VIA HAND DELIVERY ➢Ds SOVTTI BROADWAY,, ?U= 906 MARgUE7= BAN%BUILDING PO BOX 6f➢ ROCHESTER, MMYSSOTA 66903.0619 TELEPHONE' (607) 08.0111 FAIL- I607)1989.930 FAX (607)➢s&081Y ROBERT R. DUNLAP (191r.19m) MIKE NIGBUR CITY OF ROCHESTER PUBLIC WORKS OLMSTED COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 201 FOURTH ST SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 t:)l9YdeddHlG H. UIZ04 MANY H. DUNLAP WHIa" P. VOLKMAR MARK E. FOSSE KEN D. SCHUXLER GREGORY J. GRIFFiTHB MICHAEL S. DT= ERIC D. LARSON SHARON C. ZEHE nr Ceuneal FRANKLIN MICHAELS A.M.'SAND1'" REITH RE: Right of Way Vacation #00-04 by MT I Investment Properties to vacate the old right of way for Highway 52, West of Bandel Hills Road NW. The property is located in the SW 1/4, Section 9, Cascade Township, Rochester, MN Dear Mr. Nigbur: It is my understanding we have come to an agreement concerning the request by MT 1 Investment Properties for a right-of-way vacation and the request of Public Works pursuant to its May 12, 2000 letter to me on behalf of the applicant. First, storm sewer drainage pipe. We are in agreement on the relocation of the storm sewer drainage pipe. We have provided you with a construction plan from McGhie & Betts Engineering showing the proposed rerouted storm sewer, and have indicated we are agreeable to dedication of the easement to the City of Rochester for the drainage utility easement in the location of the relocated drainage pipe. We agree to dedicate the easement to the City of Rochester and record the same, subject to your approval of the actual easement document. We acknowledge that the cost of the storm sewer drainage relocation is the owner's obligation. With regard to the right of way vacation itself, you have requested a 50 foot right of way for other public utility easements off the centerline of Bandel Road and an additional 10 foot utility easement lying outside the 50 foot right of way. We are agreeable to that in the area of the right to way to be vacated and have previously sent you a copy of McGhie & Betts Engineering's drawing of the location of the proposed 50 foot and 10 foot easements. It is my understanding that the vacation will be subject to those easements. J UIY-cO-cYJYJCJ 1 f •elf LUfY�,HY b ==MUMM rH :N0 (eUU1D d'12 Y.192/FO[j II Page 2 June 26, 2000 In addition, we have discussed payment for the property to be acquired by the applicant, Because we are retaining the various easements on the property as referenced above, and because not all of the property to be vacated is useable, we are in agreement that we are offering to pay $2.00 a square foot for the useable area. Pursuant to the attached computation which was supplied to us by McGhie & Betts Engineering, 4,873 square feet of the area is the useable area based on $2.00 a square foot, we are agreeable to compensating the City $9,746.00 upon vacation of the right of way. I believe this concludes our agreement on the above referenced matter in all respects. Could you please confirm this to us in writing, as well as confirming with Planning & Zoning, so we may go forward with the vacation upon your recommendation of approval. JBA/ck cc Theresa Fogarty, via fax 287-2275 Mike Hawkins, via fax 282-0453 DuNLAP & SEEGEn, PA r 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 28, 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; Ms. Diane McGowan; Mr. James Burke; Mr. Ardell Brede; Mr. Michael Quinn; Mr. Randy Staver; and Mr. Gerry Werven Members Absent: Ms. Christine Schultze Staff Present: Ms. Jennifer Garness; Mr. Greg Wise; and Mr. Brent Svenby Other City Staff Present: ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS: Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve the minutes of June 14, 2000, as written. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The minutes from June 14, 2000 were approved unanimously. Mr. Suk asked if item 1, under Other Business, is considered a public hearing. Mr. Svenby responded no. Mr. Burke made a motion to approve the agenda, as written. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. TABLED ITEMS: Right-of-way vacation petition #00-04 by MT 1 Investment Properties to vacate the old right-of-way for Highway 52west of Bandel Hills Road NW. The property is located in the SW 1/4 Section 9 Cascade Township, Rochester, MN. Mr. Svenby presented the revised staff report, dated June 28, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby referred to a revised staff report written by Theresa Fogarty dated June 28, 2000. He explained that staff had originally suggested that the item be continued or tabled until some issues were worked out. The applicant and the Public Works department have worked the issues out at this time. Therefore, staff recommended approval with four conditions. Mr. Suk asked Mr. Hawkins if he agreed with the four staff -suggested conditions. Mr. Hawkins replied that he and his partner agree with the staff -suggested conditions. Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: June 28, 2000 Ms. McGowanmoved to approve Right of wadvacation patitign #0 04 byMT'# Investment Pi4peTti4with staff -suggested flh�lit Ss,' Ot, Qui! n secontle�l the moti+pi6 The mctW carried 8-0r CONDITIbi+lSg Y I The applicant relocate the storm sewer and drainage ape accujdf ng tg ##ta construction plan corrioteted by Mtd' 8 $efts and.iledlcaie the eaaa Cit�r of i2ochest4 for the drainage utility easement in the 14catign of tta@ re�ucafe�s . drainage pipe. Costs associated with the storm sewer drainaga retosatir�[� oyper's otiliga#iori, � , c ,' 2. The applicant Oj ovide the t;ity with a.'S0 #Ant ri.�ht-of way easeilhelitr frgtrl #erlrofanr#oaV�ard�rl adlorl i1#att113tcenyee5arpet:4ylp�g pu_tal�le the 5llf Qt a7 T ax�e9 M h5 3 The appican# ehaflomcnsa#e thtr Cr2,Ql9er ettare �ooiF# ueab4raa bth VatirQvpe+$llltA*4.'fi�, F pf Y i 4, The appiic�nt shaft �lstiicate tie �tl t'4Rt rl�#t�# �y �gm,�, �� $,� F�xitll�.3,. �" �' easement at?d th*b fa # h < ANNEXATIONS: Mr. Svenby presented the Taff report, dated June 22, report is on file at the Roche r-Olmsted Planning De Mr. Svenby indicated that the \genl will hear th stated that staff expects that aelopmentMr. Quinn asked what the proa zo d. Mr. Svenby responded R-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Commission. The staff inexation petition on July 5, 2000. He would be submitted, in the near future. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l ? - DATE 7-17-00 AUhNUA b1=Gl ION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING :M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00.31 to be known as Circle Drive Business Center S -0 PREPARED Brent Sve July 13, 2000 Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated July 13, 2000. This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Per the direction of the City Administration Office, this final plat application was accepted without the applicant having a signed development agreement with the City. If the City Council wishes to proceed with the final plat prior to the execution of a development agreement and the construction plans being approved by the City, staff would suggest the following conditions: 1. The plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22), with the exception of the location of 28th Street NW. Controlled access must also be dedicated along the northerly and southerly frontage of 28h' Street NW a distance 170 feet westerly from the right -of -war of West Circle Drive; the entire southerly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, with the exception of one access onto 26 h Street NW located 300 feet west of the CSAH 22 west right-of-way line; the southerly 125 feet of the westerly line of Line 1, Block 1; and the northerly 100 feet of the westerly line of Lot 6, Block 1. ' A 10 foot pedestrian easement, in addition to the utility easement shown on the plat, be dedicated along the easterly boundary of the plat. Said easement must be approved by the Public Works Department and recorded by the applicant prior to the recording of the mylars for this plat. The date and document number of the recorded pedestrian easement and the easement shall be included on the final plat documents (Mylars). 3. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a development agreement must be executed by the applicant and the City. The development agreement will need to outline the obligations of the owner relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management, parkland dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions of public infrastructure. 4. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, the public improvements construction plans and grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City. Said plans must be submitted to the Planning Department for verification that all of the necessary easements and right-of-ways are dedicated on the final plat documents. This will likely cause the plat to change. 5. The applicant shall obtain an access permit for 28'h Street NW from the Olmsted County Public Works Department prior to construction activity on the property. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Off 2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second i j,r-j•{ vAf' �l2d ' qi e tjs ?towolldf �yOvf '- ! I INC. REAL ESTATE INC. 400 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 100 ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55904 507 281 1002 - FAX 507.281. 1144 E-mail hres(=C@rconneci.eom July 14, 2000 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members At the City Council meeting on Monday, July 17a' you will have in front of you the Approval of the Final Plats for Circle Drive Business Center. This development is at the southwest corner of the intersection of Valleyhigh Road NW (CSAH 4) and West Circle Drive and will be considered in two separate Final Plats, described as follows: Final Plat #00-31 consisting of 22.84 acres of land to be subdivided into 13 lots for commercial and industrial development. Parcels within this development are under contract to be sold for uses consisting of a day care center, three small office buildings and a restaurant. Final Plat #00-32 consisting of 30.37 acres of land to be subdivided into two lots for commercial and industrial development. These two lots are under agreement to be sold to Celestica Corporation. We ask that the council approve the plat with the stipulation that sidewalk be required only on the west side of Superior Drive, the street that will run through the development and connect with Valleyhigh Road on the north and to the Circle 19 Plaza Development on the south. The issues that we believe deserve consideration and support this request are: • Celestica's desire for security from public foot traffic on the side of the road bordering their campus. • Celestica and the Developer's belief that foot traffic should not conflict with the entrances to Celestica's parking areas and truck traffic into their facility. • The area directly to the west of Celestica's campus across Superior Drive is Zoned R-3. The Developer and Celestica believe it is appropriate to limit the sidewalk to the residential side of Superior Drive which will be the boundary between residential and commercial /industrial uses. • The developer and Celestica have agreed to dedicate right of way and construct BikerPedesrian Trails along both Valleyhigh Road and West Circle Drive, as required by the City on the east side of the development which will provide pedestrian walkways. We want to thank you for your time reviewing this issue in advance of the consideration of these fmal plats and welcome any further questions prior to the Council's consideration of this issue. Cordially, BADGER DEVELOPMENT LLC Mac Hamilton Jamey Shandley Cc: David Hoefling, Celestica • W ►* Memorandum To: Stevan Kvenvold CC: Brent Svenby, Mike Nigbbur From: Richard W. Freese ,,) Date: 07/17/00 �"" Re: City Council Agenda Item E — 8; Plat #00-31 Circle Drive Business Center Public Works staff meet with Mac Hamilton and representatives from Yaggy Colby Associates on July 17, 2000 to discuss the issues on Plat #00-31 related to right-of-way dedication, street sections and pedestrian facilities. As a result of that meeting, it was agreed by all parties that an additional Condition #6 should be include in the City Council's review and approval of Plat #00-31. Condition #6 shall read as follows: #6. The applicant agrees to construct a 5-foot wide public sidewalk along the entire West side of Superior Drive NW and to construct a 5-foot wide public sidewalk along the entire South side of 28te Street NW concurrent with the construction of said streets. 3 3PaG 3 BADGER PROPERTY PART OF SEC 20, T107N, R14 W i} tOCHESTER OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA I 1' GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN @Flex r 1p F l 3 Fn �i En y � -s �= 3s fg.r1 jje has a . o . 43 �]j ;•gatt ! ��� W OA$GRA#s W U an W vi A �^tl�tlsfiA 8$$8&88$ `9A_•3R:E3 a=ax^^ax^ z„ D co L]J �lRC1Ea+E , . � w way"'" 5546• LIJ �., 97 OS9Ling f 1 ,65'S5 6, 99'9SY o w.a y sr 1 s �.eviJ� a On Z • �E ^ n tV b: }4145.64 ~ 9 p'. N 8 8 e k N rOAN �w0 I11SC ^i wl ^' -N, ZVZtill Q�R 031i�gdNn a r. 9;4. O�a .O PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE TO: Rochester Common Council ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION! 5071285-8232 PLANNING FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner GIS/ADDRESSING! 507/285-8232 MAPPING DATE: July 13, 2000 HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 RE: Final Plat #00-31 to be known as Circle Drive Business Center 5071287-2275 Plannina Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Badger Development LLC 400 South Broadway Suite #100, Riverside Building Rochester, MN 55904 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates • 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: _ 1. RPU Water Division 2. RPU Operations Division 3. Planning Department —Wetlands 4. Planning Department —Addressing 5. Rochester Public Works Department 6. Olmsted County Public Works Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of SLA Map 5. Copy of GDP 6. Copy of Preliminary Plat 7. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located along the west side of West Circle Drive, south of Valleyhigh Road NW. Zoning: This property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) district in the City of Rochester. Proposed Development: This development consists of 22.84 acres of land to • be subdivided into 13 lots for commercial and industrial development. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 1 U Page 2 11 Circle Drive Business Park July 13, 2000 Streets: The plat dedicates the right-of-way for two new public roadways. The right-of-way dedicated for both roadways is shown at 66 feet. Drainage: A portion of the storm water from the development will be directed to the right-of-way of West Circle Drive and the remaining will be directed to a future detention pond constructed by the developer. Wetlands: Public Utilities: Spillover Parking: Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Substantial Land Alteration: Prior to any grading work on the property, the grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City. 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 will need to be extended to serve this property. Spillover parking requirements will be reviewed at the time development is proposed on the individual lots through the Site Development Plan review. There are no parkland dedication requirements with commercial -industrial developments. The General Development Plan for this property was approved in March of 2000. The plat is generally consistent with the aooroved GDP. This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alternation as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat, subject to making findings established in Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM. This development includes a proposal for cut and fill work which involves a grade change of 10- feet or more from the pre-existing grades. See the attached map for the locations where the grade is proposed to be changed more than 10 feet. Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Staff Suggested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alternation, staff recommends the following findings to Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land Development Manual: ►. Page 3 ( / Circle Drive Business Park July 13, 2000 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The knob of a hill is being proposed to cut down to allow to site to be leveled. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. All cut material will be used to fill in the low area of the site. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. All excess material will be used on the site or be moved to the area shown as parkland on the general development plan so no trucks will be hauling from the property. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground water and surface water quality. 5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester. There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for development that is consistent with the land use plan. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed this summer. 6) The grading activity will only take place during the construction of the roadways and buildings pads that are planned for the site. The grading is expected to be completed this summer. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater management will be provided for the development. 11) The areas of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and should not effect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed this summer. The duration seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner contract process for this development. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. (30 Page 4 Circle Drive Business Park July 13, 2000 The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable 2) Not applicable 3) Not applicable 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable 6) Not applicable 7) Not applicable S) Not applicable Preliminary Plat., A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on May 1, 2000 with the following conditions: 1. The plat be revised so as to verify that single unit trucks can make right -turn without crossing the centerline and driving on the pedestrian ramps. 2. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, 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. 3. Prior the submittal of a final plat, issues regarding cost contribution towards needed traffic management improvements, turn lanes and traffic control measures work needs to be worked out. A decision must also be made regarding the timing of these improvement projects along Valleyhigh Road and 50t6 Avenue. These decisions will Include a determination of whether an interim upgrade will be constructed or whether programming of the full corridor upgrade should be Initiated. This will require the applicant to work with the Olmsted County Engineer, the City Engineer and the Transportation Division of the Planning Department. 4. A temporary turnaround is required at the westerly end of "Ashland Place NW", "Tomah Place NW", "Manroe Drive NW", and "River Falls Drive Drive NW". Easements for these turnarounds, as well as for any utilities located outside of the plat boundary must be executed with the City prior to be recording of the Final Plat documents. 5. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways and along existing right-of-ways (10' wide bituminous path along Valleyhigh Road NW and West Circle Drive). Pedestrian facilities must be completed by the owner concurrent with development. If it is determined by the City that it is not practical to construct the Page 5 Circle Drive Business Park July 13, 2000 required pedestrians facilities concurrent with this development, the owner shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City to address the timing and responsibility for the future construction of said facilities. 6. Stormwater management must be provided for this development either through on -site detention or participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Plan. Any facilities serving 50 or less developable acres will remain private and will require execution of long term maintenance agreements and easements. 7. If wetlands are present on the property, prior to the submittal of the final plat, the applicant must submit a wetland delineation and receive the necessary approvals from the LGU. S. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the need for Parkland and that the dedication of land and cash will meet this need. The applicant agrees to grade 8 acres at a slope of 4% or less. The grading and dedication of the 8 acres plus the dedication of the adjacent more steeply sloped area will meet approximately 16 acres of the dedication requirement. 9. Approved access permits will be required from Olmsted County Public Works Department, including additional lanes, turn lanes and traffic signal revisions. A free flow leg will be required in the SW quadrant of Valleyhigh Road and West Circle Drive. 10. The access to West Circle Drive located 950' north of the south property line be limited to a right-inlright-out only. 11. Improved roadway capacity is needed for this development. The City is currently considering the creation of Traffic Improvement Districts to address reconstruction of collector/arterial roadways. The area included in this subdivision may be included within a TID designated for 50'h Avenue NW and Valleyhigh Drive In the future. If a TID is approved, an area charge for the future reconstruction of 501h Ave. NW may apply to this property. 12. The applicant must obtain RPU Water Division approval in creating fire flows that meet the Fire Prevention Bureau standards for this development. 13. The applicant shall grade the property in a matter that is consistent and compatible with the Valleyhigh Road (CSAH 4) plan profile and cross sections established by the County Engineer. 14. A 30-foot park access must be located in the general vicinity of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and the public street adjacent to the park be constructed at the developers expense. Final Plat: Planning Staff Recommendation: Per the direction of the City Administration Office, this final plat application was accepted without the applicant having a signed development agreement with the City. (8/ Page 6 Circle Drive Business Park July 13, 2000 If the City Council wishes to proceed with the final plat prior to the execution of a development agreement and the construction plans being approved by the City, staff would suggest the following conditions: The plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22), with the exception of the location of 28th Street NW. Controlled access must also be dedicated along the northerly and southerly frontage of 281h Street NW a distance 170 feet westerly from the right-of-way of West Circle Drive; the entire southerly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, with the exception of one access onto 261h Street NW located 300 feet west of the CSAH 22 west right-of-way line; the southerly 125 feet of the westerly line of Line 1, Block 1; and the northerly 100 feet of the westerly line of Lot 6, Block 1. 2. A 10 foot pedestrian easement, in addition to the utility easement shown on the plat, be dedicated along the easterly boundary of the plat. Said easement must be approved by the Public Works Department and recorded by the applicant prior to the recording of the mylars for this plat. The date and document number of the recorded pedestrian easement and the easement shall be included on the final plat documents (Mylars). 3. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a development agreement must be executed by the applicant and the City. The development agreement will need to outline the obligations of the owner relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management, parkland dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-cf- way dedication, and contributions of public infrastructure. 4. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, the public improvements construction plans and grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City. Said plans must be submitted to the Planning Department for verification that all of the necessary easements and right-of-ways are dedicated on the final plat documents. This will likely cause the plat to change. 5. The applicant shall obtain an access permit for 28ei Street NW from the Olmsted County Public Works Department prior to construction activity on the property. Page 7 Circle Drive Business Park July 13, 2000 Land Development Manual Excerpts 62,1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1 I05. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or groundwater or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 183 c$� Page 8 Circle Drive Business Park July 13, 2000 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or storrnwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) -The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity. is appropriate for .._ the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development 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. