Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS OQ _'q GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4TH STREET SE MEETING NO. 20 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 7:00 P.M. (3-4) 1) Petition for Sanitary Sewer and Water/Rochester Pentecostal Church (5-6) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (7-12) 2) Memorandum of Agreement with the DNR Relating to Flood Gauges (13-14) 3) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (15-16) 4) Approval of Accounts Payable (17-26) 5) Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan/Manor Woods West 8t', 10'", 11 n, and Ridgeview Manor Subdivisions (27-30) 6) Wetland Replacement Plan/Weatherstone Development Including the Shelter Corp. Land (31-38) 7) Roadway Name Changes for Specified Roadways Located within Rose Harbor First, Rose Harbor Second, Rose Harbor Third, Rose Harbor 4"' and Blocks and Lots Specified within Rose Harbor Estates (39-40) 8) Payment of Reward (41-44) 9) Use of City of Rochester Police Department Range Facility (45-46) 10) Amend Owner Contract/Valley Side Estates (47-48) 11) Owner Contract/Basic Construction in Southern Woods Third Addition (49-50) 12) Owner Contract/Watermain to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park (51-52) 13) Stormwater Management Agreements (53-54) 14) Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Care Free Mini Storage (55-56) 15) Policy for Seal Coat Application in New Developments (57-58) 16) Permit Parking Petition from 13t' Avenue SW 10 Block (59-60) 17) Permit Parking Petition from Lourdes High School (61-62) 18) Change Order #1 for City Project/2000 Restoration of the Second Street Ramp (63-64) 19) Advertise for Bids/Sewage Piping Replacement Council Agenda September 18, 2000 Page 2 E) HEARINGS (65-78) 1) 2001 Community Development Block Grant Program (79-86) 2) Zoning District Amendment Petition by Billman-Orr LLC to Amend Zoning Map to Rezone 18.86 Acres from R-1 to B-4 DistrictNest of Highway 52, South of 65th Street NW and Westgard's First Sub. (87-120) 3) General Development Plan to be Known as O & B's Commercial Center (121-150) 4) Type III, Phase III, Restricted Development Final Plan by Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz to Allow for the Development of a Recreational Vehicle Park/East Side of 11th Avenue SW, South of Scenario Lane SW, and North of 10th Avenue SW (151-156) 5) Final Plat Pinewood Meadows First Addition CIC 162 Replat of Lots 1-21, Block 2 (157-168) 6) Final Plat to be Known as The Gardens Second Subdivision (169-172) 7) Vacation Petition by Cottage Homesteads of Rochester, Inc.Nacate Drainage Easements Located within Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 1 Salem Meadows Subdivision (173-174) 8) Reassessment of Special Assessments for Property Located at 1615 - 19th Avenue SE F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (175-176) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS I) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A M DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. NC1LACiTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 UA I t: V116 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters and Petitions City Clerk GI - ( DESCRIPTION: Petition for Sanitary Sewer and Water - Rochester Pentecostal Church PREPARED Judy Scherr The Rochster Pentecostal Church has submitted a petition requesting sanitary sewer and water service from the City of Rochester. They will be starting construction of their new building on or before April 1, 2001, in the Sunnydale Addition. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study. C ICIL ACTION: motion Second m0aeJLe� yens eeo.44ale� Fxaea 420 - 11th Avenue N.E. • Rochester, MN 55906 (507) 288-4342 0 (507) 289-5164 Home of: Rochester Pentecostal School using A.C.E. Curriculum and Concepts. September 6, 2000 Michael J. Nigbur Department Of Public Works 201 4`h Street SE, Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 Dear Mr. Nigbur: The Rochester Pentecostal Church hereby makes a petition to the City of Rochester to provide sanitary sewer and water to service our property in the Sunnydale addition of the city. We are requesting that the sewer and water lines be brought north on Strathmore Lane, since our building will be located on the northwest comer of Strathmore Lane and Shefield Lane. Our plans are to begin construction of our new building on or before April 1, 2001. We request that the city move ahead with the feasibility study as soon as possible, so that all areas are addressed before our target starting date. Sincerely, Robert Kaske, pastor K/evi�n Eppens, tru ee lJ-� W. AI White, trustee "In the Heart of Rochester with all of Rochester at Heart" Robert Kaske Pastor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 15 DATE: 9/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-19 q DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: D-1. Approval of Minutes D-2. Memorandum of Agreement with the DNR Relating to Flood Gauges D-3. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-4. Approval of Accounts Payable D-5. Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan/Manor Woods West 8`h, 10 th, 11'b and Ridgeview Manor Subdivisions D-6. Wetland Replacement Plan/Weatherstone Development Including the Shelter Corp. Land D-7. Roadway Name Changes for Specified Roadways Located within Rose Harbor First, Rose Harbor Second, Rose Harbor Third, Rose Harbor 4 s and Blocks and Lots Specified within Rose Harbor Estates D-8. Payment of Reward ,yD-9. Use of City of Rochester Police Department Range Facility D-10. Amend Owner Contract/Valley Side Estates D-11. Owner Contract/Basic Construction in Southern Woods Third Addition D-12, Owner Contract/Watermain to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park D-13. Stormwater Management Agreements D-14, Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Care Free Mini Storage D-15. Policy for Seal Coat Application in New Developments D-16. Permit Parking Petition from 13s' Avenue SW 10 Block D-17. Permit Parking Petition from Lourdes High School D-18. Change Order #1 for City Project/2000 Restoration of the Second Street Ramp D-19. Advertise for Bids/Sewage Piping Replacement D-ztLL��} COUNCIL ACTIO REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. NCIL ACTION: Marion by: Second by: to:Q� _ vt;— 10 'Xi6 .o. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR D ,A yy t DESCRIPTION: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE DNR RELATING PREPARED BY: TO FLOOD GAUGES G. NEUMANN The City previously entered into a Memorandum Of Agreement between the City and the DNR relating to the installation, monitoring and maintenance of four flood warning gauges in Rochester. By virtue of a separate agreement with the DNR, the National Weather Service, the USGS, and the State Department of Public Safety were also cooperating agencies. The four flood warning gages are located on Silver Creek, Bear Creek, Cascade Creek and the Zumbro River in Rochester. However, the National Weather Service was unable to enter into the separate agreement with the DNR verifying the DNR's MOA with the City, but will continue to be involved in the monitoring of the gauges. Due to the inability of the NWS to sign the separate agreement with the DNR, some amendment to the original MOA between the City and the DNR is required. The revised MOA is attached and is recommended for approval. The gauges have been installed. The phone lines which are intended to be a back system to a satellite feed to the NWS are not quite fully operational. The City's obligations are listed in Section II. They primarily consist of checking the gauges regularly and paying the monthly phone bill, estimated at about $20 per gauge per month. The Emergency Management Office will be responsible for