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings onthe site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase lI site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are Page 9 Circle Drive Business Park o July 13, 2000 part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61,146. (6(p ROCHESTER Minnesota 7/12/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #00-31 on the Circle Drive Business Center (Note: this property was part of the Preliminary Plat of Badger Ridge) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Prior to recording the Final Plat, and prior to construction of any public improvements, the Owner shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the Owner relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, parkland dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 2. A City — Owner Contract must be executed prior to the development of this property to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 3. As indicated in our comments during review of the Preliminary Plat for this property, controlled access must be shown on the Final Plat along the entire frontage of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22), with the exception of the approved street access. Additional controlled access is required along the entire north & south frontages of 28th St NW; the entire southerly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, with the exception of a private access onto 26`" St NW located 300 feet west of the CSAH 22 west ROW line; the southerly 125 feet of the westerly line of Lot 1, Block 1; the northerly 100 feet of the westerly line of Lot 6, Block 1. Charges and fees applicable to the development of this property will be addressed in the Development Agreement, with the exception of the following: d• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 6 Street Name Signs 1 Truck Route Sign C:ITEMPIFP#00-3 7. doc Ah Ah July 10, 2000 Jennifer Garness Planning Department Dear Jennifer: l M PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase I Final Plat #00-32 to be known as Circle Drive Business Center Second and has the following comments: • Access control shall be required on final plat. • Right -turn lane and by-pass lane will be required from Valleyhigh Dr. NW (CSAH 4) to Superior Dr. NW. • Right of way along CSAH 4 shall be dedicated to Olmsted County for future four -lane facility including bike trail. Since/rely, A - Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS: bw tAengindocWanzone.doc Iwo.. Administration AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING CA '." DATE 7-17) 1 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEMANO.PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNINGtDESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-32 to be known as Circle Drive Business PRECenter Second Br July 13, 2000 Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated July 13, 2000. This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Per the direction of the City Administration Office, this final plat application was accepted without the applicant having a signed development agreement with the City. If the City Council wishes to proceed with the final plat prior to the execution of a development agreement and the construction plans being approved by the City, staff would suggest the following conditions: 1. The plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and Valleyhigh Road NW, with the exception of the location of Superior Drive NW. Controlled access must also be dedicated along both side of Superior Drive NW a distance 200 feet southerly from the right-of-way of Valleyhigh Road NW. 2. The plat shall be revised to dedicated 80 of right-of-way for Superior Drive NW extending 400 feet south from the right-of-way intersection with Valleyhigh Road NW. 10 foot pedestrian easement, in addition to the utility easement shown on the plat, be dedicated along the ,,ortherly and easterly boundary of the plat. Said easement must be approved by the Public Works Department and recorded by the applicant prior to the recording of the mylars for this plat. The date and document number of the recorded pedestrian easement and the easement shall be included on the final plat documents (mylars). 4. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a development agreement must be entered executed by the applicant and the City. The development agreement will need to outline the obligations of the owner relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management, parkland dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right- of-way dedication, and contributions of public infrastructure. 5. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, the public improvements construction plans and grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City. Said plans must be submitted to the Planning Department for verification that all of the necessary easements and right-of-ways are dedicated on the final plat documents. This will likely cause the plat to change. 6. The applicant shall obtain an access permit for Superior Drive NW from the Olmsted County Public Works Department prior to construction activity on the property. 7. The additional right-of-way being dedicated for Valleyhigh Road NW be named "Valleyhigh Road NW (CSAH 4)" and dedicated to Olmsted County. COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: Second by: to: '67- q "44 Memorandum To: Stevan Kvenvold CC: Brent Svenby, Mike Nigbur From: Richard W. Freese , )� Date: 07/17/00 r(A/ Re: City Council Agenda Item E — 9; Plat #00-32 Circle Drive Business Center Second Public Works staff meet with David Hofeling of Celestica Corporation, Mac Hamilton and representatives from Yaggy Colby Associates on July 17, 2000 to discuss the issues on Plat #00-32 related to right-of-way dedication, street sections and pedestrian facilities. As a result of that meeting, it was agreed by all parties that an additional Condition 98 should be include in the City Council's review and approval of Plat #00-32. Condition #8 shall read as follows: #8. A pedestrian access and circulation plan may be prepared and submitted by Celestica as a part of the Site Development Plan for the Celestica Project. If submitted and subsequently approved by the City, the pedestrian access and circulation plan will be constructed by Celestica in lieu of constructing public sidewalks along the Superior Drive frontages of the Celestica Property. A 5-foot wide public sidewalk will be constructed concurrent with the street construction along the entire west and south sides of Superior Drive NW. rFI Ut 0 t t,"� Z O LU W C.SAH. 22—� Z Lh'8Cl m'xp' '• (ii V) / LL I I s r Z LO $� I m ~ I x W m I� I 0 8L'L LLJ ,BY, f5tll ce � I U �I � I N I �m Li---_c1 &gR9 a3llYldNn s6 5 7 CIRCA ERNE n cW� "�^r por Mt �p.lf hf ti i CL Z M )BL BADGER PROPERTY �; I PART OF SEC20,7107N, R14W 1� t tOCNESTER, OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA `` s �E lylill GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN yi III TO: Rochester Common Council I NCO. r, X r■....,,rr.,..:r ROCH ESTE R-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ PLANNING FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING DATE: Jul 13 2000 Y HOUSING _. � CO BUILDING CODE WELUSEPTIC RE: Final Plat #00-32 to be known as Circle Drive Business Center Second Planninq Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Referral Comments: Badger Development LLC 400 South Broadway Suite #100, Riverside Building Rochester. MN 55904 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 1. RPU Water Division 2. RPU Operations Division 3. Planning Department —Wetlands 4. Planning Department —Addressing 5. Rochester Public Works Department 6. Olmsted County Public Works Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of SLA Map 5. Copy of GDP 6. Copy of Preliminary Plat 7. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located along the west side of West Circle Drive and along the south side of Valleyhigh Road NW. Zoning: This property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) district in the City of Rochester. 5071285-8232 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213. 507/285-8345 507/287-2275 `-'Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER i Page 2 111 Circle Drive Business Center Second July 13, 2000 Proposed Development: This development consists of 30.37 acres of land to be subdivided into 2 lots for commercial and industrial development. Streets: The plat dedicates the right-of-way for one new public roadway and one existing roadway. The plat dedicates 66 feet of right-of-way for Superior Drive NW. The plat also dedicates additional right-of-way for Valleyhigh Road NW. Drainage: A portion of the storm water from the development will be directed to the right-of-way of West Circle Drive and the remaining will be directed to a future detention pond constructed by the developer. Prior to any grading work on the property, the grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City. 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: Public utilities will need to be extended to serve this property. Spillover Parking: Spillover parking requirements will be reviewed at the time development is proposed on the individual lots through the Site Development Plan review. Parkland Dedication: There are no parkland dedication requirements with commercial -industrial developments. General Development Plan: The General Development Plan for this property was approved in March of 2000. The plat is generally consistent with the approved GDP. Substantial Land Alteration: This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alternation as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat, subject to making findings established in Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM. This development includes a proposal for cut and fill work which involves a grade change of 10- feet or more from the pre-existing grades. See the attached map for the locations where the grade is proposed to be changed more than 10 feet. Sections 61.146, 62,1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Page 3 Circle Drive Business Center Second July 13, 2000 Staff Suqqested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alternation, staff recommends the following findings to Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land Development Manual: 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The knob of a hill is being proposed to cut down to allow to site to be leveled. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. All cut material will be used to fill in the low area of the site. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. All excess material will be used on the site or be moved to the area shown as parkland on the general development plan so no trucks will be hauling from the property. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground water and surface water quality. 5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester. There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for development that is consistent with the land use plan. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed this summer. 8) The grading activity will only take place during the construction of the roadways and buildings pads that are planned for the site. The grading is expected to be completed this summer. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater management will be provided for the development. 11) The areas of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and should not effect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed this summer. The duration seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. I q s�i Page 4 Circle Drive Business Center Second July 13, 2000 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner contract process for this development. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable 2) Not applicable 3) Not applicable - 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable 6) Not applicable 7) Not applicable 8) Not applicable Preliminary Plaf: A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on May 1, 2000 with the following conditions: 1. The plat be revised so as to verify that single unit trucks can make right -turn without crossing the centerline and driving on the pedestrian ramps. 2. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, 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. 3. Prior the submittal of a final plat, issues regarding cost contribution towards needed traffic management improvements, turn lanes and traffic control measures work needs to be worked out. A decision must also be made regarding the timing of these Improvement projects along Valleyhigh Road and 500° Avenue. These decisions will Include a determination of whether an interim upgrade will be constructed or whether programming of the full corridor upgrade should be initiated. This will require the applicant to work with the Olmsted County Engineer, the City Engineer and the Transportation Division of the Planning Department. 4. A temporary turnaround is required at the westerly end of "Ashland Place NW", "Tomah Place NW", "Manroe Drive NW", and "River Falls Drive Drive NW". Easements Page 5 Circle Drive Business Center Second July 13, 2000 for these turnarounds, as well as for any utilities located outside of the plat boundary must be executed with the City prior to be recording of the Final Plat documents. 5. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways and along existing right-of-ways (10' wide bituminous path along Valleyhigh Road NW and West Circle Drive). Pedestrian facilities must be completed by the owner concurrent with development. If it is determined by the City that it is not practical to construct the required pedestrians facilities concurrent with this development, the owner shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City to address the timing and responsibility for the future construction of said facilities. 6. Stormwater management must be provided for this development either through on -site detention or participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Plan. Any facilities serving 50 or less developable acres will remain private and will require execution of long term maintenance agreements and easements. 7. If wetlands are present on the property, prior to the submittal of the final plat, the applicant must submit a wetland delineation and receive the necessary approvals from the LGU. 8. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact on the need for Parkland and that the dedication of land and cash will meet this need. The applicant agrees to grade 8 acres at a slope of 4% or less. The grading and dedication of the 8 acres plus the dedication of the adjacent more steeply sloped area will meet approximately 16 acres of the dedication requirement. 9. Approved access permits will be required from Olmsted County Public Works Department, including additional lanes, turn lanes and traffic signal revisions. A free flow leg will be required in the SW quadrant of Valleyhigh Road and West Circle Drive. 10. The access to West Circle Drive located 950' north of the south property line be limited to a right-in/right-out only. 11, Improved roadway capacity is needed for this development. The City is currently considering the creation of Traffic Improvement Districts to address reconstruction of collector/arterial roadways. The area Included in this subdivision may be included within a TID designated for 50ei Avenue NW, and Valleyhigh Drive in the future. if a TID Is approved, an area charge for the future reconstruction of 50'" Ave. NW may apply to this property. 12. The applicant must obtain RPU Water Division approval in creating fire flows that meet the Fire Prevention Bureau standards for this development. 13. The applicant shall grade the property in a matter that is consistent and compatible with the Valleyhigh Road (CSAH 4) plan profile and cross sections established by the County Engineer. 14. A 30-foot park access must be located in the general vicinity of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and the public street adjacent to the park be constructed at the developers expense. IqVPage 6 Circle Drive Business Center Second July 13, 2000 Final Plat: Planning Staff Recommendation: Per the direction of the City Administration Office, this final plat application was accepted without the applicant having a signed development agreement with the City. If the City Council wishes to proceed with the final plat prior to the execution of a development agreement and the construction plans being approved by the City, staff would suggest the following conditions: 1. The plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and Valleyhigh Road NW, with the exception of the location of Superior Drive NW. Controlled access must also be dedicated along both side of Superior Drive NW a distance 200 feet southerly from the right-of-way of Valleyhigh Road NW. 2. The plat shall be revised to dedicated 80 of right-of-way for Superior Drive NW extending 400 feet south from the right-of-way intersection with Valleyhigh Road NW. 3. A 10 foot pedestrian easement, in addition to the utility easement shown on the plat, be dedicated along the northerly and easterly boundary of the plat. Said easement must be approved by the Public Works Department and recorded by the applicant prior to the recording of the mylars for this plat. The date and document number of the recorded pedestrian easement and the easement shall be included on the final plat documents (mylars). 4. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, a development agreement must be entered executed by the applicant and the City. The development agreement will need to outline the obligations of the owner relating to, but no limited to, stormwater management, parkland dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of- way dedication, and contributions of public infrastructure. 5. Prior to the recording of the final plat documents, the public Improvements construction plans and grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City. Said plans must be submitted to the Planning Department for verification that all of the necessary easements and right-of-ways are dedicated on the final plat documents. This will likely cause the plat to change. 6. The applicant shall obtain an access permit for Superior Drive NW from the Olmsted County Public Works Department prior to construction activity on the property. 7. The additional right-of-way being dedicated for Valleyhigh Road NW be named "Valleyhigh Road NW (CSAH 4)" and dedicated to Olmsted County. Page 7 Circle Drive Business Center Second July 13, 2000 Land Development Manual Excerpts 62.1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stonnwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: f�q ' Page 8 Circle Drive Business Center Second July 13, 2000 patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features - affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for. Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development 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. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. Page 9 Circle Drive Business Center Second July 13, 2000 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146. RO ( iM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507/285-8231 July 10, 2000 Jennifer Garness Planning Department Dear Jennifer: The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase I Final Plat #00-31 to be known as Circle Drive Business Center and has the following comments: • Access control shag be shown on final plat. • 28th St. NW will be a right in/right out. • Concrete right -turn lane will be required from CSAH 22 southbound to 28th St NW. • Right of way shall be dedicated along CSAH 22 for bike trail. Sincerely, Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS: bw tlengindoclplanzone.doc Administration AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste i • ROCHESTER Minnesota 7/12/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur A3 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 #00-32 on the Circle Drive Business Center Second (Note: this property was part of the Preliminary Plat of Badger Ridge) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Prior to recording the Final Plat, and prior to construction of any public improvements, the Owner shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the Owner relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, parkland dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 2. A City — Owner Contract must be executed prior to the development of this property to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 3. As indicated in our comments during review of the Preliminary Plat for this property, controlled access must be shown on the Final Plat along the entire frontage of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22), and Valleyhigh Rd NW (CSAH 4), with the exception of the approved street access. Additional controlled access is required within 200 feet from the ROW intersection of Superior Dr NW, and Valleyhigh Rd NW. 4. The ROW of Superior Dr NW shall be 80 feet in width extending 400 feet south from the ROW intersection with Valleyhigh Rd NW (CSAH 4) Charges and fees applicable to the development of this property will be addressed in the Development Agreement, with the exception of the following: ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 2 Street name Signs 1 Truck Route Sign C:1TE MP\FP#00.32.doc we pledje, we deliver July 6, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase I, Final Plat #00-32 to be known as Circle Drive Business Center Second. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and our comments follow: 20' minimum public utility easements will be required for the planned public water main onsite. We are currently working with the applicant's engineering firm on the layout of this water main. 2. The owner is required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the installation of the public water main, both onsite and within the public streets. 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, n 0444A 1 `'� Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Yaggy Colby Associates Badger Development LLC 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 0 s DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY ADMINISTRATOR L pro DESCRIPTION: Establishment of Development District # 16 and Tax Increment PREPARED By: Financing District # 16-1 for Celestica development site T.SPAETH Over the past several months, the staff has been with Celestica Corporation representatives to facilitate the construction of a 200,000 square feet manufacturing facility within the City of Rochester. As the Council is aware, Celestica recently purchased the electronic card assemby and testing operations from IBM, and is presently operating within the IBM facility. At this time, Celestica is proposing to construct their manufacturing facility on the former Badger farm property, located at the SW corner of West Circle Drive NW (CSAH 22) and Valleyhigh Drive NW (CSAH 4). As part of that process, a Tax Increment Financing District is being proposed to help write down some of the costs related to site improvements. In this particular instance, the staff is proposing that a "redevelopment" tax increment financing district be created upon a portion of the property where the old farmstead buildings are located. The reason for the creation of a "redevelopment" TIF district is that the life of the district maybe longer, and in this instance, additional tax increments may be used to help defray the City's share of the needed roadway improvements to Valleyhigh Drive NW. The proposed "redevelopment" TIF project is consistent with the City's TIF policy in that in this instance it will be used to retain local jobs. Celestica presently employs 500 personnel in manufacturing jobs with wage levels from $8 - $16 / hour, not including benefits. The company's conservative estimates are that at least 75 new jobs will be created in r—'—nction with this project, and optimistic estimates would be considerbaly higher than that. The amount of TIF : ance proposed is $1,354,000 in present value with 8% interest, and a total amount of assistane not to exceed $2,226,000. This TIF district will also help to expand the City's tax base and the amount of assistance per job is approximately $2400 / job, which is under the threshold established within the City's TIF policies, based upon wage levels. Council Action Requested: Adopt resolution approving Development District # 16 and Tax Increment Financing District Plan # 16 1. NCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by. to: TDem-to Development District No. 16 of the City of Rochester, Minnesota Including the Development Program for the Development District "74 *9 Tax Increment Financing District and Plan No. 16-1 July 17, 2000 This document was drafted by: Briggs and Morgan Professional Association (JOM) 2200 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel: (651) 223-6600 Fax: (651) 223-6450 1175515.1 Section I. Development District No. 16 and Its Development Program Section 1.1. Definitions. The terms defined below, for purposes of this Development District and Development Program and for purposes of any Tax Increment Financing Districts and Plans which may be now or hereafter established and approved within the Development District, shall have the following respective meanings, unless the context specifically requires otherwise. The term "development" includes redevelopment, and the term "developing" includes redeveloping. "City" means the City of Rochester, Minnesota. "Council" means the Common Council of the City, its governing body. "Company" means, collectively, Badger Development LLC, Celestica Corporation and/or Celestica's builder/owner/lessor of Celestica's manufacturing facility. "County" means Olmsted County, Minnesota. "County Road Costs" means the costs of widening and making other improvements to County Road No. 4 (Valleyhigh Drive NW) from West Circle Drive NW to 50"' Avenue NW, including all related costs for property acquisition, planning, engineering, signalization, and construction of the necessary road and utility improvements. These improvements are the subject of a written agreement to be executed by the County and the City, and/or correspondence between the City and the County pertaining thereto, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision la. These improvements are currently estimated to cost approximately $2,000,000 in principal amount and are expected to include replacement of the existing two lane road with a four lane road having center lanes for left turn movements and related curb and gutter, storm sewer, bike path and other related improvements. "Development District" means Development District No. 16 of the City established hereby, as the same may be amended. "Development Program" means the Development Program adopted herein for the Development District, as the same may be amended. "Enabling Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134, as the same may be amended or supplemented. "Project" means the acquisition, redevelopment and improvement of the property within the Development District and 1175515.1 1-1 the completion of the approximately 200,000 square foot Celestica Corporation manufacturing facility and all related improvements to be completed within the Development District, and including where applicable the related and necessary public street and utility improvements (including the necessary improvements to County Road No. 4 (Valleyhigh Drive NW) generating the "County Road Costs" described above. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Tax Increment District" means any tax increment financing district established pursuant to the Tax Increment Act now or in the future within the Development District, and as the same may be amended. "Tax Increment Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, as the same may be amended. "Tax Increment Plans" means the respective tax increment financing plans adopted pursuant to the Tax Increment Act for the Tax Increment Districts, respectively, as the same may be amended. "TIF District" and "District" mean Tax Increment Financing District No. 16-1 within the Development District. Section 1.2. Enabling Act• Statutory Authority. Pursuant to the Enabling Act, the City is authorized to exercise municipal development district powers. It is the intention of the City, notwithstanding the enumeration of specific goals and objectives in the Development Program, that the City shall have and enjoy with respect to the Development District the full range of powers and duties conferred upon the City pursuant to the Enabling Act, the Tax Increment Act, and such other legal authority as the City may have or enjoy from time to time. Section 1.3. Statement and Finding of Public Purpose. The City finds that there is a need for development within the City and the Development District to provide employment opportunities, to improve the local tax base, and to improve the general economy of the City and the State. The sound development of the economic security of the people in the City depends upon proper development of marginal and other property, which includes property that meets any one of a number of conditions, including properties whose values are too low to pay for the public services required or rendered and properties whose lack of use or improper use has resulted in stagnant or unproductive land that could otherwise contribute to the public health, safety, and welfare. The City finds that in many cases such property cannot be developed without public participation and assistance in forms 1175515.1 1 - 2 including property acquisition and/or write -down, proper planning, the financing of land assembly in the work of clearance or development, and the making or financing of various other public and private improvements necessary for development. In cases where the development of marginal and other property cannot be done by private enterprise alone, the City believes it to be in the public interest to consider the exercise of its powers, to advance and spend public money, and to provide the means and impetus for such development. The City finds that in certain cases property within the Development District would or may not be available for development without the specific financial aid to be sought, that the Development Program will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Development District by private enterprise, and that the Development Program conforms to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. The City also finds that the welfare of the City and the State requires the active promotion, retention, attraction, encouragement, and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental action for the purpose of preventing the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment. It shall also be the policy of the City to facilitate and encourage such action as may be necessary to prevent the economic deterioration of such areas to the point where the process can be reversed only by total redevelopment. Through the use of the powers conferred on the City pursuant to the Enabling Act, promoting economic development may prevent the occurrence of conditions requiring redevelopment and prevent the emergence of blight, marginal land, and substantial and persistent unemployment. Section 1.4. Statement of Objectives. The City seeks to achieve one or more of the following objectives with respect to such property within the Development District as the City may determine and in such circumstances and upon such terms as the City may deem appropriate or necessary: (a) To promote and secure the prompt development of property within the Development District in a manner consistent with the Land Use Plan for the Rochester Urban Service Area. (b) To secure the prompt development of property in the Development District in order to (i) realize return on presently existing public investment in public utilities, streets, and other infrastructures, (ii) prevent the emergence of blight or blighting factors and (iii) promote retention and expansion of the City's property tax base. 1175515.1 1- 3 (c) To assist such prompt development through the acquisition or write -down of certain interests in property within the Development District which is not now in productive use or in its highest and best use, to make or defray the cost of soil corrections or other site improvements on said property, and to construct or reimburse for the construction of public improvements and other facilities on or for the benefit of said property, thereby promoting and securing the development of other land within the Development District. (d) Through the implementation of this Development Program, to provide an impetus for residential development desirable or necessary to accommodate increased population within the City, including affordable housing. (e) To promote and secure additional employment opportunities within the City, and the diversification thereof, and to prevent the loss of existing employment opportunities, thereby preventing the loss of valuable human resources. (f) To provide funding for an ongoing development strategy and to prioritize the use of available resources. (g) To implement and revise from time to time, as may be deemed necessary or desirable, a consolidated and unified Development Program and to finance the associated development costs on a area -wide basis. (h) To employ any of the powers of the City for the benefit of the Development District in such cases and upon such terms as the City may deem appropriate. (i) To construct or acquire facilities deemed desirable for the development of the Development District. (j) To promote redevelopment of blighted or marginal property. Section 1.5. Boundaries of the Development District. The property within the City which is hereby designated as and which shall initially constitute the Development District is the property shown on Exhibit II-B attached to Section II hereof; said property consists of the TIF District, the remainder of the Celestica Corporation site and the existing and future County Road 4 right-of-way (from West Circle Drive NW to 50'h Avenue NW) wherein the County Road Costs will be incurred. The City finds that the Development District, together with the objectives which the City seeks to accomplish or encourage with respect to such property, constitutes a "development district" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.125, Subdivision 9. 1175515.1 1-4 Section 1.6. Prooerty Acquisition. The City may write down or acquire such property, or appropriate interests therein, within the Development District as the City may deem to be necessary or desirable to assist in the implementation of the Development Program. Section 1.7. Estimated Development Costs. The Development Program shall include the estimated public improvement and development costs described in this Section. These costs are anticipated to be made or incurred within the Development District and financed in whole or in part by tax increment or other available revenues of the City. The total of these development costs is estimated at up to or in excess of 1000 of the tax increment to be generated by the TIF District during its existence. These tax increments are expected to be applied in direct or indirect aid of the development activities described in this Section and in Section 2.5 for such costs as site acquisition, improvement and/or other preparation and development of building facilities, and for the improvements generating the County Road Costs, or applicable portion thereof. The land within the Development District and the TIF District is expected to be developed into an approximately 200,000 square foot manufacturing facility and related improvements for Celestica Corporation (collectively, the "Project"). The budget for the Development Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 16-1 is presently estimated as follows: Celestica Manufacturing Project: within Development District Land Acquisition Site Preparation/Improvement On -site Utilities Parking Interior Streets and Sidewalks County Road Costs Interest on Borrowing for County Road Costs Administrative Expenses Interest on TIF Indebtedness/ Borrowing Relating to Company On -Site Costs Total Development Costs and Maximum Amount of Bonded Indebtedness 1175 515 .1 1-5 $1,800,000 1,887,000 378,000 434,899 196,534 2,000,000 1,150,000 150,000 750,000 $8,746,433 Estimated Portion within TIF District $ 900,000 1,415,250 378,000 66,975 50,000 N/A N/A 150,000 600,000 to 750,000 If bonding is required to finance the applicable portions of the foregoing costs, as is anticipated, the reasonable and customary expenses for that bonding, such as capitalized interest, interest on the debt, bond discount, and fiscal and legal fees, would be added to the estimates listed above. Tax increment bonding and indebtedness may include traditional general obligation or revenue bonding, including interest -bearing "pay-as-you-go" financing, external general obligation bonding and internal, interest -bearing City -financed borrowing. Actual bonding amounts and requirements may vary depending on bond issue structure and then -prevailing interest rates. The City intends to pay from available tax increment such qualifying administrative costs (including allocable City expenses) as may be permitted by but subject to the applicable limitations provided in the Tax Increment Act, which limit currently is 1096 of the total tax increments. The Council hereby finds that the Development Program, as provided pursuant hereto, constitutes a "development program" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.125, Subdivision 3. 1175515.1 1-6 Section II. Tax Increment Financing District and Plan No. 16-1 (Celestica Manufacturing Project) Section 2.1. Statement of Objectives. The objectives which the City seeks to achieve through the implementation of this Tax Increment District (herein sometimes referred to as the "TIF District" or the "District") and Plan are set out in the Development Program for the Development District, as provided in Section I above. Section 2.2. Development Program. The development program which the City seeks to further through the implementation of this TIF District and Plan is the Development Program, as provided in Section I above. Section 2.3. Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 16-1. This TIF District shall consist of the property described in the attached Exhibit II -A. Attached hereto as Exhibit II-B is a map which depicts the Development District and this TIF District, respectively. Section 2.4. Parcels in Acquisition. The City may write down or acquire real property, or interest therein, within this TIF District or elsewhere within the Development District at the time or times as the City may determine to be necessary or desirable to assist or implement development within the Development District or the TIF District. Section 2.5. Development Activity Anticipated for Tax Increment Financing District No. 16-1. The City has, pursuant to a certain resolution adopted by the Council on June 5, 2000, entered into a certain Development Agreement with Badger Development LLC respecting the demolition and removal of the buildings and other improvements in the TIF District. The City also has entered into, or anticipates doing so, a written agreement or other preliminary understanding with the County respecting the County Road Costs. The City anticipates entering . into suitable development agreement(s) with Badger Development LLC, Celestica Corporation and/or M.A. Mortenson or other builder/owner/lessor of Celestica's manufacturing facilities in the TIF District for the completion of the Project, or applicable portion thereof. The City anticipates assisting the Company with its costs associated with the Project. In consideration of the needed development, the City also anticipates contributing assistance of the kind described in Section 1.7 above to defray public development and improvement costs expected to be incurred in assisting the Project. 117s515.1 2 -1 Section 2.6. Estimated Public Improvement Costs. The estimated public improvement costs and the amount of bonded indebtedness (including interest thereon) to be incurred within and for the benefit of the Development District are set forth in the Development Program, including without limitation Section 1.7 above, but shall also include all other public costs provided in the Development Program. General obligation and/or revenue tax increment obligations, with interest in the 5t to 9V range, in addition to the direct use of tax increments, or other borrowing or available funds (including without limitation interest -bearing City short-term or long-term loans, inter -fund transfers (both in and out) and other assistance) may be used as required to finance such costs. Additional sources of revenue derived from the City's activities within the Development District under the Enabling Act may also be used as permitted by law, if available. Section 2.7. Estimated Net Tax Capacity. The City estimates that upon completion of the Project the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District will be $243,340. This estimate is based on estimates that the original net tax capacity of the TIF District will be approximately $3,853 and that the total tax capacity of the TIF District upon completion of the Project will be approximately $247,193 (using the County Assessor's preliminary market value estimates (1) of the current $157,443 limited market value of the property in the TIF District and (2) of the $7,314,500 market value of the completed Project. All tax capacities have been calculated using the applicable class rates of 2.40%- of the first $150,000 of market value and 3.40% of the remainder. Section 2.8. Type of Tax Increment District. This TIF District is, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(a)(1), a "redevelopment district" because the following conditions are met and are reasonably distributed throughout the TIF District: (1) parcels consisting of at least 70% of the area of the TIF District are "built up," that is, occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements; and (2) more than 50t of the buildings are "structurally substandard" (within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10(b)) to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. In excess of 15% of each of the "built up" parcels is covered by one or more of the above -described types of improvements. In fact, the District consists of a portion of a single tax parcel, and the area of the District contains significant building and other improvements. Based on the Council's June 5, 2000, "early removal" resolution and all documentation referenced therein (hereby affirmed and incorporated herein as though set forth in full herein), more than 50t of the buildings within the District are found to be structurally substandard, are not in compliance with applicable building codes, and could not be brought into such compliance at a cost of less than 154 of the cost of constructing new 1175515.1 2 -2 structures of the same size and type on the subject sites, respectively. These findings are based in part upon on -site examination, photographs and written reports substantiating the structurally substandard nature of the buildings. All of the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the TIF District is a redevelopment district under the statute. The supporting data referenced in this Section 2.8 shall be kept on file in the offices of the City and the City and be available to the public throughout the life of the District. Section 2.9. Duration of Tax Increment District. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 1(e), no tax increment will be paid from this TIF District after 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment. Assuming first increment from this TIF District in 2002, the final increment year would be 2027. Section 2.10. Impact on Taxing Jurisdictions. The impact of this TIF District on the affected taxing jurisdictions is reflected in the City's anticipated need to utilize the tax increments generated from this TIF District during the period described in Section 2.9 above for the purposes of financing the public costs referenced in Section 2.6 above, as the same may be amended, following which period the increased assessed valuations will inure to the benefit of such taxing jurisdictions. For the payable 2000 property taxes, the respective tax capacity rates and net tax capacities of these taxing jurisdictions are set out in the following table: Taxing Jurisdiction City of Rochester Olmsted County I.S.D. No. 535 Tax Capacity Rate 30.840t 46.645 60.084 137.569a On the assumption that the estimated of this TIF District would be available to jurisdictions without creation of this TIF of this tax increment financing on the tax taxing jurisdictions is relatively small, on a percentage basis the marginal effect and by comparing the estimated $243,340 of to the foregoing tax capacities of each of respectively. Tax Capacity $60,109,708 81,527,140 70,640,770 captured tax capacity the above taxing District, the impact capacities of those as shown by comparing on tax capacity rates captured tax capacity those jurisdictions, On the alternate assumption, which has been found to be the case, that none of the estimated captured tax capacity would be 1175515.1 2 - 3 available to these taxing jurisdictions without the creation of this TIF District, during the period of this District's existence, there would be no effect on the above tax capacities, but upon the expiration or earlier termination of this TIF District, each taxing jurisdiction's tax capacity would be increased by the captured tax capacity, as it may be adjusted over that time period. section 2.11. Reasonable Expectations. As required by the Tax Increment Act, in establishing this TIF District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. In making this determination, and in making the other determinations required by the Tax Increment Act or the Enabling Act, reliance has been placed upon representations of the Company (including its application to the City for tax increment financing assistance) and upon various written reports, studies, and analyses prepared by City staff or consultants (which reports are hereby incorporated herein to the same extent as though set forth in full herein) and on the expense of developing the subject property without public assistance and the perceived unlikelihood of the Company locating this Project in the City without the assistance. Section 2.12. Certain Limitations. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 4j, at least 90, of the Lax increment from this District must be used to finance the cost of correcting the types of conditions that allow designation of redevelopment and renewal and renovation tax increment districts under Section 469.174 of the Tax Increment Act, including without limitation the following activities or uses described in said Subdivision 4j: acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements, acquiring adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition of structures, clearing of the land, installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site, and allocated administrative expenses. The City also acknowledges that this District is subject to the limitations provided in Section 469.1763 ("Restrictions on Pooling; Five -Year Limit"), which generally require that at least 750 of the tax increment from the District be spent on "activi- ties" within the District; that such eligible expenditures may be in the form of direct payment, payment on certain bonds, or payment on development agreements or similar contracts; that the activity must have been completed and paid for or the agreements entered into or the bonds issued prior to five years after the certification of the District, that beginning with the sixth year after certification at least 750s of the increment that remains after paying such eligible expenses must be used to pay or to 1175515.1 2 - 4 reserve for payment and defeasance on any such outstanding bonds or contractual obligations; and when all of said bonds or contractual obligations have been paid (or sufficient funds have been reserved to discharge or defease the same), the District shall be decertified. Pursuant to applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2(a), and 469.176, Subdivision 4h(b), the increment from the District used to pay County Road Costs may (and shall be) deducted first before calculating the percentages required to be expended within (75t) the District and permitted to be expended outside of (maximum of 251r) the District. In addition, and as indicated in the map published in connection with advertising the initial Council public hearing on this District, tax increments from this District are intended for such uses within the Development District. Section 2.13. Qualifying Local Contribution or LGA/HACA Reduction. With respect to this TIF District, a 5% "qualifying local contribution" will be made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, Subdivision 6(d)(1)(B), and therefore no LGA/HACA "penalty" or reduction applies. The qualifying local contribution respecting this TIF District is expected to be in the form of County and/or City payment of County Road Costs or other costs of the Development Program. Section 2.14. Tax Increment Accounts. Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 5, requiring that "tax increment received with respect to any district shall be segregated by the authority in a special account or accounts on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution of the authority to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the bonds," the City will account for all increment from the TIF District in one or more City accounts and subaccounts, including the ability where deemed appropriate to establish one or more accounts for the proper accounting and implementation of the TIF District and the portion of the Project to be financed directly or indirectly with tax increment. The right to make appropriate transfers in and out of such accounts is hereby reserved, along with the right to make both external and internal interest -bearing borrowings, whether long term or short term, including transfers from other City funds to cash flow tax increment obligations and other legitimate expenditures. 1175515.1 2-5 EXHIBIT II -A Tax Increment Financing District No. 16-1 of the City of Rochester, Minnesota This Tax Increment District consists of (1) the not more than 15.94 acres of the approximately 116.71 acre Olmsted County Tax Parcel No. CT 30 020804 (Cascade Township - this property has recently been annexed to the City) and (2) the present and future right-of-way of Count Road No. 4 (Valleyhigh Drive NW) from West Circle Drive NW to 50h Avenue NW, wherein county road improvements necessitated by the Project will be installed. The Tax Increment District is depicted (along with the larger Development District) on the map attached hereto as Exhibit II-B. The property comprising this TIF District is described as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northwest comer of the Southeast Quarter; thence easterly on a Minnesota State Plane Grid Azimuth from north of 87 degrees 31 minutes 25 seconds along the north line of said Southeast Quarter 11.08 feet; thence southerly 180 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds azimuth 58.14 feet to the point of beginning; thence easterly 267.10 feet on a nontangential curve concave southerly, having a radius of 9,449.30 feet, a central angle of 01 degrees 37 minutes 10 seconds, and a chord azimuth of 88 degrees 44 minutes 14 seconds; thence easterly 89 degrees 32 minutes 49 seconds azimuth 750.17 feet; thence southeasterly 133 degrees 52 minutes 12 seconds 194.90 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of County State Aid Highway No. 22, according to Olmsted County Highway Right -Of -Way Plat No. 79; thence southerly 499.79 feet along said westerly right-of-way line on a nontangential curve concave easterly, having a radius of 3537.75 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 05 minutes 39 seconds azimuth, and a chord azimuth of 174 degrees 07 minutes 28 seconds; thence westerly 270 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds azimuth 628.80 feet; thence northerly 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds azimuth 60.00 feet; thence westerly 270 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds azimuth 580.00 feet; thence northerly 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds 560.00 feet to the point of beginning. Said tract contains 15.90 acres more or less. This property is proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Circle Drive Business Center Second Subdivision. 1175515.1 EXHIBIT II-B Development District No. 16 of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and Tax Increment Financing District No. 16-1 therein. 1175515.1 EXHIBIT II-C Summary of Estimated Fiscal and Economic Implications of Tax Increment Financing District No. 16-1 of the City of Rochester, Minnesota 1. Current Market Value/Estimated Original Net Tax Capacity: $157,443/$3,853 2. Market Value/Tax Capacity Upon Completion: $7,314,500/$247,193 3. Captured Tax Capacity: $243,340 4. Estimated Original Local Tax Rate: 137.569% (Pay 2000) 5. Estimated Annual Increment: $334,760 6. Number of Increment Years: 26 (Payable 2002 through 2027 Assumed) 7. Estimated Total Increment (5 x 6): $8,703,760 8. Re -use of Redevelopment Property: 200,000 square foot Celestica Corporation contract manufacturing facilities 9. Total Development Program/TIF Plan Budget: $8,746,433 1175515.1 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA TAX INCREMENT FINANCING APPLICATION June 30, 2000 APPLICANT INFORMATION a. Business Name: Celestica Corporation Business Address: 3054 371h Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 b. Business Form: Corporation c. Parent Organization: None d. Authorized Representative: David H. Hofeling, Rochester, MN. e. Names and Addresses of Major Stockholders or Principals: Onex Corporation 161 Bay Street PO Box 700 Toronto, Ontario, Canada BUSINESS DESCRIPTION Celestica was established in 1917 as the manufacturing arm of IBM Canada, and gained its independence in 1994, as a wholly -owned subsidiary of IBM Canada. In 1996, Celestica management and Onex acquired the company from IBM. Celestica provides electronics manufacturing services for Original Equipment Manufacturers such as Cisco Systems Inc., Dell, EMC, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, ICL, Madge Networks, Sequent Computer Systems, Silicone Graphics, Sun Microsystems, and Xerox. Services include design, prototyping and new product introduction, printed circuit assembly, test, full -systems assembly, product assurance, packaging and global distribution, and after -sales support. BUSINESS PROFILE a. A Celestica facility is located in the City of Rochester at this time. b. Number of employees before proposed project (500); number of employees after proposed project (+75). c. Approximate annual sales: World-wide (corporate -wide): $5.3 billion d. Length of time in business: 83 years. e. Celestica operates 32 manufacturing and design facilities in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Thailand, Hong Kong, China. Malaysia and Brazil. f. Celestica is engaged in international trade. FINANCIAL HISTORY / REFERENCES a. Celestica's facility will be developed by: Celestica's facility will be owned by: M.A. Mortenson Company 700 Meadow Lane North Minneapolis, MN 55422 W.P. Carey & Co. 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10020 b. c. d. None of the principals in the project have ever filed for bankruptcy or defaulted on a loan commitment. None of the principals are currently delinquent on property taxes for property in the City of Rochester. e. Financial Reference: Mr. Paul Phillips Director, Scotial Capital, Inc. 44 King Street West, 16`h Floor Tornoto, Ontario, Canada M5I-I 1 H 1 (416)913-1872 DEVELOPMENT TEAM INFORMATION a. Architectural /Engineering: Paul Holmes, Vice President Pope Associates 1255 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN 55108 (651)642-9200 b. Financial: Benjamin P. Harris, Second Vice President W. P. Carey & Co. 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10020 (212)492-8916 c. Market Feasibility: David Myers, Account Director, Corporate Services Colliers International 185 The West Mall Toronto, Ontario. Canada M9C 5L5 (416) 626-1700 ext. 558 d. Legal: Daron Arnold Holme, Roberts, & Owen 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100 Denver, Colorado 80203-4541 (303)866-0366 INFORMATION CONCERNING APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT (provide attachments with information on the following): a. The proposed project is for the construction of a 200,000 square foot electronics manufacturing facility on approximately 30 acres of land. The site will allow for 100,000 square feet of expansion to accommodate manufacturing for future customers. The site will be occupied exclusively by Celestica. b. The total project cost (including land) is approximately $24,500,000. c. The amount of public assistance being requested is $2,200,000 for the purpose of land purchase, public improvement, and relocation. d. Preliminary economic analysis shows current taxes in the amount of (5231) annually and estimated future taxes (with land developed by Celestica) at $247,100 annually. e. Pro forma analysis of the project: shown in previously submitted Request for Proposal f. Market feasibility analysis: shown in previously submitted Request for Proposal g. Site information: site plan attached h. Planning and zoning analysis: Property zoned appropriately as M-1. i. Schedule: Estimated project start date is September 1, 2000; estimated completion date is September 1, 2001. INFORMATION CONCERNING THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE a. Public assistance is needed to "level the playing field" between Rochester and sites outside of Rochester and Olmsted County. Available sites in Rochester cost $20,000 - $60,000 per acre while viable sites within 15 miles of Rochester are as low as $12,000 per acre. Property tax rates in Rochester/Olmsted are higher than those of Pine Island/Goodhue. Pine Island has offered Tar Increment Financing and low -interest long-term loans to locate in their area. b. Celestica will locate its new plant where it is more financially advantageous. c. The public purpose served by a Rochester TIF is both job retention and creation of new jobs. Celestica employs 500 personnel in manufacturing jobs with hourly wages of $8 - $16. Many use public transportation to and from the plant (located on the IBM campus). We expect many will not want the expense of a round trip to Pine Island, and will choose to seek other employment or relocate out of Olmsted County. Celestica's planned 100,000 square foot expansion will yield 75 new jobs in the same salary range. If Celestica builds in Rochester, most of the 75 newjobs will be filled by people living in Rochester. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0i DATE: 7/17/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations: CITY ADMINISTRATOR F- I DESCRIPTION: Development Assistance Agreement for Celestica Tax Increment PREPARED BY: Financing Project T.SPAETH A Development Assistance Agreement between the City of Rochester and CEL (MN) QRS 14 — 40, hic. has been prepared, wherein the City will provide tax increment financing assistance to the Corporation to facilitate the construction of a 200,000 square feet manufacturing facility to be occupied by Celestica Corporation for electronic component manufacturing. The following are the key provisions of the proposed Development Agreement between the City and CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, Inc. Responsibilities of the Developer -Facility Construction / Value: The developer is responsible for the construction of a 200,000 square feet manufacturing facility for Celestica Corporation, and shall have substantially completed the improvements by December 31, 2001. The estimated value of the improvements on the property is approximately $24.5 mullion. Responsibilities of the Developer -Provision for job retention and ceation: The Development Agreement stipulates that Celestica must maintain the existing 500 FTE jobs, and in addition, create an additional 60 FTE positions by January 1, 2005. The Agreement also stipulates a repayment provision if job levels drop below projected levels. Responsibilities of the City -Tax Increment Assistance: The City agrees to provide tax increment assistance to defray a portion of the up front site development costs. The City will provide assistance to the developer in the form of actual tax increments received minus eligible City administrative expenses such that Celestica will receive available tax increments of $1,354,000 in principal and the total of all amounts payable including principal and interest not to exceed $2,226,000. In this case, the City is also proposing to utilize several additional years of tax increment revenues to help offse road improvements to Valleyhigh Drive NW (CSAH 4), which are necessary for this project to proceed. This approach is commonly known as a "pay as you go" tax increment assistance agreement. The City is not bonding or funding the costs when they are incurred, but is providing the developer a repayment of a portion of the site improvements. The assistance repayments are made over the term of the agreement with the actual tax increments received. The City assistance to the developer is secured by a City Tax Increment Revenue Note in which the City commits to provide the agreed upon assistance, but only with the tax increment revenues which are actually received. If the increments are less than anticipated, then the assistance provided to the developer is less. If the increments are in excess of the amounts estimated, then the assistance to the developer remains capped at the amount described above. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt prepared resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a Development Assistance Agreement with CEL (MIS QRS 14 — 40, INC. I NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT By and Between THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Q CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, INC. This document drafted by: 1186402.2 7/12/00 Draft BRIGGS AND MORGAN (SOM) Professional Association 2200 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel: (651) 223-6600 Fax: (651) 223-6450 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I - Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 1.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ARTICLE II - Representations, Warranties and Covenants . . . . 4 Section 2.1. Representations, Warranties and Covenants by the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Section 2.2. Representations, Warranties and Covenants by the Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ARTICLE III - Completion of Improvements; Reimbursement of Certain Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Section 3.1. Completion of Improvements by the Company 6 Section 3.2. Reimbursement by City of Certain Costs . 6 Section 3.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants . . . 8 Section 3.4. Certificate of Completion . . . . . . . . . 9 Section 3.5 Job Covenants; Possible Repayment of Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ARTICLE IV - Events of Default . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined . . . . . . . . 12 Section 4.2. Remedies on Default . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Section 4.3. No Remedy Exclusive . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Section 4.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 ARTICLE V - Additional Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Section 5.1. Titles of Articles and Sections . . . . . 14 Section 5.2. Notices and Demands . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Section 5.3. Counterparts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Section 5.4. Law Governing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 ARTICLE VI - Section Section Section Section Section Termination of Agreement; Expiration; Limitation on Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. The City's Option to Terminate . . . . 6.2. Expiration . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Effect of Termination or Expiration . 6.4. No Third Party Beneficiaries . . . . . 6.5 Limitations on Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement . . . . . . . EXHIBIT A - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY . EXHIBIT B - FORM OF TIF BOND EXHIBIT C - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 1186402.2 15 15 15 15 15 ig� A-1 B-1 C-1 DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of July 17, 2000; is by and between the City of Rochester, Minnesota and CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and provides as follows: ARTICLE I Definitions Section 1.1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the following terms have the following respective meanings: "Administrative Expenses" means "administrative expenses," as defined in Section 469.174, Subdivision 14, of the TIF Act, at any time actually incurred by the City with respect to the TIF District, subject to the 10i statutory maximum provided in Section 469.176, Subdivision 3, of the TIF Act. "Agreement" means this Development Assistance Agreement, as the same may be amended. "Celestica" means Celestica Corporation, a Delaware corporation. "Celestica Lease" means that certain Lease Agreement (together with any amendments, supplements or successors thereto) pursuant to which the Company, as lessor thereunder, inter alia, leases the Project to Celestica, as lessee thereunder, for Celestica's occupancy and use in its contract manufacturing operations. "City" means the City of Rochester, Minnesota. "Company" means CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, Inc., a Delaware corporation, or permitted successors or assigns. "Development Costs" means the Company's allocable costs of acquiring the Development Property (and no other property) and its costs of installing on -site utilities, drives, sidewalks and parking facilities for the Improvements on the Development Property, as further specified in and limited by Section 3.2(b). All Development Costs must be costs of such property acquisition or of such improvements to (and within) the Development Property. "Development Property" means the real property described in Exhibit A of this Agreement, being the property comprising the TIF District, as originally established. "Event of Default" means an event of default defined in Section 4.1 of this Agreement. 1186402.2 1 "Improvements" means the approximately 200,000 square foot manufacturing facility to be constructed by the Company on the Development Property, including all utility, site improvement, parking and related improvements on the Development Property. ,,Part , means either the Company or the City. "Parties" means the Company and the City. "Project" means the Development Property and the Improvements. "Tax Increments" means those tax increments generated by the Project which the City shall be entitled to receive and retain, and which the City shall have actually received, from Olmsted County from time to time from the TIF District pursuant to the TIF Act; provided that the term "Tax Increments" shall specifically not include any amounts of tax increment generated by the TIF District which pursuant to the applicable terms of the TIF Act (as it may exist or be amended from time to time) may be required to be paid to or reserved for the State of Minnesota, Olmsted County, or any other entity or official; and "Available Tax Increments" means, as further defined in Section 3.2, the portion of the Tax Increments which shall be available to pay the City's obligations under the TIF Bond. "Term" means the period heginning on the date of this Agreement and ending (1) on the date, if any, on which the City shall have paid all amounts payable on the TIF Note, (2) December 31 of the year which is 25 years after the year in which the City first receives Tax Increments from the TIF District, or (3) on such date (if any) as the City shall have terminated this Agreement pursuant to its terms, whichever shall occur earliest. "TIF Act" means the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, that is, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, as the same may be amended or supplemented. "TIF Bond" means the tax increment revenue bond of the City in the form of the attached Exhibit B, as further described in Section 3.2. "TIF District" means the City's Tax Increment Financing District No. 16-1 within its Development District No. 16, as the same may be amended. "TIF Plan" means the tax increment financing plan for the TIF District, as provided in that certain City document entitled in part "Development District No. 16 of the City of Rochester, Minnesota," dated July 17, 2000, as the same may be amended. "Unavoidable Delays" means any delay outside the control of the Party claiming its occurrence which is the direct result of 11e64o2.2 2 strikes, other labor troubles, unusually severe or prolonged bad weather, unavailability of materials, Acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Improvements, litigation (including without limitation bankruptcy proceedings) and which directly results in delays; or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit which directly result in delays. 1186402.2 ARTICLE II Representations Warranties and Covenants Section 2.1. Representations warranties and Covenants by the City. The City represents and warrants that it is authorized to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. Section 2.2. Representations Warranties and Covenants by the Company. The Company represents and warrants that: (a) The Company is a corporation duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Delaware, is authorized to conduct its business activities in the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational documents or the laws of the State of Minnesota or the State of Delaware and is authorized to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement. (b) The execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement are not prevented or limited by and will not conflict with or result in a breach of any provision or requirement applicable to the Company or of any provision of any evidence of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Company is now a party or by which it is bound. (c) The Company, with respect to its construction, operation and maintenance of the Improvements upon the Development Property, will cause the same to occur in accordance with this Agreement and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including without limitation environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations). (d) The Company has received no notice or communication from any local, state or federal official or body that any activities of the Company respecting the Development Property contemplated by this Agreement, including the construction of the Improvements on the Development Property, may be or will be in violation of any law or regulation. (e) The Company will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and approvals, and to meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Improvements may be lawfully constructed and completed. 1186402.2 4 (f) To the best knowledge and belief of the Company, the construction of the Improvements on the Development Property within the reasonably foreseeable future is conditioned on the assistance and benefit provided for in this Agreement. It is also the belief of the Company that the level and expected duration of the cash flow assistance to be provided pursuant to the TIF Bond are essential in order to make feasible the financing and initial operation of the Improvements due to the fact that Celestica has indicated to the Company that it would not enter into the Celestica Lease without such assistance, and absent the Celestica Lease, the Company would definitely not proceed with the Project. (g) The Company represents that it expects to enter into or receive an assignment of an option agreement pursuant to which the Company will have the right to purchase the Development Property and that said agreement will be contingent upon the receipt of tax increment assistance for the Project. (h) For purposes of establishing that the assistance under this Agreement qualifies as an exception to a business subsidy, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.993, Subdivision 3(17), the Parties make the following representations, respectively: (i) It is acknowledged that said statute provides an exception to the definition of a business subsidy for "redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value." (ii) The Parties acknowledge that the TIF District is a "redevelopment" tax increment financing district for the reasons specified or referenced in Section 2.8 of the TIF Plan. (iii) The City represents that the assessor has established an allocable market value of the Development Property of $157,443 as of January 2, 2000. (iv) 70 percent of $157,443 is $110,210. (v) The Company represents that the total of its allocable costs of acquiring the Development Property and in making the necessary site improvements thereon (grading/soil work, on -site utilities, parking, sidewalks, roads, landscaping and other site costs) will substantially exceed $2,500,000 and that therefore the Company's total out-of-pocket costs for said expenditures, net of the maximum $1,354,000 principal amount of assistance under this Agreement, will significantly exceed $110,210. 1186402.2 5 ARTICLE III Section 3.1. Completion of Improvements by the Companv. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Company shall have substantially completed the Improvements by December 31, 2001, Section 3.2. Reimbursement by City of Certain Costs. The Company hereby represents to the City that the Company will incur and pay significant Development Costs. The City hereby agrees to defray up to $1,354,000 of the Development Costs by issuing the TIF Bond to the Company (or to its designee), as registered owner thereof, substantially in the form of Exhibit B to this Agreement, the issuance of which TIF Bond is hereby authorized and approved. The TIF Bond and all potential payments thereon shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations: (a) The TIF Bond shall be dated, issued and delivered on or as soon as practicable following the date of execution and delivery of this Agreement, provided no Event of Default shall have occurred and be at the time continuing. (b) As conditions to such reimbursement of Development Costs pursuant to the TIF Bond, the Company shall have completed the Improvements and shall have submitted (from time to time) such written proofs and other documentation as may be reasonably satisfactory to the City of the exact nature and amount of the particular Development Costs for which the Company is seeking reimbursement, together with such other information and documentation necessary to enable the City to substantiate its tax increment expenditures and/or to comply with its tax increment reporting obligations to the State Commissioner of Revenue, the Office of the State Auditor or other applicable official. The documentation shall include proofs of the allocable cost of acquiring the Development Property and specific invoices for the particular work from the contractor or other provider and shall include paid invoices, copies of remittances and/or other suitable documentary proofs of the Company's payment thereof, and, if particular eligible costs relate to the improvement of other real property, in addition to the Development Property, e.g., grading costs, the documentation shall include the contractor's allocation of the precise amount of cost relating to those improvements occurring only on and/or within the Development Property. The maximum aggregate principal amount of Development Costs which may be added to the TIF Bond is $1,354,000, and line items of Development Costs may not exceed $900,000 for land acquisition, $378,000 for on -site utilities, $66,975 for 1186402.2 6 parking and $1,354,000 for other eligible site preparation/improvement. (c) Subject to the provisions thereof, the TIF Bond shall be payable on each February 1 and August 1 during the Term, commencing August 1, 2002 (the "Payment Dates"), in the respective amount or amounts described in this subsection. The sole source of funds available for payment of the City's obligations under this Section and correspondingly under the TIF Bond shall be.the Available Tax Increments, hereby defined to be, for each calendar year, the first $250,000 of Tax Increments respecting taxes payable in that year, provided that the City may deduct from the Tax Increments its then - unpaid Administrative Expenses, including without limitation the City's costs of establishing, implementing and administering the TIF District, but the City shall do so, first, from the annual Tax Increments which are in excess of $250,000, and second, but only to the extent said excess is insufficient for such purpose, from the remainder of the total Tax Increments received for such year (thereby reducing the Available Tax Increments applicable to the TIF Bond). The principal amount of the TIF Bond shall be the lesser of $1, 354, 000 and the sum of the amounts certified by the Company and accepted by the City pursuant to Section 3.2(b). All payments made on the TIF Bond shall be applied first to accrued and unpaid interest thereon and second toward payment of the principal thereof. The maximum aggregate amount payable on the TIF Bond shall be $2,226,000. All amounts of Tax Increments which are not Available Tax Increments are not subject to this Agreement, and the City retains full discretion as to any authorized application thereof, regard- less of whether the Available Tax Increments are sufficient to reimburse the Company in full for the above -described costs. To the extent that the Available Tax Increments are insufficient, through the final Payment Date, to pay all amounts otherwise due on the TIF Bond, said unpaid amounts shall then cease to be any debt or obligation of the City whatsoever. (d) The unpaid principal of the TIF Bond shall bear simple, non -compounded interest at s.00% per annum from the date of execution of the Certificate of Completion. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of 12 months of 30 days each. (e) The City shall not endeavor to issue the TIF Bond so that the interest thereon shall be exempt from federal or State income taxation, and the Parties accordingly anticipate that the TIF Bond will be a "taxable" obligation. 1186402.2 (f) The TIF Bond shall be a special and limited revenue obligation of the City and not a general or moral obligation of the City, and only Available Tax Increments shall be used to pay the amounts due on the TIF Bond. (g) The City's obligation to make payments on the TIF Bond shall be conditioned upon the requirement that there shall not at the time have occurred and be continuing an Event of Default; provided, however, that (unless the City shall have terminated this Agreement) if such Event of Default shall subsequently have been cured to the reasonable satisfaction of the City, such unpaid obligations shall thereupon be reinstated and thereby become due and payable. (h) The TIF Bond shall be governed by and payable pursuant to the additional terms thereof, as set forth in Exhibit B. (i) Following any termination of this Agreement by the City pursuant to Section 4.2 hereof, no further or unpaid amounts of the TIF Bond shall then or thereafter be due and payable by the City under this Section or the TIF Bond but shall thereupon be extinguished. (j) As of each Payment Date, the Celestica Lease shall have been executed, delivered and in effect, and Celestica shall then be continuing to occupy the Project and to use it in its contract manufacturing operations. Section 3.