compliance with the benefitted cities duties listed under Section U. Council Action Requested. Approval of the Amended Memorandum of Agreement with the DNR relating to the four flood warning gauges. ! NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 501) Lafayette Road St, Paul, Minnesota 55 155-411_ June 29, 2000 Mr. David Carr Olmsted County Emergency Management Director 7300 Brataas Dr. SW Rochester, MN 55902 Re: Memorandum of Agreement/Enhanced Floodwarning System DNR Floodwarning Gage Number 41-050-001, Silver Creek Location: on Silver Creek Rd., 0.5 miles north of 4th St. SE;, DNR Floodwarning Gage Number 41-051-001, Bear Creek Location: on U.S. Hwy 14, 0.9 mi. east of U.S. Hwy 63 in south Rochester; DNR Floodwarning Gage Number 41-061-001, So. Fork Zumbro River Location: on U.S. Hwy 14, 0.4 mi. west of U.S. Hwy 63 in south Rochester DNR Floodwarning Gage Number 41-064-001, Cascade Creek Location: on 7" St. NW, I block west of 6`h Ave. NW, 0.2 miles north of Civic Center Dr. on west edge of Rochester Dear Mr. Carr: As you are aware, the Mayor of Rochester has previously signed a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") with the Enhanced Floodwarning System Cooperating Agencies. The MCA provides for various flood -monitoring activities with the goal of an improved floodwaming system. Each city's MOA lists only the Administrator of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Surface Water and Hydrographics Section ("DNR") as the authorized agent for the Cooperating Agencies because of the impracticality of routing numerous documents to several agencies for signature. It was anticipated that the Cooperating Agencies listed in Rochester's MOA would all sign a separate document verifying DNR's MOA with the city. However one agency, the National Weather Service ("NWS"), was unable to execute that separate agreement because the form could not be made to meet the standards they require. The NWS has, nonetheless, participated in the program and intends to continue its participation, but not in the form of an agreement. The NWS has sent a letter to DNR outlining its planned participation. DNR Information: 612-296-6157, 1-800-766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484, 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer 4%• Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Value%Diversity f6r Minimum or to% Post -Consumer Waste City of Rochester c/o David Carr June 29,2000 Page 2 Therefore DNR has executed a new agreement which will serve as the master agreement among the Cooperating Agencies. Attached to this agreement is the NWS letter explaining its participation. The good news is that the program is expected to continue as plarmed. The bad news is that we need to straighten out the paper work. Accordingly, enclosed are 1) two copies of an Amended Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Rochester and the Enhanced Floodwaming System Cooperating Agencies, for whom DNR remains the authorized agent for execution; and, 2) the agency Agreement which clarifies that NWS is not a Cooperating Agency for purposes of the MOA, with the NWS letter attached to it. As I mentioned, because of the NWS letter, nothing is expected to change except the NWS will not formally sign the Agreement. Please have the Mayor of Rochester sign both copies of the Amendment, keep one copy of the Amendment and Agreement (w/ NWS letter), and return one copy of the Amendment within 45 days to Judy Boudreau, DNR Waters, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155-4032. You also might be interested in knowing that, although all of the phone lines are installed, two have not been connected inside the gage boxes. The NWS will be following up with connecting the lines on the Cascade Creek gage and the So. Fork of the Zumbro gage. Minor changes also need to be made to the recording on the other two stations. In addition, the NWS has indicated that they have made progress in programming the call -out feature of the floodwarning gages. They will be in touch with you soon to program the four (4) Rochester floodwaming gages to call the chosen phone numbers at an agreed -upon river condition. Please remember to keep the phone numbers private to ensure their availability when needed! (If the City does not want to maintain the phone lines, please let us know as soon as possible. DNR is currently paying the monthly phone bill and would like to turn over the billing to the proper entity as soon as practical.) Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, cc: Gary Neumann, City of Rochester v/ Enclosures of Natural Resources ro AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER AND THE "ENHANCED FLOODWARNING SYSTEM COOPERATING AGENCIES" WHICH INCLUDE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (DEM), DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATERS (DNR Waters), UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS) AND FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the Enhance Floodwarning System Cooperating Agencies and the City of Rochester. WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103F, 105 (b), stresses nonstructural measures such as floodplain zoning and floodproofing, and flood warning practices to reduce flood damages throughout the state; and WHEREAS, the Enhanced Floodwarning System Cooperating Agencies are affecting the installation of 39 new and 5 upgraded gage sites in areas which would benefit from more advanced warning of flood stages; and WHEREAS, the cities benefitting from the enhanced system have shown interest in working with State and Federal agencies to implementlimprove a gaging system in their city; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties to this Agreement that: COOPERATING AGENCIES DUTIES Minnesota Division of Emergency Management. As the agency having statutory responsibility for disseminating notifications to state agencies, and for coordinating the state agency response to major emergencies/disasters, DEM would: a) Continuously monitor, via the (24-hour) Minnesota Duty Officer (MDO) system which it operates, flood forecast/warning data; b) Notify appropriate state agencies of serious actual/impending flood events; and c) Provide overall long-term coordination amongst the agencies involved in the flood forecast/warning system. d) Provide emergency operations plan (EOP) guidance. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. a) Procure state funding for replacement parts for the ongoing maintenance of the gages; b) Assist in the selection of equipment; c) Assist in the selection of locations for new gages; d) Administer, as Sub -Grantee, the funds procured for the System. e) Provide long-term archiving of climatological and hydrological data for use in analyzing past events, in order to help reduce future flood risk; f) Respond to any community's notification of equipment malfunction by confirming_in writing that the system is out of operation as of a particular date; and g) Fund ongoing maintenance of archival technology. United States Geological Survey. USGS's interest in this project is in the construction and upgrading of sites to facilitate the collection of accurate stage data. The agency can provide technical assistance in the installation of gages and in the collection of hydrologic data. USGS has a limited amount of cooperative funding available to State and local governments for the operation and maintenance of gaging stations. Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA has provided 70% of the funding of the project. National Weather Service (NWS). The NWS is not a party to this agreement. It is anticipated that NWS intends to unilaterally perform tasks as a participant in the Agreement of the Enhanced Floodwarning System Cooperating Agencies dated November 22, 1999, as set forth in its letter dated September 9, 1999, attached hereto as Exhibit A. II. BENEFITTED CITY'S DUTIES a) Regularly (at least monthly) inspect and perform light maintenance of gages (i.e., clean debris from equipment, check for and to report any vandalism, inspect outside connecting telephone lines etc.); b) Maintain a telephone line by regularly (weekly) calling for stage information to be sure the phone is functional at all times; c) Pay the associated monthly telephone charges, so as to be able to receive immediate warnings directly from the gage; d) Notify the NWS office that services the area and the local (City and/or County) Emergency Management Director immediately when the telephone warning system becomes inoperative, regardless of the cause, and when possible, identify the reason the telephone warning system is inoperative; e) Develop a new, or update as necessary and existing, all -hazard emergency operations plan (EOP) which addresses (at a minimum) notification and warning, and evacuation; and f) Conduct/participate in periodic flood emergency exercises; and g) Disseminate information to residents regarding flood mitigation actions (purchasing flood insurance, elevating structures, floodproofing structures, etc.), which they may wish to take and also information regarding the City's flood response procedure. III. TERM This Agreement shall become effective when all signatures required have been obtained and when the gage(s) benefitting the City have been installed. IV. CANCELLATION This Agreement may be canceled by the City or by the Cooperating Agencies at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the other parties. V. AUTHORIZED AGENTS The City's authorized agent for the purpose of administration of this Agreement is Gary Neumann. The Cooperating Agencies authorized agent for the purposes of administration of this agreement is DNR Waters Surface Water and Hydrographics Section Administrator. VI. LIABILITY Any liability of the State is subject to the States Tort Claim Act under Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736. Municipal liability is governed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. VII. AMENDMENTS Any amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be executed by the same parties who executed the original Agreement, or their successors in office. VIII. DATA PRACTICES The City agrees to comply with the Minnesota Data Practices Act as it applies to all data provided by the Cooperating Agencies in accordance with this Agreement and as it applies to all data created, gathered, generated or acquired in accordance with this Agreement. IA IX This amended agreement supercedes any previous agreement on the Enhanced Floodwarning System. X. WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. Date: Z� Zdby Date: Date: SIGNATURES DEPARTMENT OF NA7 DIVISION OF WATERS al Its CITY OF By: Its: Attested By: CITY CLERK ES %i:T%h / �r3 ✓ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ( DATE: 9/ 18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D - 3 DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNAJSCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disaphrovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING —PREMISE PERMIT Rochester Juvenile Hockey association PO Box 237 Rochester, Mn. 55903 PREMISE AT: Viking Lounge, Holiday Inn South 1630 S. Bdwy Rochester, Mn. 55904 HEATING CONTRACTOR Total Comfort of Wisconsin, Inc. W234 N2830 Paul Road Pewaukee, Wi. 53072 MASTER INSTALLER Michael D. Hyde 1414 Forest Hill South Milwaukee, wi. 53172 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses. ( NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING r DATE: 9118100 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 17 DATE: 09/19/00 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA 7 PLANNING J - 5 'EM DESCRIPTION: Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan —Manor Woods West 8",101",1110 PREPARED BY: and Ridgeview Manor Subdivisions John Harford, Senior Planner September 5, 2000 Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan: In 1999 McGhie and Betts identified wetland in the Manor Woods West lOd' and 111h development area According to the wetland report there is 2.15 acres (93,460 square feet) of jurisdictional wetlands on the Manor Wood West 11th area. In 1998 21,100 square feet of wetlands were filled due to erosion/sedimentation problems in the Manorwoods West subdivision area. A Wetland Cease and Desist Order and Restoration Order were issued for that area. The applicant proposes to fill an additional 16,740 square feet of Type 2 and 7 wetland within the drainageway immediately north of the proposed Manor Woods West 11`h subdivision. Filling will be due to 2 road crossings and drainage/erosion control structures. The applicant proposes a total wetland filling of 0.87 acres (37,840 sq. ft.) which includes the area covered by the Cease and Desist Order. The developer was required to replace the filled wetland with 75,680 square feet (2 x 37,840) of new wetland credits or a combination of new wetlands and public value credits (buffer areas). The replacement plan for this proposed fill was approved by the city in September, 1999 and the area was developed in the summer of 2000. The developer is now proposing to use additional wetlands to meet replacement requirements for Ridgeview Manor "division. A total of 8,053 square feet of Type 2 wetland is proposed to be filled and replaced with 16,106 square :t (2 x 8,053) of new wetland credits or a combination of new wetlands and public value credits (buffer areas). The developer plans to replace the filled wetlands by creating wetland on the Manor Woods West site and adjacent to the existing wetland area in the drainageway. The wetland area to be created for Ridgeview Manor subdivision will be located in one pond. Also the surrounding vegetative buffer is included in the total wetland replacement plan. The applicant proposes to create 10,066 square feet of new wetlands and 7,550 square feet of public value credits. The Technical Evaluation Panel agreed with the wetland delineation. The TEP conducted an on -site survey to determine if the wetland plan approved in 1999 had been implemented. A number of changes were made to the plan and the consultant provided an updated wetland survey. The TEP recommended approval of the plan with several conditions, as covered in the staff recommendation. Plannine Staff Recommendation: The staff recommends approval of this replacement plan with several conditions: 1. that the applicant monitor the wetland area and submit annual reports until the wetland is established, and for up to 5 years as required by the rules; 2. the wetland area and buffer be covered by a deed restriction that is in a form provided by BWSR and recorded by the applicant; 3. any area within the buffer must be vegetated as stated in the replacement plan — use native grasses to seed the area; 4. a temporary sediment basin be constructed upstream of wetland area #5 that meets city requirements. WNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 19 ON Council Action: 1. The council should pass a resolution approving the replacement plan for Ridgeview Manor subdivision for a total of 17,616 square feet of wetland and buffer area with the conditions stated by the Planning staff. Attachments: 1. Wetland Replacement Plan Application 2. Report from the applicant. 3. McGhie and Betts letters dated August 23, 2000 and August 8, 2000. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 18, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Government Center. qr rsa � ` `r/7r La. , ,k• r;• -Styes^Corm b a{V _-�• •` -�_ - /�.-•�- :_ . r.. ---roar • .O J'. ,rSJ 1 Y i •` gi•_- �. 'u,s —.,yc `.rJO' .;.,es—_`-'�'T.•1c rwCl,. 9.M 1047 ��` 1 .-•' ram) 1 j �•� �-�r-� �} SITE �- '`J' •). _ �•, 7``_" `rl .