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) The Company releases from and covenants and agrees that the City and the governing body members, officers, agents, including its independent contractors, consultants and legal counsel, servants and employees thereof (hereinafter, for purposes of this Section, collectively the "Indemnified Parties") shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at, about or in connection with the Improvements, or the Company's undertaking and completion thereof, or resulting from any defect therein, except to the extent such loss, damage or death is caused by the negligence or other wrongful acts of the Indemnified Parties. (b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties, the Company agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this Agreement, 1186402.2 8 or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, and operation of the Improvements, provided, that this indemnification shall not apply to the warranties made or obligations undertaken by the City in this Agreement. (c) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City and not of any governing body member, officer, agent or employee of the City. (d) This Agreement shall not create nor be construed to create any partnership, joint venture, agency, or employment relationship between the Parties. Section 3.4. Certificate of Comoletion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Improvements in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, and upon written request made to the City by the Company, the City will execute the Certificate of Completion in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, which shall then be a conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of the agreements and covenants in this Agreement with respect to the completion of the Improvements. The following shall be conditions precedent to the City's obligation to execute the Certificate of Completion: (i) There shall exist no Event of Default hereunder, and the Improvements shall have been completed in substantial conformity to the terms of this Agreement; and (ii) The City shall have issued a Certificate of Occupancy for all of the Improvements. (b) If the City determines that it cannot execute the Certificate of Completion, it shall, within 20 days after written request therefor, provide a written statement indicating in adequate detail why it cannot do so and also indicating what measures or acts it will be necessary to be taken or performed in order to permit execution of the Certificate of Completion. Section 3.5. Job Covenants• Possible Repayment of Assistance. The Company hereby agrees that throughout the Term, as conditions to its receipt of assistance hereunder: (a) Celestica least 500 full-time years 2002, 2003 shall have equivalent and 2004 1186402.2 9 maintained at the Project at jobs in each of the calendar and at least 560 fill -time equivalent jobs in 2005 and each subsequent calendar year (collectively, the "Jobs"). (b) The determination of whether the Jobs have been maintained shall be made on an annualized weighted average basis. By January 31, 2003, and each January 31 thereafter throughout the Term, the Company shall file (or cause Celestica to file) a written report with the City which calculates and certifies the employment levels for the prior calendar year, together with sufficient data supporting those determinations. The Company shall (or shall cause Celestica to) supply such additional information as the City may reasonably request to substantiate or verify those determinations. (c) For each calendar year in which the number of Jobs is more than 448 but less than 500, said shortfall shall not constitute an Event of Default hereunder, but the Company shall repay to the City an amount equal to A multiplied by B, where A equals 500 minus the number of Jobs actually maintained and B equals 1.923% of the assistance provided to the Company in that year pursuant to Section 3.2 and the TIF Bond. This Section 3.5(c) applies to the calendar years 2002, 2003 and 2004. (d) For each calendar year in which the number of Jobs is more than 448 but less than 560, said shortfall shall not constitute an Event of Default hereunder, but the Company shall repay to the City an amount equal to A multiplied by B, where A equals 560 minus the number of Jobs actually maintained and B equals 0.893% of the assistance provided to the Company in that year pursuant to Section 3.2 and the TIF Bond. This Section 3.5(d) applies to calendar year 2005 and each subsequent calendar year. (e) If, in any single calendar year, the number of Jobs is 448 or less, said shortfall shall not constitute an Event of Default hereunder, but the Company shall repay to the City all of the assistance provided to the Company in that year pursuant to Section 3.2 and the TIF Bond. If the number of jobs is 448 or less in each year of any period of three consecutive calendar years, then an Event of Default shall arise hereunder, and the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and to require the Company to repay to the City all of the assistance which the City provided throughout the Term pursuant to Section 3.2 and the TIF Bond and which has not theretofore been repaid by the Company. Any such repayments which the City shall require the Company to make shall be made promptly upon written demand by the City. As described in Section 2.2(h), the assistance under this Agreement and the TIF Bond is not a "business subsidy" under 1186402.2 10 Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995, and the obligations under this Section 3.5 are imposed by the City in its own discretion and not under or subject to the requirements of said statutes. 1186402.2 11 ARTICLE IV Events of Default Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined. The following are Events of Default under this Agreement: (a) There shall have occurred a failure in the observance, performance or continued existence, as the case may be, of any covenant, condition, obligation or agreement to be observed or performed or to exist under this Agreement or any other agreement between the Parties respecting the Improvements, including without limitation the failure to exist of any condition or requirement herein relating to Celestica's occupancy, use and maintenance of specified employment levels of or respecting the Project. (b) There shall have occurred a failure in payment, when due, of any property tax, special assessment, or other governmental imposition respecting the Development Property, subject to statutory or other legal rights to contest or defer payment of the same. (c) There shall have been filed a petition in bankruptcy by or against the Company or Celestica under the United States Bankruptcy Code; or there shall occur a failure by the Company or Celestica within 90 days to have discharged any execution, garnishment or attachment of such consequence as would impair the ability of the Company or Celestica to carry on its operations respecting the Improvements; or there shall occur an assignment by the Company or Celestica for the benefit of creditors or the entry by the Company or Celestica into an agreement of composition with creditors. (d) The Celestica Lease shall have expired or been terminated and Celestica shall have ceased its occupancy or operation of the Project. (e) The Event of Default described in Section 3.5 shall have occurred. An Event of Default shall also include any occurrence which would with the passage of time or giving of notice become an Event of Default as defined hereinabove. Section 4.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, in addition to all other remedies specified herein or available to the City at law or in equity, the City (1) may without notice suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances from the Company, deemed adequate by the City, that the Company has cured its default and will continue its performance under this Agreement, and (2) may, after provision of 1186402.2 12 60 days written notice to the Company of the Event of Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured within said 60 days, or if the Event of Default cannot be cured within 60 days, the Company does not provide assurances to the City reasonably satisfactory to the City that the Event of Default will be cured as soon as reasonably possible, terminate this Agreement, without further obligation whatsoever hereunder to the Company. Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, the Company shall reimburse the City for all expenses and liabilities resulting therefrom, including without limitation all reasonable attorney or consultant fees. Section 4.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the either Party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. Section 4.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. If any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either Party and thereafter waived by the other Party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. 1186402.2 13 ARTICLE V Additional Provisions Section 5.1. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles and Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of the provisions hereof. Section 5.2. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand or other communication under the Agreement by either Party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, or delivered personally or telecopied; and, (a) in the case of the Company, to CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, Inc., c/o W.P. Carey Co., Inc., 50 Rockefeller Plaza, 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10020, Attention: President, with a copy to Celestica Corporation, 844 Don Mills Road, North York, Ontario M3C 1V7, Attention: Real Estate Division; and (b) in the case of the City, to the City of Rochester, Minnesota, at the Rochester City Hall, 201 4t° Street SE, Rochester, Minnesota 55904-3742, Attention: Administration. or at such other address with respect to either such Party as that Party may, from time to time, designate in writing and forward to the other as provided in this Section. Section 5.3. Counteroarts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original hereof. Section 5.4. Law Governing. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 1186402.2 14 ARTICLE VI Section 6.1. The City's Option to Terminate. As provided and under the conditions specified in Section 4.2, the City may terminate this Agreement if an Event of Default shall have occurred hereunder and be continuing. Nothing in that or in this Section shall affect the City's right, should the City not so elect to terminate this Agreement and as recourse against the Company, to insist on performance hereunder by the Company. Section 6.2. Expiration. This Agreement shall expire at the end of the Term. Section 6.3. Effect of Termination or Expiration. No termination or expiration of this Agreement pursuant to the terms hereof shall terminate (i) any rights or remedies of the City arising hereunder due to an Event of Default occurring prior to such termination or expiration or (ii) the provisions of Section 3.3 hereof. Section 6.4. No Third Party Beneficiaries. There shall, as against the City, be no third party beneficiaries to this Agreement. More specifically, the City enters into this Agreement, and intends that the consummation of the City obligations contemplated hereby shall be, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Company, and notwithstanding the fact that any other "persons" may ultimately participate in or have an interest in the Improvements, the City does not intend that any party other than the Company shall have, as alleged third party beneficiary or otherwise, any rights or interests hereunder as against the City, and no such other party shall have standing to complain of the City's exercise of, or alleged failure to exercise, its rights and obligations, or of the City's performance or alleged lack thereof, under this Agreement. Specifically but without limitation, Celestica shall not be a third party beneficiary of this Agreement. Section 6.5. Limitations on Transrer or rropercy gnu Assignment of Agreement. The Company covenants and agrees that prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement, except only by way of security for the purpose of obtaining financing necessary to enable the Company to acquire the Development Property and complete the Improvements (and any future expansion of the Company's operations on the Development Property), the Company (except as so authorized) has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease (excepting the Celestica Lease), or any trust or power, or any transfer in any other mode or form, of or with respect to this Agreement or the Project or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any 1186402.2 15 contract or agreement to do any of the same, without the prior written approval of the City (which approval the City may withhold in its sole discretion). The City shall be entitled to require, except as otherwise provided in the Agreement, as conditions to any such approval that: (a) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the City, necessary and adequate to fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Company. (b) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the City, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of the City, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Company under this Agreement and agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Company and the Project are subject (including the Celestica Lease) unless the Company agrees to continue to fulfill those obligations, in which case the preceding provisions of this Section 6.5(b) shall not apply. The City may also require the transferor Company to join in such agreements to the extent deemed reasonably necessary by the City in order to clarify the respective rights and obligations, or absence thereof, of the transferor, the transferee and/or the City, as the case may be. (c) There shall be submitted to the City for prior review all instruments and other legal documents proposed to be executed in effecting the transfer of any such interest in this Agreement or the Project. A sale of the Project and/or assignment of this Agreement to Celestica shall not be prohibited by this Section 6.5 and shall not be subject to discretionary approval by the City, provided the conditions in (b) and (c) above are observed and satisfied. A sale of the Project and/or assignment of this Agreement to a party other than Celestica shall also not be prohibited by this Section 6.5 and shall not be subject to discretionary approval by the City, provided the conditions in (b) and (c) above are observed and satisfied, and provided further that the Certificate of Completion shall have been issued hereunder. 1186402.2 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Company have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA UN Its Mayor By Its City Clerk (SEAL) [Execution of this Development Assistance Agreement by CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, Inc., appears on the following page.] 1186402.2 17 CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, INC., a Delaware Corporation 0 Its [Execution Page to Development Assistance Agreement between the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and the above -named Party.] 1186402.2 18 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY The Development Property consists of the following property located in the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota: Lot 1, Block 1, Circle Drive Business Center Second Subdivision, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Olmsted County Recorder's Office. 1186402.2 A- 1 No. R-1 EXHIBIT B FORM OF TIF BOND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF OLMSTED CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BOND OF 2000 (CELESTICA PROJECT) (1] The City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), hereby acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received, hereby promises to pay to , a or its registered assigns (the "Registered Owner"), but only in the manner, at the times, from the sources of revenue, and to the extent hereinafter provided, the Principal Amount of this Bond (as defined in paragraph (2] hereof) and to pay interest on the unpaid portions of the Principal Amount of this Bond at the rate of interest of eight and no hundredths percent (8.00%) per annum. Interest shall accrue from the date of the Certificate of Completion (as defined in the Development Agreement hereinafter described) and shall be computed on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of 12 30-day months. This Bond is the "TIF Bond" described and defined in that certain Development Assistance Agreement, dated as of July 17, 2000 (as the same may be amended from time to time, the "Development Agreement"), between the City and CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, Inc., a Delaware corporation, as the initial Company under the Development Agreement. Each capitalized term which is used but not otherwise defined in this Bond shall have the meaning given to that term in the Development Agreement. [2] The Principal Amount of this Bond shall be the lesser of $1,354,000 and the sum of the amounts certified to the City by the Company and acceptable to the City pursuant to Section 3.2(b) of the Development Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Bond, in no event shall the total of all amounts payable on this Bond exceed $2,226,000. [3] Subject to the terms hereof, amounts due on this Bond shall be payable on each February 1 and August 1, commencing August 1, 2002, and continuing through the Term (the "Payment Dates"). 1186402.2 B -1 Y (4) On each Payment Date (or, if not a business day of the City, the first business day thereafter) the City shall pay by check or draft mailed to the person that was the Registered Owner of this Bond at the close of the last business day of the City preceding such Payment Date an amount equal to the lesser of (1) the Available Tax Increments received by the City within the 6- month period preceding said Payment Date and (2) the sum of (i) the accrued and unpaid interest hereon and (ii) the aggregate amount of the unpaid principal of this Bond, subject to the $2,226,000 maximum aggregate amount payable hereon specified above. All payments made by the City under this Bond shall be applied first to pay accrued and unpaid interest on this Bond and second toward payment of principal hereof. [5] This Bond shall terminate and be of no further force and effect on any date upon which the City shall have terminated the Development Agreement, on the last Payment Date following payment thereon of the Available Tax Increments then due, or on the date that all amounts payable hereunder shall have been paid in full, whichever occurs earliest. [6] The City makes no representation or covenant, express or implied, that the revenues described herein will be sufficient to pay, in whole or in part, the amounts which are or may otherwise become due and payable hereunder. Any amounts which have not become due and payable on this Bond on or before the final Payment Date shall no longer be a debt or obligation of the City whatsoever. (7] The City's payment obligations hereunder shall be further conditioned on the Company's compliance with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and on the fact that there shall not at the time have occurred and be continuing an Event of Default under the Development Agreement, and, further, if pursuant to the occurrence of an Event of Default under the Development Agreement the City elects to terminate the Development Agreement, the City shall have no further debt or obligation under this Bond whatsoever. Reference is hereby made to the provisions of the Development Agreement for a complete statement of the obligations of the Company and of the rights of the City thereunder, and said provisions are hereby incorporated by reference into this Bond to the same extent as though set out in full herein. The execution and delivery of this Bond by the City, and the acceptance thereof by the Company, as the initial Registered Owner hereof, shall conclusively establish this Bond as the "TIF Bond" (and shall conclusively constitute discharge of the City's obligation to issue and deliver the same) under the Development Agreement. [8] This Bond is not any obligation of any kind whatsoever of any public body, except that this Bond is a special and limited revenue obligation but not a general or moral obligation of the City and is payable by the City only from the sources and subject 1186402.2 B-2 to the qualifications and limitations stated or referenced herein. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing powers of the City are pledged to or available for the payment of this Bond, and no property or other asset of the City, save and except the above referenced Available Tax Increments, is or shall constitute a source of payment of the City's obligations hereunder. [91 This Bond is issued by the City in aid of financing a project pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, and including specifically but without limitation Section 469.178, Subdivision 4, thereof. [101 This Bond may be assigned but upon such assignment the assignor shall promptly notify the City thereof in writing, and the assignee shall surrender this Bond to the City either in exchange for a new fully registered Bond or for transfer of this Bond on the registration records for the Bond maintained by the City. The Registered Owner, by accepting registration of this Bond, acknowledges that the City has not qualified or registered this Bond under any state or federal registration, securities or similar laws and the Registered Owner covenants to comply with all securities, anti -fraud, registration, and other state and federal laws and limitations applicable in connection with any such proposed transfer or sale of this Bond. Each such assignee shall take this Bond subject to the foregoing conditions and subject to all provisions stated or referenced herein. [ill This Bond has been issued as a taxable and not as a tax- exempt obligation, and the City makes no representation, express or implied, that the interest on this Bond is or may be excludable from gross or taxable net income of the Registered Owner for income tax purposes. [121 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Rochester, Minnesota, has caused this Bond to be executed by the manual signatures of its Mayor and City Clerk, has caused the official seal of the City to be omitted herefrom, as permitted by law, and has caused this Bond to be issued and dated as of , 2000. Mayor 1186402.2 B - 3 City Clerk CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION It is hereby certified that the foregoing Bond was as of the latest date listed below registered in the name of the last Registered Owner noted below, and that, at the request of said Registered Owner of this Bond, the undersigned has as of said applicable date registered this Bond as to principal and interest on the Bond in the name of such Registered Owner, as indicated in the registration blank below, on the books kept by the undersigned for such purposes. NAME OF REGISTERED DATE OF SIGNATURE OF OWNER REGISTRATION CITY CLERK 2000 1186402.2 B-4 EXHIBIT C CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WHEREAS, the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), and CEL (MN) QRS 14-40, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), have executed a Development Assistance Agreement, dated as of July 17, 2000 (the "Development Agreement"), with respect to the completion by the Company of certain improvements (the "Improvements"), more specifically, an approximately 200,000 square foot manufacturing facility on certain land (the "Development Property") described in the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Company has performed its obligation under the Development Agreement to substantially complete the Improvements in a manner deemed sufficient by the City to permit the execution of this certificate pursuant to Section 3.4 of the Development Agreement: NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that the Improvements have been completed on the Development Property in substantial conformance with the applicable terms of the Development Agreement. CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA By_ Its Dated: , 200 1186402.2 C-1 / Schneider, Eileen` *om: dhofelin@Celestica.com Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 6:24 PM To: jhunziker@ci.rochester.mn.us; dhanson@ci.rochester.mn.us; Mmarcoux@ci.rochester.mn.us; jmcconnell@ci.rochester.mn.us; wstobaugh@ci.rochester. mn.us; mevans@ci.rochester.mn.us; dsenjem@ci.rochester.mn.us Cc: vn05506@us.ibm.com; tspaeth@ci.rochester.mn.us; gneumann@ci.rochester.mn.us Subject: Celestica Development Site Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: I am David Hofeling, Real Estate Manager for Celestica at Rochester. I am writing regarding the Celestica development site hearing on the July 17 Council agenda. We are requeting approval of the final platt, the Tax Increment Finance district, and the Development Assistance Agreement. As part of preparing for Council consideration of Final Platt #00-32, Celestica and Hamilton Real Estate, Inc. have requested that a sidewalk not be required for the east side of Superior Drive that bounds the proposed Celestica site on the west and south. Our concerns are the safety of residents from the housing directly to the west of the proposed site and people using the park - especially small children that may be playing on the baseball diamond or soccer field just south of the proposed site. We feel that a sidewalk on the east side of the road invites people to cross the road from the park / housing area to the industrial site - thus placing them closer to our trucks and employee traffic than is safe for them or our employees. Mac Hamilton addressed these issues as they apply to his development (and the proposed Celestica site) in a July 14 letter to you. We concur with the Celestica-specific items in letter, and request your favorable consideration. However, Celestica's focus is to pursue Council approval of the items on the agenda so we can begin site development as soon as possible. We are not interested in making the sitewalk an issue that may delay Council's approval. Sincerely, David Hofeling Real Estate Management Celestica Corporation Phone: (507) 536-3146, Fax: (507) 536-3093 Email: dhofelin@celestica.com Schneider, Eileen F� *m: Senjem, David H. (senjem.david@mayo.eduj Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 11:34 PM To: 'dhofelin@Celestica.com'; jhunziker@ci.rochester.mn.us; dhanson@ci.rochester.mn.us; Mmarcoux@ci.rochester.mn.us; jmcconnell@ci.rochester.mn.us; wstobaugh@ci.rochester.mn.us; mevans@ci.rochester.mn.us; dsenjem@ci.rochester.mn.us Cc: vn05506@us.ibm.com; tspaeth@ci.rochester.mn.us; gneumann@ci.rochester.mn.us Subject: RE: Celestica Development Site Mr. Hofelin: Rochester is proud and honored to have Celestica as a corporate partner in the Rochester community. While I will not be at the council meeting tomorrow night my hope is that the council will move through the approval process for your project easily and with gratitude for your interest in our city. Regarding the sidewalk..... my personal view is that long term we are better off with it than without it. Hopefully, it won't be something that will generate alot of discussion and the focus will be on the new city/Celestica partnership. Dave Senjem > ----Original Message---- • From: dhofelin@Celestica.com (SMTP:dhofelin@Celestica.comj > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 6:24 PM > To: jhunziker@ci.rochester.mn.us; dhanson@ci.rochester.mn.us; > Mmarcoux@ci.rochester.mn.us; jmcconnell@ci.rochester.mn.us; > wstobaugh@ci.rochester.mn.us; mevans@ci.rochester.mn.us; > dsenjem@ci.rochester.mn.us > Cc: vn05506@us.ibm.com; tspaeth@ci.rochester.mn.us; > gneumann@ci.rochester.mn.us > Subject: Celestica Development Site > > From: dhofelin@Celestica.com(SMTP:DHOFELIN@CELESTICA.COMj > > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 6:23:35 PM > > To: jhunziker@ci.rochester.mn.us; dhanson@ci.rochester.mn.us; > Mmarcoux@ci.rochester.mn.us; jmcconnell@ci.rochester.mn.us; > wstobaugh@ci.rochester.mn.us; mevans@ci.rochester.mn.us; > dsenjem@ci.rochester.mn.us > > Cc: vn05506@us.ibm.com; tspaeth@ci.rochester.mn.us; > gneumann@ci.rochester.mn.us > > Subject: Celestica Development Site > > Auto forwarded by a Rule > Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: > I am David Hofeling, Real Estate Manager for Celestica at Rochester. 