- '; lam' T r I kk ni f'i _' � �'• � - ^��^ /'•..tea '?\ ' • �! =,iZ\ •. �� . ���y-"�-`_• ' ' _ �a1C . / `} .` .•� •.: , ."�- •.—/-' ��4}.,,�''�.�..J .� � "1` l''' �- iti �� ' i �/ II �- `..-.vi� � ` ��,, • -•�' - iti-.. , ^-.1' � _. iY,lt��.'ti� �, '- � ! �^, Figure 2 — USGS Topographic Map j'> lMPAC7 `S179- McGHIE & BETTS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC49 w T + L ? §i " .11 1 r• _ IjJ;�p, g{� 1 3 .c 1a_1: 3-4pL •e 6 at a9 A J.511. IL ii �� `-l.. {�[ O [; I 0j 7 AA pp O 77� i :jyRRiiA2aHfyHaia 9 Q 9: r3g81 2 is i�§f Is! as d`tld aH EaHF E �i Eg ng93 ' 9 ESjC�i�9'^:YSxi� R-HS _ CL 3 n 3.KN'n {AS R N I t `, rW 3AfAr(r 7JM3U0T! +s 3.90.9ee9N ! m N - N- '% b CR b � • .y �. N qp � ..LI 71 A.8JY7d R/7fA(09 - - 'A AF 8Af80 XOW(99TOOfN �_——Nm—+NJ sr } •• I I; b M sr I I 4 'ws J: M i P \! • e I I Rtl p` r2 - LY( .M .r�ySLd 11 / I I W ! yy1 91 Rochester Minnesota ;3 August 23, 2000 Mr. John Harford Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Wetland Replacement for Manor Woods West Eighth, Tenth & Eleventh Subdivisions Located in Section 32 of Cascade Township in Rochester, MN; NMI #1121A/8461 Environmental Site Dear Mr. Harford: Investigations, Management & Design Asbestos, Lead & other Thank you for inviting us to the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting on August Hazardous Materials 15, 2000 for the Manor Woods Development. The information included in this Wetland Delineation correspondence supplements the information previously submitted in our letter to you & Pemvtting dated August 8, 2000 and also addresses the items discussed at the TEP meeting. Indoor Air Quality Geological Hazards The items discussed and requested during the TEP meeting included a site plan is Usr & spills showing the proposed replacement area for Ridgeview Manor, verification that post - Environmental development runoff to replacement area #5 will be adequate to maintain wetland Assessment Worksheet hydrology, revising the replacement table to separate the requirements for Manor & Impact Statements Woods and Ridgeview Manor, and a draft seeding plan for the unvegetated buffer VIC (Voluntary Investigation areas. This information is included below and/or on the attached site plan. & Clean Up) The attached site plan shows the created wetland at wetland replacement area #5 along with the proposed wetland buffer and the surrounding lot configuration based on the general development plan. A portion of the wetland replacement credits developed at area #5 will be utilized for the wetland replacement requirements of Ridgeview Manor. The amount of wetland replacement credits required for Ridgeview Manor is listed in the table below. The subwatershed draining into wetland replacement area #5 is approximately 10.5 acres. The post -development area that will drain into area #5 will also be approximately 10.5 acres. Post development surface water runoff from yards and streets will be adequate to maintain hydrology within the created wetland. All surface water runoff will be pretreated in an upgradient basin prior to its release into wetland area #5. lsae Third cheater, 9D4 Plans will be drafted which will show the location and construction of the storm water is 1. 5 MN 53919 basin in the cornfield above 45. This temporary storm water/sediment basin will be Tel. 507.289.7333 designed and constructed to the Cityof Rochester standards. As discussed at the TEP Fax.5W.289.7333 g meeting, this facility will be temporary until the development surrounding area #5 is e-mail, mcghiebetts.com Established 1991 anor Woods West Eighth, Tenth & Eleventh MB14: 1121A/8461 Page 2 completed. Plans for a permanent storm water basin in this location will not be developed until the grading, erosion control plans and storm water plans are drafted for this phase of the Manor Woods development. The permanent storm water facility will also be designed to meet the City of Rochester standards. As stated in our previous correspondence of August 80i, there will be sufficient wetland replacement credits on the Manor Woods site to replace wetlands for both the Manor Woods and Ridgeview Manor (Phase I) developments. The replacement areas and the credits needed for the developments are specified in the table below. Replace- ment Area Proposed Wetland Replace- ment Created Wetlands July 2000 Created Wetlands Upon Completion Replacement for Manor Woods Replacement for Ridgeview Manor Excess Credits Area #1 25,056 8,712 8,712 8,712 Area 42 10,080 5,663 51663 5,663 Area #3 4,140 0 0 Area #4 12,348 1,307 13,100 13,100 Area 95 26,500 24,830 24,830 14,764 10,066 Area #6 0 14,810 14,810 5,061 9,749 Subtotal 78,124 55,321 67,115 47,300 10,066 9,749 PVC Areas #7&#8 59,485 0 50,000 28,380 7,550 14,070 Total 137,609 558,321 117,115 75,680 17,616 23,819 The planting of the buffer around wetland replacement area #5 will not occur until the temporary sediment basin is constructed and the corn has been harvested from the adjacent fields. The seed mix will consist of native grasses to provide erosion control and filtration of surface water runoff, in addition to providing habitat and an aesthetically pleasing environment. Some native forbs such as Leadplant, Wild lupine, Wild bergamot, and/or Butterfly milkweed may be added to the seed mix to increase diversity, habitat value and aesthetics. A seed mix developed by the Olmsted Soil & Water Conservation District is attached. The seed mix will be installed by broadcast or by no -till drilling. Approximately half an acre of the proposed buffer will need to be seeded (shown on the attached site plan). The remaining buffer areas consist of well established scrub/shrub and forested communities that will not be disturbed. aq�; Manor Woods West Eighth, Tenth & Eleventh MBI#: 112 W8461 Page 3 Planting within the created wetland may also be necessary, but will not be completed until the hydrology of the site has stabilized. A planting plan will be developed based on the stabilized conditions and will consist of native species. As mentioned in our previous correspondence, both the created wetlands and the protective buffers will be located within an outlot of one of the next phases of the Manor Woods subdivision. It is our understanding that the submittal of this information will enable the TEP to make an expeditious determination on the Ridgeview Manor Wetland Replacement Plan. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, McGhie & Betts Environmental Services, Inc. Lenore Marken Wetland Specialist Enclosures: Site Plan Seed Mix cc: Mr. Joel Bigelow Mr. Harvey Ratzloff Mr. Mike GuMn Mr, Floyd Whitaker Ms. Mary Kells REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 01 DATE: 9/18/0 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING D ��o :M DESCRIPTION: Wetland Replacement Plan — Weatherstone Development including the Shelter PREPARED I Corp. land. John Harford, September 5, 2000 Wetland Delineation and Replacement Plan: In July, 2000 the applicant submitted a wetland replacement plan for wetlands located in the proposed Weatherstone development north of the Douglas Trail and west of 501h Ave., NW. One wetland area is a part of a larger complex that includes lands to the north and upstream and outside of the proposed subdivision, and several are isolated wetlands scattered throughout the property. The applicant's wetlands area consists of 5.79 acres of Types 1, 2, and 3 wetlands of which 2.47 acres (107,903 square feet) will be filled to allow the development of townhouses. The applicant proposes to avoid the majority of the wetland and replace the filled wetland on -site on both the west and east side of the existing wetlands. The replacement consists of 4.17 acres (181,628 square feet) of new wetland area, and 0.72 acres (31,363 square feet) of "Public Value Credits" (PVC's) or buffer area. The PVC's are located in a water quality treatment pond located on the east side of the site. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), who is charged with the responsibility of reviewing replacement plans, met to :uss this replacement plan. The TEP noted that 1) on -site replacement is generally preferable to off -site acement, 2) that the applicant is proposing an expansion of the some of the existing wetlands on the property creating the potential for a larger higher quality wetland, and 3) that the replacement plan includes adequate area to meet the 2:1 replacement requirement. The TEP recommended approval of the replacement plan with several conditions. The conditions identified at the TEP meeting and by the Planning Department includes: 1. the wetland area and water quality treatment pond be covered by a deed restriction that is in a form provided by BWSR and recorded by the applicant; 2. the replacement plan and grading plan for the property be consistent with one another; 3. the applicant submit the planting plan for wetland "W" to the Planning Department as stated in the replacement plan; 4. the area of Prairie Cord Grass be marked in the field to avoid destruction, and the plants removed and used in the created wetland areas as stated in the replacement plan; 5. submit an as built report and plan to the Planning Department; 6. use Best Management Practices along the created wetland edge to address construction caused erosion/sedimentation and post construction surface water runoff into wetland; 7. there must be concurrent replacement of the wetland; the wetland replacement must be part of the initial grading of the site if wetlands are to be filled during the initial grading for both the Weatherstone and Shelter Corp. sites. 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: lannine Staff Recommendation:. The staff recommends that the Council approve the replacement plan with the stated conditions. Council Action Needed:. Adopt a resolution approving the wetland replacement plan with the conditions as recommended by the Plammng Department. Attachments: 1. Map of the wetland location. 2. Replacement Plan sections. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item willl be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 18, 2000 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. MOO Figure 1 Vicinity Map Scale: 1"== 5,860' StG I IUN: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING EM DESCRIPTION: Roadway name changes for specified roadways located within Rose Harbor First, Rose Harbor Second, Rose Harbor Third, Rose Harbor 4`s and Blocks and Lots specified within Rose Harbor Estates. Please reference attached detailed documentation that identifies affected Plats and corresponding Roadways, Blocks MEETING 3/ DATE: 9-18-00 ITEM NO. 'D� 07 PREPARED BY: Janice K. Chezick GIS I ne recorded plats for Rose Harbor rlrst. Hose Harbor Second, Rose Harbor Third, Rose Harbor 4", and Rose Harbor Estates identifies roadway designations that are not valid as per current postal and residential address recognition. The E911 AddressingiGIS Staff of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department recommend that these roadways be changed to match existing designations and signage. Roadways within these plats fall within bath the City of Rochester and Marion Township jurisdictions. Marion Township Board approved recommended roadway name changes at their August 8° , 2000, Marlon Township Board Meeting. The roadway name changes are all contained within Rose Harbor First, Rose Harbor Second, Rose Harbor Third and Rose Harbor 4", however, the addressing for the lots within Rose Harbor Estates are impacted. Rose Harbor Estates is a re -plat of portions of Rose Harbor 0. Roadway signs will need to be installed at roadway intersections within Rose Harbor Estates. Recommendations of street identification changes are covered by Rochester Code of Ordinance, Chapter 31.32. Street name changes are covered by Rochester Code of Ordinances, Chapter 75.01. Council Action Requested: 1. Adopt an Ordinance to change roadways platted in Rose Harbor First: • FROM Oak Avenue TO Oak CaurtS.E. • FROM South Street TO 15 Street S.E. • FROM Rose Avenue TO Rose Drive S.E. 2. Adopt an Ordinance to change roadways platted in Rose Harbor Second: • FROM East Skyline Drive TO Eastwood Road S.E. 3. Adopt an Ordinance to change roadways platted in Rose Harbor Third: • FROM East Skyline Drive TO Eastwood Road S.E. 4. Adopt an Ordinance to change roadways platted in Rose Harbor 41": • FROM Rose Avenue TO Rose Drive S.E. • FROM Harbor Parkway TO Knollwood Drive S.E. • FROM Park Street TO Park Street S.E. • FROM Sunset Avenue TO Sunset Avenue S.E. • FROM Sunrise Avenue TO Sunrise Avenue S.E. • FROM South Street TO 15 Street S.E. 5. Direct the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the Ordinance with the County Recorder. 6. Request motion to approve and I" and 2ntl Reading on September 18, 2000. This request Is based on the immediate need to Install new roadway signage within Rose Harbor Estates, which was recorded on April 14, 2000. The attached detailed documentation identifies the Plats, Blocks and Lots within the City of Rochester that need to reflect the roadway name changes. Attachments: 1. Detailed Plat, Roadway Designations, Blocks and Lots Document. 2. Copy of original plats to identify location of roadways, Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second 3eq--, Affected Plats, Roadway Designations, Blocks and Lots. Rose Harbor First EXISTING PLATTED ROADWAY NAME NEW PLATTED ROADWAY NAME Oak Avenue Oak Court SE Block Lot 2 4,5, and 7 3 2and 3 South Street 15 Street SE Block Lot 1 4 2 1,2,3, and 4 4 1,2, east 16 feet of 3, 4,5,6,7 and 8 Rose Avenue Rose Drive SE Block Lot 1 4 2 1 Rose Harbor Second EXISTING PLATTED ROADWAY NAME NEW PLATTED ROADWAY NAME East Skyline Drive Eastwood Road SE Block Lot 2 1 Rose Harbor Third EXISTING PLATTED ROADWAY NAME NEW PLATTED ROADWAY NAME East Skyline Drive Eastwood Road SE Block Lot - 5,6, and 7 Rose Harbor 4th EXISTING PLATTED ROADWAY NAME NEW PLATTED ROADWAY NAME Rose Avenue Rose Drive SE Block Lot 1 1,2,3, and 4 6 6,7,8,9,10, and 11 7 8,9,10,11,12, and 13 8 8,9,and 10 Harbor Parkway Knollwood Drive SE Block Lot 7 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 8 1,2,3, and 14 9 1,4,5 6,7,8, and 9 10 2,3,5,6,and 7 Park Street Park Street SE Block Lot w:%aImcoadd\dmumentladdress activitvVca4oseharborplatsandroadwayaffecledbwamechaneeworksheeLdoc Page 1 7 6,7, and 8 8 10,11,12,13, and 14 9 9 Sunset Avenue Sunset Avenue SE Block Lot 1 5,6,7,8, and 9 2 1,2,4,5,6, and 7 6 2,3,4, and 5 Sunrise Avenue Sunrise Avenue SE Block Lot 2 7 3 1 and 2 South Street 15 Street SE Block Lot 1 9 2 1 3 1 4 1,2,3,4, and 5 Rose Harbor Estates This plat contains no platted roads, only blocks and lots. The following blocks and lots are affected by the roadway name changes. For the purpose of clarity the information will be displayed in the same format as the plats above. EXISTING PLATTED ROADWAY NAME NEW PLATTED ROADWAY NAME Rose Avenue Rose Drive SE Block Lot 1 2 2 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 ,19,20,21,22, and 23 3 16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24, and 25 Harbor Parkway Knollwood Drive SE Block Lot 1 1 3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, and 12 4 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, and 11 Park Street Park Street SE Block Lot 3 12,13,14,15, and 16 4 11 Sunset Avenue Sunset Avenue SE Block Lot 2 1,2,3,4,5,24,25, and 26 33 w:\olmcoaddldocument\address activity\rca\roseharborplatsandroadwayal3'ectedbynamechangeworkshect.doc Page 2 cc O O_ 0 U \. w D - } 2 C() ) W � e O F- CC LL �{ U � z �£© § . z / . § �{ j� ^ )| 4 W Z U) 0 f U) 0 U) w . o lilt,�ga�a 1� 9 at5a9t,aasa� S f 4 e A A A 6 h/h X 2 i s 'FSyFi:6�i 6$i 8 %t It I it 3s i "s Yru r It�.7I `�25. WtAd Rrar ;I R N b q V� N Df 1- q .q t� Wk h M p •n }� N id R a3,l ii<�i>�l�a�� y, �. • ijire V:i� FV°; {lit it, =li Ing iR � 1, i �F aI�•i'f ° ,6 t� i ` t� �i €'' i y� 44 tii t` Y .