1 am > writing regarding the Celestica development site hearing on the July 17 > Council > agenda. We are requeting approval of the final platt, the Tax Increment > Finance > district, and the Development Assistance Agreement. > As part of preparing for Council consideration of Final Platt #00-32, > Celestica > and Hamilton Real Estate, Inc. have requested that a sidewalk not be > required > for the east side of Superior Drive that bounds the proposed Celestica > site on > the west and south. Our concerns are the safety of residents from the > housing > directly to the west of the proposed site and people using the park - > especially > small children that may be playing on the baseball diamond or soccer > field just > south of the proposed site. We feel that a sidewalk on the east side of > the > road invites people to cross the road from the park I housing area to the > industrial site - thus placing them closer to our trucks and employee > traffic > than is safe for them or our employees. > Mac Hamilton addressed these issues as they apply to his development (and > the > proposed Celestica site) in a July 14 letter to you. We concur with the > Celestica-specific items in letter, and request your favorable > consideration. > However, Celestica's focus is to pursue Council approval of the items on > the > agenda so we can begin site development as soon as possible. We are > not > interested in making the sitewalk an issue that may delay Council's > approval. > > Sincerely, > David Hofeling > Real Estate Management > Celestica Corporation > Phone: (507) 536-3146, Fax: (507) 536-3093 > Email: dhofelin@celestica.com > 2 Li Memo TO: Mayor and City Council From: Gary Neumann % Date: July 17, 2000 Re: Celestica Development Assistance Agreement % / There was conference call this morning by the attorneys for the parties working on the Celestica TIF assistance agreement. One change was made. It relates simply to the fact that if there is a required repayment of some of the assistance due to the jobs not be retained then the party repaying the assistance is to be Celestica and not the company that will own the building (W.P. Carey). This change is consistent with previous agreements and is very acceptable to the staff. Please note this change and authorize approval with this one change. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Reports and Recommendations Finance Department ESCRIPTION: Awarding the sale of $17,925,000 Temporary i Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A, of the City of Rochester MEETING aoq DATE: July 17, 2000 ITEMrNO. r -� Dale Martinson In 1998, the City was authorized by both State legislation and voter referendum, to extend its V2% sales tax and excise tax collections to spend these monies on $71.5 million in capital projects in five major areas of regional benefit. This law included authority for the City to issue its general obligation bonds for these purposes. City staff has estimated, based on projected annual expenditures for these projects, that approximately $36.5 million will be spent for these purposes over the next two years. Adjusting for estimated sales tax receipts, we believe it is necessary to issue a G.O. tax exempt bond in the amount of $17,925,000 for the following purposes: Mayo Civic Center $17,501,391 Highway 52 Project 500,000 Water Quality Protection Program 3,501,361 Capitalized Interest 243,979 Costs of Issuance 72,080 Allowance for Discount Bidding 107,550 Total $17,925,000 City staff and our financial advisors, Springsted, Inc., have provided the Council with recommendations and the official statement of the offering. We are recommending three-year temporary bonds, paying interest only. We believe we will know more about final project expenditure timelines at that time and can refinance these bonds on a specific paydown schedule, likely not to exceed six years. The public bidding will take place on July 17`", concluding at 10:30 a.m. The City will, for the first time, be accepting bids via "Parity," an online internet bidding system for which bidders must be validated and pre- registered. The bonds have been assigned a triple "A" rating from both Moody's and Standard and Poors. A representative of Springsted, Inc. will be available at the council meeting to present the bids and recommend award of sale. Recommendation Assuming a successful sale, award ale of the bonds and authorize execution and filing of the appropriate documents. JCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: TM3: Worksheets Page I of I ace ll'urksheel I Bid I'aramcters I Scalc Issuer State Par Amount Sale Date Sale Time Cite of Rochester MIN S17,925,000 07 17/2000 i 0:30Aiv1 CllS'i' emporary (jeneral Obligation SaIeS ax Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A 3, Dated Datel Due Date IFfirst Cpn Date Security Type Bank Qualified Bond Form Mdy's/S&P/Fitch 07/15/2000 06/01/2003-06/01/2003 12/01/2000 1 Ult G.O. I No Book Entry I Aaa/ / 131D PARAMETERS Coupon Molts 1/8 and 1/20 of 1%only Ascending No # of Coupons I All or None Yes High Coupon No Limit Max Prem No Limit Low Coupon No Limit Max Bid No Limit Max Cpn Diff None Max Disc $107,550.00 (0.600%) Rates/Maty Not Applicable Min Bid $17,817,450,00 (99.400%) Term Bonds ISerfal bonds only Bid Award Low TIC -Dated Date excluding Accrued Int Maturity CUSIP $Amount Presale Rate Basis Cone Add'[ Rate Basis/ Mat yield Tkdn yield Bnsold alance 06/01 /2003 17,925,000* 20D3 Call Feature ('Callable) Bonds due 06/01/2003-06/01/2003 callable Jun 1, 2002 at par. Notes Delivery Date and Location Within 40 days after day of sale at DTC; payment in federal or equivalent funds. Interest Rce DatelDenoml Good Faith jDrawn To Surebid Parity Total Bond YES Average Life Jl-DI M15-N15 $5,000 $179,250.00 City I Yes I Yes 1 51,584.15 12 YRS. 10 MOS. 16 DAYS. Bids Addressed To Mr. Dale Martinson, Director o Finance, City of Rochester, c/o Springsted Legal Opinion Bnggs c Morgan St. Financial Advisor Springsted Incorporated St. Paying Agent Director o Finance Bid Forms Yes Legal Cost City Bond Cost City Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55101-2887 or Paul MN (651) 223- Paul MN (651) 223-3000 (to Cede & Co, as nominee of Base CUSIP electronic bids via Parity 6600 Attn: Mr. James DTC, NYC) O'Meara Thomson Municipal Market Monitor. © 1995-2000 Thomson Financial Municipals Group. All rights reserved. Trademarks 12age_.jS1) TM3 Client Services 1-800-367-8215, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST. Please send comments to webmaster@tnl3.com. Thu Jul 13 17:11:38 2000 ... /main.htm?frame=content&page=WrkWorksheet&issue_key_no=22231 &type=CB&cache=y&7/13/00 I lvi�Do REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Reports and Recommendations Finance Department _SCRIPTION: Awarding the sale of $17,925,000 Temporary Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2000A, of the City of Rochester MEETING DATE: Ju 17,2000 Dale Martinson In 1998, the City was authorized by both State legislation and voter referendum, to extend its %Z% sales tax and excise tax collections to spend these monies on $71.5 million in capital projects in five major areas of regional benefit. This law included authority for the City to issue its general obligation bonds for these purposes. City staff has estimated, based on projected annual expenditures for these projects, that approximately $36.5 million will be spent for these purposes over the next two years. Adjusting for estimated sales tax receipts, we believe it is necessary to issue a G.O. tax exempt bond in the amount of $17,925,000 for the following purposes: Mayo Civic Center $13,500,000 Highway 52 Project 500,000 Water Quality Protection Program 3,501,391 Capitalized Interest 243,979 Costs of Issuance 72,080 Allowance for Discount Bidding 107,550 Total $17,925,000 FRevised from previous RCA City staff and our financial advisors, Springsted, Inc., have provided the Council with recommendations and the official statement of the offering. We are recommending three-year temporary bonds, paying interest only. We believe we will know more about final project expenditure timelines at that time and can refinance these bonds on a specific paydown schedule, likely not to exceed six years. The public bidding will take place on July 171h, concluding at 10:30 a.m. The City will, for the first time, be accepting bids via "Parity," an online internet bidding system for which bidders must be validated and pre- registered. The bonds have been assigned a triple "A" rating from both Moody's and Standard and Poors. A representative of Springsted, Inc. will be available at the council meeting to present the bids and recommend award of sale. Recommendation Assuming a successful sale, award sale of the bonds and authorize execution and filing of the appropriate documents. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to O4i15;'1999 15:52 3209931254 SPRINUSTED NE WI 85 E SEY ENTH PLACE, SUITE 100 SAINT PAUL, MN 55101.2987 651.223-3000 F1X:631-223-3002 AWARD: SALE: PauE 02 F-11Z SPRINGSTED Pullit Finamr ,9dasa>s $17,925,000 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA TEMPORARY GENERAL OBLIGATION SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2000A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) U.S. BANCORP PIPER JAFFRAY INC. July 17, 2000 Moody's Rating: Asa Standard & Poor's Rating: AAA Interest Not Interest True Interest Bidder Rates Price Cast Rate U.S. BANCORP PIPER JAFFRAY INC. 4.4% 2003 $17,835,375.00 $2,359,328.33 4.5891% DAIN RAUSCHER INCORPORATED WELLS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES 4.5% 2003 $17,818,167.00 $2,428,120.50 4.7257% BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC WACHOVIA SECURITIES, INC PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED CRONIN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER SALOMON SMITH BARNEY FIRST ALBANY CORPORATION 525% 2003 $18,141,592.50 $2,491,276.25 4.7969% 5.25% 2003 $18,140,279.25 $2.492,889-50 4.8003% 5.00% 2003 $18.002,615.25 $2,501,593.08 4.8390% 4.625% 2003 $17,817,629.25 $2,493,138.46 4.8524% These are being reoffered at per. Bel: 5.61% Average Maturity: 2.878 Years SAINT PAUL. MN • MINNEAPOLIS, MN • MILWAUKEE. WI • OVERLAND PARK, KS • WASHINGTON, DC • DE$ MOINES, L1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 211 DATE: 717000 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G -_—�M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY A INS G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READJNF ORDINANCES (for adoption). w ��+y � 90 aAn Ordinance Creating and Enacting Section 66.101 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Regulating the Placement of Telecommunications Facilities in Residential Zoning Districts within the City. p h) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property From the R-1 District to the R-2 District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the South Side of 40t" Street SW — East of 11' Avenue SW. r G.4. MISCELLANEOUS �r !NCIL ACTION: Moton by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION TABLED ITEMS City Administrator :M DESCRIPTION: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law related to Appeal Request #00-09 MEETING ;? ,3 DATE: 7/17/00 ITEM NO. k`I T. Spaeth At the June 5, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council considered an appeal to 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 to variance request. Attached for the Council's review are the findings of fact prepared by the City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: • Copy of City Attorney prepared Findings of fact and Conclusions of law dated June 28, 2000 • Copy of Baihly Neighborhood Response to Findings of Fact dated July 12, 2000 • Copy of memo prepared by City Attorney dated July 13, 2000 in response to Baihly Neighborhood's response to Findings of Fact COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED- - - Council may adopt, modify or revise the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order as needed. M JNCILACTION: Mobonbv: Second a,q 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 Scherr, Jud \1106m: Senjem, David H. [senjem.david@mayo.edu] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 12:47 AM / To: 'jscherr@ci.rochester.mn.us' Subject: Findings of Fact.... Conclusions of Law Please copy and place in boxes of Mayor/Council. I have spent a great deal of time reading and thinking about the Bailey water tower variance matter and thought I would pass on my thoughts. First, its easy to lose sight of the fact that the "vote" is actually on the variance relating to distance from property line. With a variance, they can build and landscape the site very well. Without a variance, they can still build but have to meet certain distance from property line limitations which make landscaping difficult or not likely to be done. I believe that the testimony and the Planning Department's findings have provided sufficient information to approve a variance as requested by RPU. I think the neighbors have been excellant in their pursuit for information, however, much of what they have brought forward seems to be related to denying the towers as opposed to deciding the merits (or lack there of) of the variance criteria. If we are to stop the towers altogether we should impose a moritorium, however, I did not sense a strong desire to do this last meeting. Were I there tomorrow night I would vote to sustain the city attorney's findings. Dave Senjem FREDERICK S. SUHLER, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAw SOCTHWEST L4'A CENTER 2212 S.W. 2ND STREET RocHESTER, i10N 33902-0824 PHONE (507) 231-5090 • FAX 1507) 252-9003 E-MAIL FSSUHLER@MILLCOMb1.COh1 July 16, 2000 Mayor Canfield Council President Hunziker Members of the Common Council City of Rochester City Hall Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Type III Phase I Appeal No. 00-01. Rochester Public Utilities Item H-1, Council Meeting of July 17, 2000 Dear Your Honor, Mr. President and Members of the Council: I have been retained by some individuals who reside on or own property in the vicinity of the Baihly high level water storage facility owned and maintained by the Rochester Public Utility Department ("RPU"). This water tower and its associated land has an address of 2225 Southwest Baihly Summit Drive, Rochester, MN 55902. My clients, who are neighbors of this RPU facility, have consistently opposed a request by RPU to have a zoning variance granted to permit a tenant of RPU, a telecommunications company, to erect and maintain a structure on RPU property which would otherwise violate certain provisions of the City of Rochester's Zoning Ordinance ("zoning ordinance"). It is my understanding that this matter is again coming before you at your meeting of July 17, 2000, and has been given item number "H-1" on the Council's agenda. I would like to have you consider this written submission on behalf of my clients in terms of a narrow issue, that is, whether or not the process that has taken place during the City's consideration of this matter up to this point is legally appropriate. In my view, the process of consideration has been so flawed so any final decision made by you would be invalid and legally meaningless. I will- note initially, that I realize that others acting either individually, or on behalf of certain neighbors, have already filed with the Council written submissions stating some disagreement factually with the City Attorney's proposed "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order" ("Findings") that have been submitted with this agenda item. I do not intend in the balance of this written submission to discuss the same issues. Rather, my concerns after reviewing the files maintained Mayor Canfield, President Hunziker, Council Members July 16, 2000 Page 2 by the Consolidated Planning Department and the City is that of the legitimacy of the process employed. To begin, I note that when the Zoning Board of Appeals originally had the matter before it the Board did not, as required by Rochester Code of Ordinances ("R.C.O.") 5 60.417, appear to make any particular findings to support the denial of the various variances requested. Following the Board's decision, this matter was then "appealed" to the Common Council. As I read the provisions of R.C.O. § 60.761, the Council should, after being advised such an appeal, initially determine before proceeding further the "scope of review" to be accorded in such instance.' What appears to have happened, is that when this matter came before Council on June 5, 2000, it was placed on the agenda as a "public hearing" and various persons were permitted to speak to the question presented. Although the Council's agenda included a packet of written material from the Planning Staff, applicant and Zoning Board of Appeals, and others, it is not clear to me whether or not the proceedings before the Council at that time were viewed as being a "review on the record"` or "de novo".' This distinction is important, as Mr. Adkins has already pointed out in his memorandum to Mr. Kvenvold that is dated July 13, 2000, and included in the material associated with this agenda item for your meeting of July 17, 2000, for this distinction controls what is or is not the "record" in such a matter. If the Council's review of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision denying the variances were restricted to being "on the record", then no additional evidence can be considered other than This section provides: "(t)he . an order at the meeting at which the stating the scope of review on appeal (1) restricted to the record made on (2) limited to such issues as the . necessary for a proper resolution of hearing on the merits. 2 See R.C.O. 5 60.762. 3 See R.C.O. S 60.763. . .(Council) shall issue application was received to be one of the following: the decision being appealed; . (Council) determines the matter; (3) a de novo Mayor Canfield, President Hunziker, Council Members July 16, 2000 Page 3 that originally presented to the Board of Appeals. A person who appeared and spoke to the issue would only be permitted to present "arguments", not additional evidence or factual material. R.C.O. § 60.762 (2). If, on the other hand, the Council wished to treat the matter as a "de novo" proceeding, additional evidence, other than that presented to the Board of Appeals could be introduced and considered by those who appear. However, before such the decision to proceed in this fashion can be made, the Council also needs to find that to proceed de novo is appropriate, considering a number of factors .° In addition, notice of such an intent must be given to all property owners "entitled to receive notice under the requirements applicable to the original . . . application". R.C.O. § 60.763(2). As I read the public documents in this instance, I find that on June 5, 2000, the matter came before the Council and the appellant was apparently seeking a reversal of the Board of Appeals decision denying the variances that had been requested. It is not clear what manner of proceeding (review or de novo) was being conducted. However, it is clear that the Council hearing was continued after being opened and some persons were given the opportunity to speak. At a "continued hearing" of June 19, 2000, however, the written agenda material reflects that the appellant had modified its request so that three variances that had been previously sought, which had been denied by the Board of Appeals, were no longer being sought. Rather, a "revised site plan" had now been prepared and a variance request different than that originally sought from the Board of Appeals was sought. The draft of the Council Minutes for that meeting again do not make it clear whether the "appeal" was proceeding "on the record" or "de novo". Nor, is it clear that notice of the "revised site plan" and the different variance requested had been sent to property owners within the prescribed distance of the RPU property. What is clear is that the Council, after hearing extensive ' These include: prejudice to the parties; availability of evidence at the time of the initial hearing; surprise to those opposed; competency, relevancy and materiality of the proposed evidence. See R.C.O. 5 60.763. Mayor Canfield, President Hunziker, Council Members July 16, 2000 Page 4 argument from numerous persons on June 19, 2000, voted to: "approve Appeal #00-01 of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals denial on Type III, Phase 1, Variance Request #00-09 by Rochester Public Utilities . . . (with other conditions).' The draft of the Minutes I have reviewed reflect no discussion by the members of the Council of potential findings; no findings suggested as a part of the motion; or any statement as to why the original decision of the Board of Appeals that was purportedly reversed was in error. Thus, I have some grave concerns regarding the regularity of the process that has taken place in this instance. Although the original decision of the Board of Appeals denying the requested variances is arguably unsupported by any findings, so is that of the Council on June 19, 2000, which reverses the Board's decision. The variances requested changed during the time that the matter was under consideration before the Council, leading one to ponder whether the Council could have any basis to reverse a decision made by the Board that involved a completely different set of circumstances? Nor, is there any indication that notice of this revision of the appellant's request was sent to adjacent property owners. Finally, given the fact that the Council never made it clear, as is required the Zoning Ordinance, what process it was engaged in (review on the record or de novo), how can the City Attorney at this point complain that certain persons want the Council in its "Findings" to consider matters outside of the "official record"? What constitutes the "official record" is dependent on the answer to this very fundamental issue of procedure which was never previously established in these proceedings. In summary, because of the matters I have raised, I would urge that the Council deny this appeal, or failing that, remand this matter back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for its consideration of the amended variance that is being requested by RPU. In no event, would I urge the Council to adopt the City Attorney's suggested findings in which it is recited that "(t)his appeal is properly before the Common Council pursuant to R.C.O. §60.733." Given the procedure utilized in this matter, this Mayor Canfield, President Hunziker, Council Members July 16, 2000 Page 5 finding is and cannot be upheld as a matter of law. y yours, Fr4derick S. cc: Clients Terry Adkins, Esq. G-12.Lt,\ I C"f Ll:'l'�r U! ` ) In your packet is a Baihly neighborhood response to the city attorney's "Conclusions of law..." regarding the variance at the Baihly water tower site. i 0u *onse is the result of TEN neighbors once again viewing the video tape of the June 5 and 19 Council meetings, listening to the audio tape of the June 19 meeting and listening to the audio tape of the Zoning Board meeting. FACTUAL EVIDENCE from these sources is the basis of our response. Also in your packet is a detailed response from Ray Englander, manager of the Thompson properties west of the water tower site. Please read these responses carefully to see the inaccuracies and omissions of the city attorney's document. We plead with you not to approve this document until it is an ACCURATE reflection of both the June 19 meeting and of the entire sequence . N� Mph cR a d 1�k Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (Cite as: 1998 WL 634224 (D.Minn.)) APT MINNEAPOLIS, INC., Plaintiff, APT's motions for a tempdr&y restraining order Nov' and a preliminary injunction are denied as moot. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, Defendant. [FN1] No. Civ.97-2082(JRT/RLE). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. Aug. 12, 1998. Gary Van Cleve, James Michel Susag, Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, Bloomington, MN, for APT Minneapolis Inc, plaintiff. Pierre N Regnier, James G Golembeck, Jardine Logan & O'Brien, St Paul, MN, for Maplewood, City of, a Minnesota municipal corporation, defendant. Gary Van Cleve, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Bloomington, MN, for plaintiff. James G. Golembeck, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, St. Paul, MN, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TUNHEIM, J. *1 Plaintiff APT Minneapolis, Inc. ("APT") alleges in this action that the City of Maplewood ("the City") violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA") and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it refused to issue a conditional use permit for the construction of a telecommunications tower. The Amended Complaint contains three counts. In Count I, APT claims the City violated the TCA, entitling APT to a writ of mandamus and injunctive relief. In Count II, APT asks the Court to declare that the City violated the TCA and its own Zoning Code by arbitrarily denying APT's applications for a telecommunications tower. Finally, in Count III, APT alleges the City violated its civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, entitling it to an award of damages, attorney's fees and costs. This matter is before the Court on APT's motions for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and summary judgment. Also pending is the City's cross motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motions for summary judgment are granted in pan and denied in part. FNI. The TCA requires the Court to give expedited review of actions alleging violations of the Act. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). The Court granted expedited review of the cross motions for summary judgment. Because the Court reaches the merits of the case in the motions for summary judgment, it is not necessary to decide APT's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. I. FACTS A. Background APT is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide personal communications service ("PCS") in a coverage area that includes Minnesota, North Dakota, and parts of Wisconsin and South Dakota. APT purchased the license for approximately $36,000,000 in an FCC auction. As a condition of the license, APT is obligated to provide a seamless PCS network for its customers. PCS operates through antennas capable of receiving and transmitting wireless communications signals. The necessary number and location of the antennas is a function of several factors, including population demands, major road locations, topographical constraints, and radio frequency standards. B. The Coverage Gap A gap currently exists in APT's PCS coverage in the area of Interstate 35E and Roselawn Avenue in Maplewood, Minnesota. The coverage gap is due to the lack of a cell site in the area. The gap creates a "dead spot" that results in dropped calls, poor quality calls and an inability to start or answer a call. APT's current call failure rate is approximately 200 calls per day. APT attempted to modify the cells in the Maplewood area to eliminate the coverage gap without success. Because public safety organizations sometimes rely on wireless communication for reporting of emergency situations, the coverage gap creates a public safety risk. C. APT Seeks a CUP for the MnDOT Site Copr. D West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (Cite as: 1998 WL 634224, ■1 (D.Minn.)) In order to provide seamless coverage along the Interstate 35E and State Trunk Highway 36 corridors, APT sought to construct a monopole telecommunications tower on property owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The property is located near 1779 McMenemy Street just east of Interstate 35E and south of State Trunk Highway 36 (the "MnDOT Site"). The west side of the site borders Interstate 35E. There are town houses, a single family residence and a church east of the site, residential property to the south, and vacant land to the north. The 10-acre site is zoned light industrial. MnDOT uses the site as a garage and repair facility for its fleet of heavy trucks and equipment. *2 In early June 1997, APT submitted an application for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to the City for the construction of a 165-foot monopole telecommunications tower on the MnDOT Site. APT proposed placing the tower on the westerly portion of the site, at least 400 feet away from residential property and about 100 feet away from Interstate 35E. APT considers the MnDOT Site ideal for filling the coverage gap that currently exists along the Interstate 35E corridor. On July 7, 1997, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of APT's CUP application, finding that: [t]his project meets the requirements of the tower ordinance and the criteria for the CUP. The site design would be compatible with the adjacent commercial structures and uses. The City Council should approve this request. On July 15, 1997, the City Community Design Review Board unanimously recommended approval of APT's design for the tower. Although MnDOT submitted a letter recommending approval of the CUP, APT's application encountered opposition from a few City residents. One owner of property adjacent to the MnDOT site, Lewis Gilbert, strongly opposed the application. Gilbert claimed that the tower would reduce the value of his property and would interfere with his plan to construct an eight -story assisted living care facility. In response to the concerns voiced by City residents, the City Council voted to continue the matter to allow the parties to provide additional information. APT provided documentation that the Page 2 monopole would not affect adjacent property values. Included was a survey of the value of property surrounding towers in other Twin Cities suburbs. Based on the evidence APT submitted, a City staff report concluded that APT had shown that "there should be no negative effects caused by this tower." r The City Council nevertheless voted to deny APT's application. The reasons stated were as follows: . The existing industrial zoning of the property was "spot zoning" and out of conformity with the residential neighborhood; adding industrial activities would exacerbate that conflict. . The tower would have an adverse effect on property values. Other sites were available. The tower would disturb scenic vistas. D. APT Seeks a CUP for the Park Site Thereafter, City staff recommended that APT apply to build a tower in Western Hills Park, immediately across Interstate 35E from the MnDOT Site ("the Park Site"). Based on that recommendation, APT submitted an application for the Park Site. APT proposed to construct the tower and then transfer ownership to the City subject to a long-term lease. On February 23, 1998, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to the City Council that APT's application to install a telecommunications tower at the Park Site be denied. On March 2, 1998, the Planning Commission also recommended denying a variance to install an antenna tower at the Park Site, but recommended that the City Council reconsider the MnDOT Site. On March 10, 1998, the Community Design Review Board also recommended denial of APT's Park Site design. Finally, on March 30, 1998, the City Council voted to deny APT's application for the Park Site. II. ANALYSIS A. Summary Judgment Standard *3 A party is entitled to summary judgment when it demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the parry is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of stating grounds for its motion and demonstrating the lack of issues of genuine material fact. Celotex Corp, v, Copt. C West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (Cite as: 1998 WL 634224, +3 (D.MinnJ) Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Having done so, the opposing party may not rest on the allegations or denials of its pleadings, but must come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate a "genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). When evaluating the parties' submissions on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence of the nonmoving party "is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 255. A dispute concerning a material fact is "genuine" and sufficient to overcome summary judgment, "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. at 248. B. Telecommunications Act Claims (Count I) In Count I of the Amended Complaint, APT contends the City violated the TCA. For the reasons that follow, APT's motion for summary judgment is granted on the TCA claims and the City's motion is denied. The TCA became law on February 8, 1996. Congress passed the Act to provide a "pro - competitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and information technologies...." Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Town of Easton, 982 F.Supp. 47, 49 (D.Mass.1997) (citation omitted). The TCA is intended to "stop local authorities from keeping wireless providers tied up in the hearing process." Id. Although the TCA does not completely preempt the authority of state and local governments to make decisions regarding the placement of wireless communications service facilities, it places significant limitations on that authority. Id. (citing BellSouth Mobility, Inc. v. Gwinnett County, 944 F.Supp. 923, 927 (N.D.Ga.1996)); see also 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). For example, the TCA prevents state and local governments from regulating the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities in a manner that "prohibit[s] or [has] the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). The TCA also establishes that Page 3 local governments "shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(I). Finally, if a local government denies a request to construct personal wireless service facilities, the decision must be supported by "substantial evidence contained in a written record." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). APT contends the City violated all three of these Limitations. APT claims that the City's actions: (1) are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, and (3) unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. The Court agrees with APT's first two contentions and need not consider the third. 1. Substantial Evidence '4 APT contends the City's denial of its request for a monopole at the MnDOT Site lacks "substantial evidence," as required under the TCA. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(C)(7)(B)(iii). In determining whether the City's denial was supported by substantial evidence, the Court must employ "the traditional standard used for judicial review of agency actions." See Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Jefferson County, 968 F.Supp. 1457, 1468-69 (N.D.Ala.1997) (quoting H.R. conf. No. 104-458, 104 th Cong.2d Sess. 208); AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of the City of Virginia Beach, 979 F.Supp. 416, 428 (D.Mass.1997) (same). "Substantial evidence, as construed by the courts, means 'more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." ' Jefferson County, 968 F.Supp. at 1469 (citations omitted). The City bears the burden of proving that its decision was supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., Sprint Spectrum, 982 F.Supp. at 49 (" [T]he TCA shifts the burden of proof to the government agency that denied the applicant's siting request 'rather than burdening the applicant with producing substantial evidence supporting its approval." ') (citation omitted). The City's reasons for denying APT's application for the MnDOT Site are that: (1) the existing industrial zoning of the MnDOT property was "spot zoning," (2) the tower would have an adverse effect on property values, (3) other sites are available, and (4) the tower would disturb scenic vistas. None of Copr. 0 West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (Cite as: 1998 WL 634224, *4 (D.Minn.)) these grounds is supported by substantial evidence. a. Spot Zoning The City's first basis for denying APT's application for the MnDOT Site is that the existing industrial zoning is "spot zoning," out of conformity with the residential neighborhood. The City's ordinances designate industrial sites as the "primary land use area for towers requiring conditional use permits." The City considered re -zoning the MnDOT site after it denied APT's CUP application, but did not change the zoning. Tbus, this ground for the City's denial is not supported in the record. b. Effect on Property Values The City's second basis for denying APT's application is that the monopole will decrease property values. The record lacks reliable evidence supporting this conclusion. First, it is important to note that MnDOT was located in the area before its neighbors. Thus, the residential property surrounding the MnDOT Site developed despite the presence of light industrial property in the area. Second, APT submitted considerable evidence that monopoles have no adverse impact on property values, including a survey of property values in other Twin Cities suburbs. Despite this evidence, the City based its denial on letters Louis Gilbert solicited from two appraisers who opine that the monopole would adversely effect Gilbert's property value if he were to develop it. A potential adverse impact on a possible future use of property is too attenuated to justify the City's denial. *5 For these reasons, the alleged impact on property values does not justify the denial of APT's application for the MnDOT Site. c. Alternative Sites The City's third basis for denying APT's application is that other sites are available. The City has the burden of proof on this issue, and must present evidence that APT failed to investigate alternative sites. See Illinois RSA No. 3, Inc. v. County of Peoria, 963 F.Supp. 732, 744 (C.D.Ill.1997). The City has not put forth evidence that another technically and legally feasible site is available to cover the focused hole that currently Page 4 exists in APT's coverage. Obviously, the City's mere allegation that other sites exist is not substantial evidence. d. Aesthetic Considerations The City's fourth Masis for denying APT's application is that the tower would disturb scenic vistas. Other than vague assertions by neighbors and council members, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed tower would be aesthetically displeasing. Courts construing the TCA have universally held that general aesthetic considerations fail to meet the substantial evidence test. See e.g., Virginia Beach, 979 F.Supp. at 428; Illinois RSA No. 3, 963 F.Supp. at 745. Thus, the City's use of vague, unsupported aesthetic considerations does not justify its denial. e. Generalized Hostility In addition to the foregoing, there is evidence that the City possesses generalized hostility to wireless service facilities. At a meeting concerning APT's applications, the Mayor of Maplewood declared: I have fought every one of these and the battle isn't over. *** I have a good history of opposing towers.... I'm 75 years old, I've lived without a cell telephone for 75 years and I can handle it for another 75. So I'm not very pro —I'm not very pro tower. And I guess I keep hoping that once --when they deregulated the telephones and everybody with a $10,000 bill that --formed a telephone company, and it was pretty obvious that the country was going to become a porcupine with towers sticking up all over individually from each telephone company. I guess it was my hope that half of them would go bankrupt before we had too many towers. This comment and others suggests that the reasons the City gave for denying the application are a front for generalized hostility to PCS. For these reasons, the Court holds that the City failed to demonstrate substantial evidence supporting its decision to deny APT's application for the MnDOT Site. [FN2] FN2. Because the Court finds that the denial of Copr. © West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works • • Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (Cite as: 1998 WL 634224, *5 (D.Minn.)) APT's application for the MOOT site lacks substantial evidence, the Court need not address the City's denial of APT's application for the Park Site. 2. Prohibitive Effect on Personal Wireless Services Federal telecommunications statutes also prohibit local actions that erect barriers to entry or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A); 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(I)(II); 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v). Due to the traffic patterns, population distribution, laws of radio physics, and the preexisting zoning, APT believes that there are only two feasible sites for the needed monopole tower --the MnDOT Site and the Park Site. Although the City argues that other sites exist, the City has not supported its argument. *6 The record shows that APT applied for the site it considered ideal (the MnDOT site) and an alternative site proposed by City staff (the Park Site). APT has presented evidence that the monopole must exist within a limited area to fill the coverage gap. APT has also presented evidence that the MaDOT and Park sites are the only technically and legally feasible sites. [FN31 The City has not rebutted this evidence. On this record, the fact finder could only conclude that APT applied for the only two available sites and received denials for both sites. Consequently, the Court holds that the City's actions have had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services in violation of the TCA. FN3. Although APT could technically construct a monopole on any vacant lot, APT contends that practical considerations exclude certain sites. For example, APT does not consider residential property realistic because of the practical and legal problems associated with obtaining a CUP in a residential area when alternative sites are available. Although the City claims there are other available sites, the City has not identified any realistic alternatives to APT or the Court. The Court does not believe the existence of other technically feasible sites prevents a determination that the City's actions have had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services in this case. The City's ordinance establishes a preference for property zoned light industrial. APT applied for a site zoned light industrial and an alternative site suggested by City Page 5 staff. Given this evidence and the fact that the City has not identified any other options, the existence of other technically feasible sites does not preclude a finding that the City has effectively prohibited the provision of personal wireless services. Because the City's refusal to permit construction of the telecommunications tower at the MaDOT site lacks substantial evidence and because the City's actions have had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, APT is entitled to summary judgment on Count I of its Amended Complaint. An injunction directing a local government to issue a permit for personal wireless service facilities is an appropriate remedy for a violation of the TCA. See, e.g., Illinois RSA No. 3, 963 F.Supp. at 747; Virginia Beach, 979 F.Supp. at 430. The Court will therefore issue an injunction directing the City to issue a CUP for the MnDOT Site. C. Declaratory Judgment Claim (Count II) In Count II of the Amended Complaint, APT seeks a declaration that "the City violated the [TCA] ... by arbitrarily denying APT a CUP." Declaratory relief is not an appropriate remedy for a statutory violation that has already occurred. Sprint Spectrum, 982 F.Supp, at 52-53; see also 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2751 at 570(2d ed.1983) (the declaratory judgment statute "permits actual controversies to be settled before they ripen into violations of the law."). Because the City's actions have already ripened into a violation of the TCA, declaratory relief is not warranted. Thus, the Court grants the City's motion for summary judgment on Count II of the Amended Complaint and denies APT's cross motion. D. Section 1983 Claim (Count III) Finally, APT claims the City deprived it of federally guaranteed rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. APT asks the Court to award attorney's fees, costs and damages because of the § 1983 violation. Section 1983 of Title 42 allows for suits whenever a person acting under color of state law violates federal law. Maine v, Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 4, 100 S.Ct. 2502, 65 L.Ed.2d 555 (1980). To assert a § Copr. m West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (Cite as: 1998 WL 634224, *6 (D.MinnJ) 1 683 claim based on a federal statute, the plaintiff st assert the violation of a substantive federal right. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 1359, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997). To determine if a federal statute creates a substantive right, the Court should consider: (1) whether Congress intended the statutory provision to benefit the plaintiff; (2) whether the right allegedly protected by the Act is not so "vague and amorphous' that its enforcement would strain judicial competence;" and (3) whether the statute clearly imposes a binding obligation on states. Id. at 1360 (citation omitted). *7 Even if a federal statute confers a substantive right, a § 1983 suit will not lie if the statute explicitly or implicitly precludes a § 1983 action. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clatnmers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981); Sprint Spectrum, 982 F.Supp. at 53. Congress may implicitly foreclose a § 1983 action where the statute creates a "comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement under § 1983." Blessing, 117 S.Ct. at 1360. The City acted under color of state law when it denied APT's applications. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (a person acts under color of state law when he or she exercises power "possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the [person] is clothed with the authority of state law"). APT contends the City also violated a federally guaranteed right when it violated the TCA. APT's argument is supported by three federal district court decisions: Cellco Partnership v. Town Plan and Zoning Comm'n of Farmington, _ F.Supp.2d _, 1998 WL 220030 (D.Conn.1998), Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. Zoning Commission of the Town of Stratford, 995 F.Supp. 52 (D.Conn.1998) and Sprint Spectrum L.P. v. Town of Easton, 982 F.Supp. 47 (D.Mass.1997). Each of these courts held that the TCA does not implicitly or explicitly preclude a § 1983 claim, and that the TCA creates substantive rights because it establishes a cause of action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. Cellco Partnership, 1998 WL 220030 at * 7-8; Smart SMR of New York, 995 F.Supp. at 60-61; Sprint Spectrum, 982 F.Supp. at 53. The Court agrees with the analysis and conclusions of these courts. Consequently, the Court holds that the City violated Page 6 § 1983 when it denied APT federal rights established in the TCA. The Court may award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a § 1983 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. A plaintiff is the "prevailing party" when the relief granted by the court "materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits plaintiff." Pedigo v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc., 98 F.3d 396, 397-98 (8 th Cir.1996). Absent unusual circumstances, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees. [A] district court's discretion to deny attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff is narrow. Prevailing plaintiffs should ordinarily recover fees unless special circumstances would make such an award unjust. Jenkins by Jenkins v. State of Mo., 127 F.3d 709, 716 (8 th Cir.1997). The City has not shown that "special circumstances" make an award of attorney's fees unjust in this case. On this basis alone, APT is entitled to attorney's fees. However, aside from this determination, the Court holds that an award of attorney's fees is especially appropriate in this situation. This is the second time this Court has found the City violated the TCA. In AT & T Wireless Services of Minnesota, Inc. v. City of Maplewood, No. 97-171 (D.Minn. Mar. 5, 1998) this Court held that the City violated the Act when it refused to permit AT & T to construct a monopole tower after forcing AT & T through a futile process not dissimilar to the situation faced by the plaintiff. *8 Moreover, the record reflects that the City understood the limitations the TCA places on its authority, yet refused to issue a CUP to APT or present evidence of alternative sites. During a meeting concerning the Park Site, a council member explained: There's one thing I think you have to understand with respect to the process, though. Under the Federal Communications Act they're going to get a tower somewhere. And there'll probably be another public hearing ... for a tower somewhere in this area, so this isn't --if we vote it down tonight it's not a dead issue. There's gonna be --it's gonna come up again. Copr. 0 West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (Cite as: 1998 WL 634224, '8 (D.Minn.)) • If you look at what happened in the courts, they'll rule we have to give them one someplace. So I don't want anybody going away thinking it's a dead issue and that we're not gonna have one somewhere in this part of town, because there will be one somewhere. Again, there's different sites been thrown out there, but some way we gotta find a way -find a place that's gonna be acceptable because it's gonna happen if we like it or not. The courts will rule one way or the other on one of these issues.... Under these circumstances, an award of attorneys fees is not only clearly warranted, but necessary if there is any hope that the Maplewood City Council will comply with the TCA in the future. The Court grants APT's request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and is not inclined to consider other categories of damages APT claims it has incurred. ORDER Based on the above and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Page 7 1. APT's motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 22] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is granted as to Counts I and III of the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 17], and denied as to Count II. 2. The City's motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 28] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The City's motion is granted as to Count II of the Amended Complaint, and denied as to Counts I and III. 3. An injunction is hereby entered requiring the City of Maplewood to issue a CUP for the MnDOT Site to APT within twenty (20) days of this Order. 4. APT's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction [Docket No. 231 is DENIED as moot. 5. Within thirty (30) days of this Order, APT shall submit an affidavit setting forth the attorneys' fees and costs it expended prosecuting this lawsuit against the City. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. m West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works r 0 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 ats 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 Wilities 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. E 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 ark `-)wer 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 ;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 Qq 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. atq 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 properly 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. 