� i tt ` �� eCi t $€ d ° $5e>44 Z'F +EE`z� FF . F : `tI $+ € +IJ �v € � � I iaeot 8[ii FeiC'¢�itt ;"t F%t >c s2,4Eyy ii $ t i a$ pg lit f ? g[ PF e L x Kh €= F�+LL a >Fi+eaj�$$ � 5 �•z, t + It y� ���L• i'iai.t�€ I t€�� yr15 qRR I- t` CE & Ft. hjj I a4>., € F + i $ E §E1 i>...F a i4 C. EE c to % € "u, FO,�EE.I h g E.€€� rZi tieEFE ja `e\ t �a,�€ i`'sE:Ft$a YeFidda iFlfjc4i W1 Lv Ej B� F L>a � � Lv•?" ��a t € i L'� i 7 e d Ull ij *� i 2 l i tE c Ru € �€v'�li tdl � � 3 Epp w 5°u �39-3. :5• 3a� Bu_ I y� � I I •ra E£,� ' .i.� OF•:.J y3ci W ;.x=�� t i E � x i5fi. g p�pF gigr� y��� 4�3�'?. i is9° •Y9 S r " � - _.I._— =I i-5"g- i a !i 7 � 'C . Lv 1 �:'e �`. `2 y 3gY; 5�: d ra:. �• E €;°.�".�£ tl •'_�i C r q ne W 9- -.�a Fars ar€ 9a i }� p S� :K -:•`: ..�. • II .¢. Ct .}l1• u..�'•'i33 195•Lits }ttl`.;f.\,\'n 51515.7._s EE. •RY IE - ;� I =i F %�-}}1,� u.^16 ,`j0. e.'f -SN �yg (.P `'.!n iA. JE Se4i.E . £•� =:r. 6 s S 1 ,.57 \ Fi a A E3 ( 23-5E =1 �te E`= .. y'[�I oY4 \ "10 ♦ ^'fP •i\` �� EjN SE ESy{ i4=i�a d �Ss I:; k� �I \ N ' a 49 . • - �8 t3 A i.• .rs d •9 t,90Dp SI 1": V9r_ 99 I w 1 [.\' 8 .1 I' N N � a r n it A• :� h I 1 v lr °'in M •9 90Zn0 M �_._ 91R 00S I Y'BOC d ,nt r `fiA flu I mj a (O aA` ei N x3 n7 6]? 83 4 grvE 3"s)`"" a-fg'• \q..r .. m, : f. -R M "R N I' N 'R _�14i _an? .. rur K}; g•v�+ ,ry m N -- B' OZwS-'�'i15 CS -oio ve 5 FO_ k R hx:' l i w .9J)17)/ g xk �I ae x_k 'N RR 'R�' .1'nl1/QQM Ir7( - ( ]S•ll gl..5(77r 1� • I ,g s� $ $Eil 3ie s REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Police ITEM NO. D- S 0 DESCRIPTION: Payment of Reward PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson In July of 1996, the Mayor and City Council members approved the posting of a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer of Selina Woitalla. The Rochester Police Department is now requesting the payment of the reward to an anonymous informer who was instrumental in providing information leading to the apprehension and conviction of the perpetrator.. IneP:r 4 r`,s Q!/Gi G elle- COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request payment of the posted $10,000 reward. INCIL ACTION: Modon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, Consent Agenda Police t), q DESCRIPTION: Use of City of Rochester Police Department Range Facility PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson The Rochester Police Department maintains and administers a firearms range facility located at 4004 West River Parkway, in the City of Rochester. The primary purpose for this range is to meet the mandated training needs of Rochester Police Department. Premier Alarm & Security. Inc., a private security corporation has contacted the Rochester Police Department requesting the use of the city owned range for their firearms training needs. Premier Alarm & Security, Inc. has demonstrated that their use of the city owned range is consistent with their mission, past practice in delivery of service and in the interest of public safety, Premier Alarm & Security, Inc. is willing to enter a contractual agreement governing their use of the Rochester Police Department range facility. This contractual agreement was drafted by the Rochester City Attorney's Office and includes an Insurance: Indemnity clause naming the City as an additional insured party for the amount of $1,000,000. Premier Alarm & Security, Inc. anticipates approximate use of range at twice annually, COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the contract between City of Rochester Police Department and Premier Alarm & Security, Inc. for the use the Rochester Police range facility located at 4004 West River Parkway, Rochester, Minnesota Revenue Code 35290. Appropriate to 4110-11230. I NCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by. to: �tS 49-IS POLICE FIRING RANGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT MADE THIS _ day of 2000, between the City of Rochester, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Premier Security, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "User." Whereas, the City maintains a firing range complex located at 4004 West River Parkway, Rochester, Minnesota, that it uses for officer training purposes; and, Whereas, User is a licensed private security company that has a need to use a firing range for the certification of its employees that use handguns during the course of their employment; and, Whereas, the City is willing to allow User and its agents and employees to use the City's firing range complex for training/certification purposes subject to the conditions contained herein. Now, therefore, in consideration of the terms and provisions hereinafter set forth, the City and User hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be one year. Thereafter, this Agreement shall renew automatically unless one of the parties provides notice of non - renewal at least 30 days before the expiration of the term. 2. Use of Firing Range. User shall be entitled to use the firing range complex at 4004 West River Parkway (hereinafter the "range") subject to the following conditions: a) User may use the firing range, range control building, and the classroom, and shall not use any other facilities at the Range. b) User may use the Range only during the hours set by the police training supervisor, which hours shall be reserved by User 30 days in advance unless otherwise agreed to by the police training supervisor c) User may use the Range for handgun training and the classroom for firearm training only. d) User shall independently contract with and provide a qualified training instructor whenever it uses the Range. City shall provide a list of qualified training instructors who are members of the Rochester Police Dept. and �3 the Olmsted County Sheriffs Department. These training instructors shall be considered independent contractors and shall not be considered City or County employees while performing training services. User shall provide the qualifications of any other person it intends to use to meet this requirement. City shall have full discretion to determine the qualifications of this person. e) User shall provide all materials needed for its use except that City will provide a reasonable number of cardboard target backers. 3. Fee. User shall pay an annual fee of $500 payable on the first day of each year of this agreement. 4. Termination. Either party may terminate this agreement at any time by providing written notice to terminate to the other party. User shall provide its notice to the City's police training supervisor. User shall designate a person to accept the notice from City. If this Agreement is terminated by User, no part of the fee shall be refunded. If this Agreement is terminated by City, the User shall be entitled to a prorated refund of the fee. 5. Insurance: Indemnity. User shall obtain and maintain general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence that shall name the City as an additional insured. A certificate of insurance identifying this coverage and listing the City of Rochester as an additional insured, and as a certificate holder entitled to notice 30 days in advance of cancellation, shall be provided prior to the City's execution of this Agreement. User otherwise agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims or liabilities resulting from or arising from User's exercise of the rights granted by this agreement. User further accepts all responsibility for workers' compensation for its employees, including its qualified training instructor, who in no event shall be considered an employee or agent of the City or County. 6. Compliance. User shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to this agreement. 7. Assignment. No portion of this agreement may be assigned by User to my other party without the City's prior written consent. 0 8. Governing Law. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the City of Rochester and the State of Minnesota. 9. Waiver. The failure of the City to enforce any provisions of this contract shall not constitute a waiver by the City of that or any other provision. 10. Merger. This Agreement constitutes the final expression of the parties' agreement, and the complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed upon. This Agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, understanding, agreements, and representations. There are no oral or written understandings, agreements or representations not specified herein. Furthermore, no waiver, consent, modification, or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the speck purpose given. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed the _ day of CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA M ATTEST: Its Mayor City Clerk PREMIER SECURITY BY m REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4� AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA . OM DESCRIPTION: Background: DATE: 9/18/00 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works I b _ l O (J9706) PREPARED BY: CJ M. Baker t�f' • A City -Owner Contract was approved by the Council on August 21, 2000, whereby the City authorized the construction of the project entitled "Basic Construction in Valley Side Estates — J9706". • When the contract was approved on August 21", Lumber One Avon, Inc. was named as both the Owner and Contractor. The Owner has now requested that the contract be amended to specify Elcor Construction as the Contractor vs. Lumber One Avon, Inc. • In addition, the Bond amount for the public improvement portion of the project has been reduced from $750,000.00 to $675,000.00. • Furthermore, a statement regarding Sewer Line Plugs is included in the amended contract. Staff would offer the following Amended Owner Contract for consideration by the Council: • Valley Side Estates — Lumber One Avon, Inc. (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a First Amendment to City / Owner Contract J9706 "Basic Construction in Valley Side Estates". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: • Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amended City / Owner Contract for J9706 "Basic Construction in Valley Side Estates". -- JNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q DATE: 9/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works b..-1' i i cM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction in Southern Woods Third PREPARED BY:'', Addition (J9703) M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Jerry Schultz & Randy Reynolds (Owners) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9703 consisting of "Basic Construction in Southern Woods Third Addition". ,SI �N �El 21El f ,a sF = \ r hemwoads1317d y i V Ct}E:[Y i i' - Y F} x COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9703 "Basic Construction in Southern Woods Third Addition" ...WJNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q� DATE: 9/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D — ( A i i cM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain to Serve the Autumn Woods RV PREPARED BY: Park (J9701) ,i M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Galen Youngkrantz & Patricia Youngkrantz (Owner) & Mick's Backhoe Service (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9701 consisting of "Watermain to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9701 "Watermain to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park" JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works EM DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS MEETING 51 DATE: 9/18100 ITEM NO. D-13 PREPARED BY: V'0- J� M. Baker A3 The Department of Public Works has received requests on three (3) different properties, to voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. This department has reviewed the information for these properties and has determined that there is support for participation. Owners of the following properties have requested voluntary participation in the City's Plan, with the applicable participation fee as follows: • Gary Simonson (SDP#00-42) (Storage Buildings on Lot 2, Block 1, River Court Commercial Subd) $9,592.21 • Alvin Benike for the Calvary Evangelical Free Church (SDP#00-61) (5500 251" Ave NW) $3,166.67 • Robert Nuss for Mack Trucks of Rochester (SDP#00-62) (6500 Hwy 63 S) $ 696.67 The Owners of these properties have already provided payment for their respective charges. These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the properties to participate in the City's Plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted properties, in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING P D AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA i t tM DESCRIPTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works — Care Free Mini DATE: 9118/00 ITEM NO. b-1 q PREPARED BY: To% J� M. Baker 03 Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: • Douglas D. Stack & Julia M. Olofson Steck are the Owners of the care Free Mini Storage property. The Owner has requested that a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement be approved to address the Owner's obligations with regard to providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage of Oakridge Dr SW, and a ten (10) foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the Owner's entire frontage on T.H. 63 (South Broadway Avenue). I Oak RdgeOrSW COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Douglas D. Steck & Julia Olofson Steck for the Care Free Mini Storage Property. Uww'NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second 5G- AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTAGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING it DATE: 9/%/00 ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works Application in New ITEM NO. t,J -(5 BARED BY: J. Wellner J Staff believes that an alternative procedure for seal coat in new developments could save money and improve the overall pavement management in these new subdivisions. The present policy requires the developer to seal coat the streets in new subdivisions prior to acceptance by the city. The developer must provide dust control and, after 7-10 days, clean the excess aggregate chips from the area treated. In most developments, the area seal coated is considered by the developer to be a small project. Because this is a small project, the follow-up dust control and aggregate clean up are a coordination nuisance. Staff conducted a survey of approximately 36 developers. A post card enclosed in the letter allowed the developer to select either the alterative of continuing to seal coat on their own or the have the city include the seal coating in the city's program and each developer pay the appropriate cost for their developments. 13 post cards were returned. 