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 (a) 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 aa� " -)ower 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 Common 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 governments 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, 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 .elecommunications 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 Fcf.zonalVadance.balhlyfof The Baihly Neighborhood Response to `Findings of Fact, Cons9usions of Law, and Order" Pertaining to Appeal#00-01 by Rochester Public Utilities • July 12, 2000 Introduction Much of the material in our response reflects our major concern: information provided by the neighbors in either written form or oral testimony from the Zoning Board meeting May 3, the City Council meeting June 5, the open meeting with three council members June 12 and all official communication with city council members during the process are not reflected in this document. We were told that the packet provided Zoning Board members would be forward- ed to city council members. In addition, we provided substantial additional information. Since only the June 19 meeting is addressed in this document, other than the Planning Department's Report of April 26 (which was defeated at the Zoning Board), a very incomplete picture emerges of the actual situation/process, which in turn makes this document at best incomplete and at worst erroneous. In our effort not to be redundant to previous testimony and documents and to comply with the Council's instruction that June 5 to 19 we resolve, issues with the telecommunication companies and RPU (none of whom contacted us), we presented at the June 19 meeting a list of issues/questions still unanswered. Having this document only reflect the last meeting is not acceptable since it ignores the process and in doing so ignores the neighborhood. Paragraph 1 " Last Sentence (page 1) The Appellant, RPU, sought this variance to have the buildings where they wanted them out- side, the "fall down area." At the Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Rovang clearly expressed "we need this variance." While there may be benefit to the neighborhood from grouping the build- ings, this was a fringe benefit and clearly never the most important reason for the Appellant to seek the variance. In fact, at the June 5 City Council meeting, Mr. Rovang explained their need to have a diameter of space to provide service to the tower, i.e. painting the exterior. Paragraph 2 " First Sentence (page 1) This should read three shelters. Paragraph 2 " First Sentence (page 2) Neighborhood opposition to the variance is based in part on Rochester City Ordinance 62.932 "Lot Size Requirements: All area accessory developments shall be located on sites of sufficient size for the development intended so that all requirements for bufferyards, setbacks, access, and other criteria specified by this ordinance may be met." Findings of Fact #2 (page 2) Testimony provided by the AT&T representative at the Zoning Board indicated that service was needed in the Salem Road area. Baihly is their preferred site. No information was presented to confirm or verify if there were alternative sites. Findings of Fact #3 (page 3) Rochester City Ordinance 62.930 (1) addresses "adequate service..." Adequate service can be provided at an alternate site, a site which should have been researched by a city engineer rather than accepting the speculation of a telecommunications engineer. OAS Findings of Fact #4 (page 3) If the lot size requirements as specified in 62.932 here were followed, there would be no issue. The variance would not/could not be requested. Findings of Fact #5 Ipages 3,4) We continue to take issue with neighborhood aesthetics being cited as cause for the need for the variance. The variance was sought to place the shelter outside of the "fall down area." Did the original zoning permit application by Northern PCS and APT address the buffer plan and exterior of the shelter blending with neighborhood as required by the Rochester City Ordinance section 62.937(8)? The terms "unsightliness" and "discomforts" are euphemisms for the reali- ty of decreased property values -as high as twenty percent according to a local reputable real - tor. What representative is referred to in the last sentence? The last sentence also refers to reasonable use of the property. Please see the letters submitted by the neighborhood and Ray Englander, both clearly explain why this construction is not reasonable use. Reasonable use of this property is for a water tower (60.417). A telecommunications company said they will only landscape with the neighborhood in mind if they get the requested variance. Findings of Fact #6 (page 4) Sentence one is a misrepresentation of the testimony of the neighbors at all points of the process. At the June 5 City Council meeting, neighbors asked for time to have questions answered, and when they were not, those questions were presented at the June 19 meeting. (A copy of these questions are attached.) Landscaping was a big issue to only two neighbors; the other questions were concerns of many. Findings of Fact #7 (page 4) Again, see the letters from Ray Englander and the neighborhood which provided previous documentation not repeated at the June 19 meeting. Findings of Fact #8 (page 5) The same letters referred to earlier clarify that the need for the variance is the result of the Appellant installing the water tower in the middle of a small parcel of land, a fact which once again should have been used as a reason for denial of the variance. Findings of Fact #10 (page 5) The findings of the Planning and Zoning Department do not reflect any of the input they received from the neighbors who wrote or called, including the two letters mentioned. Findings of Fact #11 (page 6) Sentence #2 The neighbors asked to explore alternative sites before committing to a residen- tial area. Mike Hicken outlined this in his presentation. (c) Neighbors testified that there is research which indicates there may be negative health effects. (e) The neighbors asked that the city be responsible for helping identify other possible sites, especially since one of the telecommunications representatives had publicly alluded to alternate sites. Here is where the neighbors requested that a moratorium be instituted to allow the neighbors time to hire an independent engineer to study alternative sites and verify gaps in service claims. M/ Findings of Fact #12 (page 6) The purpose of the moratorium was to hire the independent engineer and to get our list of questions answered. Findings of Fact #13 (page 6) This claim that no neighbors testified as to whether the variance met city code is disproved by listening to the audio tape of the June 19 meeting and viewing the video. Nancy Mellon spoke to the application not meeting the specification for granting a variance. The letter for Ray Englander also addressed not meeting the specification for granting a variance, section 60,417. Findings of Fact #14 (page 6) Neighborhood reps presented the mayor and city council members (in their packets) of an excerpt from the 1996 addendum to the FCC Act which verified that the city does have the right to enforce its ordinances without being over -ridden by the FCC. Findings of Fact #15 (page 7) From whose perspective is this supposedly true? Several sites were mentioned by neighbors throughout the process, but these were summarily rejected by the telecommunications com- panies, and again, not verified by a city engineer. Conclusions of Law #2a (page 7) In review of the audio tape and video tape of the June 19 meeting, we can find no reference by city council members to the "extraordinary conditions or circumstances" alluded to. Again, see ordinance 62.932 regarding lot size. Conclusions of Law #2b (page 7) The impact of three structures and eleven antennas certainly is not minimal to the property values of the Baihly area. Conclusions of Law #2c (page 7) It is not appropriate for the City to plead helplessness when the FCC Law Section 704 amend- ed addresses the "Preservation of Local Zoning Authority." This information was provided to city council members in their packet but is also attached for easier reference to the control awarded to cities. Conclusions of Law #3,4,5 (page 8) If the preponderance of evidence submitted by the Baihly neighborhood at every point of the process were considered, there would be every reason for the council not to grant the vari- ance. "Preponderance of evidence presented" clearly only includes that of the city attorney, and the attorneys for the telecommunications companies. Order (pages 8,9) The word "input" has been juxtaposed with "agreement." H the variance is granted (and it should be vetoed by the mayor), it is imperative that the granting of the variance be tied to a specific plan. In otherwords, if the Planning Department in consultation with the neighbor- hood is not satisfied with the landscaping plan submitted to them, the variance is not granted. ace) ' June 19, 2000 (Mayor and) Members of the City Council — Since the last City Council meeting the neighbors have met on several occasions, have talked with other neighborhoods, and have ntet with some Council Ivlernbers and spoken with others. We have not been contacted by RPU or any telecommunications companies. We have studied the 1996 Te#ecommunications Act and ieamod that local governments do have the authority to regulate decisions regarding wireless facilities with some limitations. You cannot discriminate between providers and you must allow them adequate locations to provide their service. In our research, we found that other cities have successfully implemented ordinances to influence the sites chosen for wireless installations that protected neighborhoods. For example, in Madison, Wisconsin, any telecommunications facility installations in a residential district must be on a lot that is at least two acres in area. These facilities are also required to be at least 100 feet from any residential property line and at least 200 feet from any residential building. We tried to obtain and were promised information of RPU's current agreements and their locations within Rochester. We still have not received this information. We were told by AT&T Wireless Marketing that they have adequate coverage in Rochester, but want to improve coverage near the Historical Society. We have looked for alternate locations in non-residential areas that would fulfill this need. In the short time that we have had to research, we have come up with several locations that deserve serious consideration. We continue to raise questions that need to be addressed. We would like to ask for a 180 day moratorium on telecommunications construction on city water tower sitesr based on the fact that we need answers to questions, such as the following: 1) Is the city of Rochester only required to provide telecommunications companies with adequate coverage or must the city surrender to the telecommunications companies demands for the best coverage? 2) Have the telecommunications companies searched for alternate non-residential locations which would still provide adequate coverage? What specific locations have they considered? 3) Has AT&T approached the owners of the monopole located directly next to the Historical Society, which currently has one antenna, about leasing that tower and adding antennas, since that is the area that they have identified as needing better service? 4) We understand that there is a plan to install a water tower near the Historical Society. Have the telecommunications companies considered this location? 5) There is a radio tower located by the Best Western Apache. Have the telecommunications companies investigated the possible use of this tower? 6) Would adding more antennas to the Apache Mall location give the telecommunications companies adequate coverage in Rochester? 7) In Minneapolis, many cellular phone antennas and equipment are placed on the rooftops of buildings. Have the telecommunications companies researched the possibility of doing this at the TJ Maxx Plaza location or other commercial sites in the area? 8) We would like to know why, at the February 29, 2000 RPU Board meeting, the board revoked nine antennas at the Golden Hills site? 9) We would like to request a copy of the telecommunications consultants report that initially laid out a plan for Rochester. 10) We are still waiting to receive, from Doug Rovang of RPU, information of RPU's current agreements and their locations within Rochester. 11) Have the telecommunications providers ever done a test of RF emissions at any locations within the city of Rochester to ensure that they are within FCC regulations? Have these same companies ever performed a test of the collective effects at sites where there are multiple companies co -localizing their antennas? 12) We would like more time to allow us to get our own engineer to find and evaluate alternate site locations. 13) Our research has shown that many other cities have more stringent ordinances that regulate the site selection and appearance of telecommunication installations. These ordinances encourage site selection in non-residential areas first. Why hasn't Rochester enacted similar ordinances? Our understanding from the June 6th City Council meeting, was that the Council acknowledged our many questions and the right to have them answered. You also halted all activity on the Baihly Water Tower site until after the next City Council meeting on June 19th. This activity included all three telecommunications companies that had agreements with RPU. On Wednesday, June 14th, RPU and VoiceStream Wireless ignored that ruling. VoiceStream staked out the property. RPU was contacted and agreed to pull the stakes. They pulled four stakes and left all of the rest in place. On Friday, June 16th, VoiceStream returned to install their antennas, equipment, and shed. We contacted our Council Members, but most of you were out of town. We learned that VoiceStream was illegally starting construction without a zoning certificate. After responding to the City Council Members calls, RPU told VoiceStream to halt all building activity, but they said they had no control over the installation of antennas on RPU's property. RPU also declared they had no knowledge of VoiceStream's plans. VoiceStream's field engineer stated that RPU had called his company after learning from the City Attorney that our neighborhood was planning to ask for a moratorium. We have been trying to work within the confines of the our legal system to express our concerns to the city council regarding this subject. However, the actions taken by VoiceStream last week were both unethical and illegal. And finally, because there are so many unanswered questions and we are frustrated with the discrepancies in the limited information we have been given, we would like to walk away from this meeting with a definitive plan of action and responsible parties. Our ultimate hope, is that the city of Rochester will find a legal basis on which to comply with the FCC regulations while protecting Rochester's neighborhoods. Thank you all for your time and for your consideration of these issues and our request for a 180 day moratorium. COMPLETE TEXT OF SEC. 704 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS. (a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY- Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: '(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY - '(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or Iocal government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. '(B) LIMITATIONS- '(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof — '(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and '(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. - '(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. '(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. '(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. '(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any in court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief. '(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph-- '(i) the term 'personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services; '(ii) the term 'personal wireless service facilities' means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and '(iii) the term 'unlicensed wireless service' means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct -to -home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)):. (b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS- Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. (c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY- Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights -of -way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights -of -way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or agency's mission, or the current or planned use of the property, rights -of -way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property, rights -of -way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights -of -way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such purposes. 7 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: July 13, 2000 TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold —City Administrator FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney SUBJECT: Baihly Neighborhood Response to Proposed Findings Document I have reviewed the July 12, 2000, Baihly Neighborhood Response to the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. I will give you my reaction to these comments as I assume you and the Council will eventually ask me to respond. r,enerally, I believe the neighborhood's response contains two misconceptions: the eparation of the "official record" and the purpose of a Findings document. First, there is the preparation of an official record. The 'official record" consists of that information considered by the Council in reaching its decision. In the case of this variance appeal, the record consists of the agenda packet (which will be attached to the Findings document and identified as Exhibit A), the testimony provided at the public hearings and any documents formally presented to the Council for its consideration. The Council can consider Daly the information found within the official record. A council's decision will be subject to legal challenge if it considers information outside of the official record. In the case of this variance appeal, the record does not include any information concerning a June 12'h meeting between the neighborhood and three council members, any documents supplied to individual council members or any documents presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 3'. The City Clerk informs me that nmr documents were introduced into the record by anyone at either hearing. This information could have been entered into the record. Indeed, the individual who testified at the June 1g1h hearing as the neighborhood's spokesperson is an attorney and, as such, knows the significance of and the method by which documents are entered into the record. But the fact is that no documents were entered into the record and, without reopening the public hearing, the Council cannot consider that information. In summary, the Findings document does not reflect information, conversations or documents not entered into the official record. The Baihly Neighborhood Response relies on these omissions as grounds for not adopting the Findings document. In truth, if we include information in the Findings document which was not formally presented to the Council at either the June 5'h or June 19" hearings, we will increase the chances that any legal challenge to the Council's action will succeed. Second, the purpose of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. This Findings document is intended to state formally the basis for the Council's decision. The "Findings of Fact" portion of the document outlines and summarizes the testimony and documents presented to the Council for its consideration. The "Conclusions of Law" portion indicates the Council's conclusions based upon the findings of fact. And the "Order" simply states the Council's action. In Minnesota, the courts have ruled that they will not overrule or change a city council's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order so long as there is no violation of state law and there is something in the record (no matter how hotly debated, questioned or disputed it may be) supporting the decision. The Baihly Neigborhood Response takes issue with all three parts of the document. They disagree with the testimony provided by some of the witnesses, the conclusions drawn by the Council and the Council's ultimate decision. But, a disagreement with a witness' testimony or the Council's conclusion does not mean there is a discrepancy or other problem with a Findings document. So long as there is some testimony in the official record which supports it, the Findings document is proper and will not be overruled. ' Let's take Finding of Fact #5 as an example. Doug Rovang testified that RPU sought the variance in order to allow the neighbors and the telecommunications companies the flexibility to work out the best landscaping and buffer plan possible. I know Doug testified as such because I heard him say it during the June 19'" hearing and, after listening to both the June 5"' and June 19°i hearings on audiotapes, I heard him say it again. So, I included it as a finding of fact because he indeed said those words. In the Baihly Neighborhood Response, the neighbors take issue with this finding. They object as follows: We continue to take issue with neighborhood aesthetics being cited as cause for the need for the variance. Some of the "senior" members of the Council may recall the Brockert fence case of the early 1990's. The Council denied a variance request concerning the height and placement of a swimming pool fence and the applicant challenged the decision. The local district court held a trial, heard testimony and reached a different decision. I appealed the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals which unanimously overruled the district court, threw out the court's decision and reinstated the City Council's decision. The Court of Appeals ruled that since there was testimony in the official record which supported the Council's decision, the district court had no business second-guessing the Council's action. V3 feI acknowledge and respect the neighbors' disagreement with this statement. But the fact is at Doug Rovang did indeed testify that the Applicant's purpose in seeking the variance was out of concern for neighborhood aesthetics. As such, the finding is supported by the "official record" despite the fact that some people disagree with the testimony. I did include the neighborhood's position in Findings of Fact #11 and #12. These paragraphs summarize the majority of the neighbors' testimony at both hearings. I have reviewed the audiotapes for both public hearings and believe the record supports both of these findings. 2 The Baihly Neighborhood Response takes issue with nearly all of the Conclusions of Law. But, again, the basis for their objections is that they disagree with the conclusions. I acknowledge and respect their disagreements. Yet, the official record supports the Findings of Fact which, in turn, support the Conclusions of Law which, in turn, support the Council's final decision to grant the variance. Had the Council decided to deny the variance request, I would have drafted a much different document. However, the Council granted the variance. Accordingly, I drafted the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to support that decision; not to defeat it. Finally, please take a moment and look at page 6 of the Baihly Neighborhood Response. This is a verbatim reprint of the applicable section of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Yes, under the Section labeled "(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY" it does say "nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government ...regarding the acement, construction, modification of personal wireless service facilities." But please look at e first six words of this Section. Those words state the following: EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS PARAGRAPH So, the federal law says there are exceptions to the general rule that cities can continue to zone cell phone towers. What are the exceptions? They are right there in black and white on page 6 of the Response. A local government (city): (1) "shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services" ' The Response takes exception to these paragraphs as well. They state that the true purpose for a requested moratorium "was to hire the independent engineer and to get our list of questions answered." That may have been some of the neighbors' reasons for requesting a moratorium, but others testified that it was for the purpose of reviewing the current ordinance for the purpose of changing the zoning requirements. More importantly, it is illegal under state law to adopt a moratorium for the purpose of hiring personnel and getting answers to questions. A moratorium can only be used to put land use applications on hold while the Council reviews the issue to determine whether changes to the zoning ordinances are needed. Minn. Stat. Section 462.355, subdivision 4. Rather than suggesting the neighborhood wanted the Council to act unlawfully under state law, I thought it better to simply say request for a moratorium was to accomplish a lawful purpose; namely, a possible change in the zoning finance. Aq (II) "shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (ii) shall issue a decision within a reasonable time period on applications for such facilities (iii) must issue a decision "in writing and supported by substantial evidence in the record" (iv) shall not issue a decision "on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions" I must admit a growing frustration at being told that, in essence, I am making this stuff up as I go along. This suggestion occurs despite my numerous contacts with expert legal counsel who knows much more than I about this subject. But, as clearly shown on page 6 of the Baihly Neighborhood Response, Congress has indeed severely tied our hands on matters in which we typically enjoy significant discretion. I don't like nor agree with the federal law and the majority of federal court cases interpreting the law. But I perform a great disservice to the Council and the entire community if I put blinders on and simply advise you to barge forward without regard for the legal consequences. I hope this response is helpful to you and the Council. • ad/haihly response memo