11 developers voted to have the city include the seal coating of new subdivisions in the city seal coat program and 2 vote to continue with the seal coating on an individual basis. Staff believes that the developers strongly support a change in the city's policy for seal coating new subdivisions, where the city will conduct the work as part of the annual seal coat program and the developers pay the cost of seal coating their subdivisions. The alternative procedure, proposed by staff, is for the city to conduct the seal coat as a part of the normal seal coat program conducted each year by the city. The City Street Division would be responsible for the seal coat application as well as for the dust control and aggregate clean up. The developers would contribute to the city's seal coat program for seal coating their subdivisions. The current rate is $0.45 per square yard. This rate will be adjusted annually based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to change the city policy for seal coating the streets in new subdivisions to require the developer to pay for the first seal coating of the streets within their new subdivisions and for the city to include the seal coating of these streets in the new subdivisions in the annual seal coating program. The Rate for 2000-2001 is $0.45 per square yard and shall be adjusted annually on August 1 based on the ENRCCI. �C)1 . . wJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING -57 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA .. _M DESCRIPTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works Avenue SW 1 DATE: 9-18-00 ITEM NO. D-1 6 PREPARED BY: y, D. Rossman The City has received a petition from residents of this block requesting the City to establish Permit Parking on their street listed below, to control all day parking : 1. 13' Avenue NW on the east side of the street from Center Street to V Street NW. The area is shown on the attached map. This petition is from within the Cascade Manor Neighborhood where Permit Parking has already been established on seven blocks. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. #138 and staff finds that all conditions are met. The petition is to add streets to an existing zone. The streets requested are impacted heavily by parking from a source outside the neighborhood. There is a "No Parking" restriction inplace on the west side due to street width. This is to remain. The petition has signed by the following percentage of abutting property owners or residents: Block street/row width # of signers # of owners % signing 13" Avenue / 10 block 30/66 5 7 71 % Staff would recommend in favor of the petition with one exception. The Police Department requests that all the streets in a Residential Permit Parking Zone have the same hours. For Zone 5 Cascade Neighborhood the enforcement hours would be 8:00am to 4:00pm Monday thru Friday. Staff would request a Public Hearing to be scheduled for October 16", 2000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution calling for a public hearing on October 16, 2000 to consider establishing Residential Permit Parking Zone #5 (Cascade Manor Neighborhood) on the following streets, at all hours. (1) 13" Avenue NW 10 block on the east side of the street. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second 15O 340 300 1609 108 Zone 5- Cascade Manor Neighborhood 1a7 � 545 1420 `• en my 46 1400 1310 4 25 Y4 1 1 20 20 1 1 11 455 2 3 1 7 1 41F0M V F 1120 413 , ,,, OM;Iilil"iiiii KaEEA 12 KaEEA 12 12 12 6 21 t 41 1 �24F 22 121 124 412:5 121< 21 40 53 24 23 22 2011 4am 1 34 1 1 1 1 12 12 2 1 1 18 123 2 3 23 123 22 21 27 109 103 42 41 1 08 1 1 3 1 42 1 1 1�2A 1408 1404 30 1 B 1 —., -T-1 -1101 14111A11} t�A7i �3091T.1 �`12� 1 1231 15Q7' 1..14 ]415� _7400. �313 'j301 \ �?3a 410 400 lei 1 14 34 11 1 28 i lie 19 22 11 2 15 12 14 14 i 12 1 7 7 3 1 1 1 11 1 1201 ,, 1147 4139 1131 11231N5' ' 1 91• µ 1 � R i 1149 1143 113E �127 _�7119�1� 1 . } I 1 PQ rdnJ f{�A105 e-0,0-' 189 L-�` �va tJO— i0 Block REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9-18-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D - l 1 :M DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from Lourdes High School PREPARED BY:k1, Rossman The City has received a petition from Lourdes High School requesting the City to establish Permit Parking on the streets listed below, to control all day parking during school hours: 1. 6'h Avenue NW on the west side of the street from 1" Street NW to 2" Street NW 2. 7 h Avenue NW on the east side of the street from Center Street to 2nd Street. The area is shown on the attached map. This petition is from within the Kutzky neighborhood where Permit Parking has already been established on thirteen blocks. The petitions have been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. #138 and staff finds that all conditions are met. The petition is to add streets to an existing zone. The streets requested are impacted heavily by all day parking Monday thru Friday from a source outside the neighborhood. There are three "No Parking" restrictions inplace. The notes explain what is recommended for each of these. The blocks involved are all adjacent to land owned by Lourdes High School that is an allowed use in this residential zone. The petition has signed by the following percentage of abutting property owners or residents: Block street/row width # of signers # of owners % signing Notes 6' Avenue / 100 block 30/75 1 1 100 % (1) 7th Avenue / 10 block 27/66 2 3 67 % (2) 7th Avenue / 100 block 36/66 4 6 67 % (2) (1) There is a "No Parking" Restriction inplace on part of the west side due to visibility. This is to remain. (2) There is a "No Parking" Restriction inplace on the west side due to the street width. This is to remain. Staff would recommend in favor of the petition and would request a Public Hearing to be scheduled for October 16", 2000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution calling for a public hearing on October 16, 2000 to consider establishing Residential Permit Parking Zone #8 ( Kutzky Neighborhood) on the following streets, between the hours of 7:00am to 5:00am, School Days Only; (9) 6th Avenue NW 100 block on the west side of the street. (10) 7' Avenue NW in the 10 block and 100 block on the east of the street COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: V; City. of Rochester, MN Residential Permit Parking Zone 8- Kutzky Neighborhood 1111111�� ell �� �111111 o� I' O 111111A �0ISI ��mc o ono I omopo� ED �1TD[1Tf1M U1f D �IFFi 900 0 900 Feet LEGEND ® Proposed Permit Parking Existing Permit Parking a WN REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: (0l 9-18-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works b-rB :M DESCRIPTION: Change Order #1 for City Project 8215-31-00 (J-2594) PREPARED BY-. "2000 Restoration of The Second Street Ramp 1 . Rossmah This is a recommendation to approve Change Order #1 for City Project 8215-31-00 (J-2594) "2000 Restoration of The Second Street Ramp " The total cost of C.O11 is $1,650. The items contained in the Change Order #1 are the result of finding more areas to restore than were shown on the contract drawings in the area of Top of Slab Repair. Total project costs are now estimated as follows: Original Restoration Contract with Brent Anderson Associates, Inc $ 288,450 Change Order#1 $ 1,650 Engineering & Inspection $ 32,800 Total $ 322,900 This project is funded on page 342 of the 2000 city budget, and is funded from retained earnings. Staff recommends that Council proceed with Change Order #1. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution approving Change Order #1 for City Project 8215-31-00 (J-2594) "2000 Restoration of The Second Street Ramp. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by7 to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 03 DATE: 9/1/8/2000 " .ENDA SECTION: ,nsent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: I Water Reclamation Plant ITEM NO: b" 19 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids PREPARED BY: Sewage Piping Replacement Lyle J. Zimmerman The raw sewage steel pipeline carrying the entire city flow of wastewater through the tunnels at the WRP is in need of replacement. Black & Veatch Engineers have completed design documents for the piping replacement. Council Action Requested: Approval to advertise for bids for the 2000 Sewage Piping Replacement Project at the Water Reclamation Plant. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �S/ DATE: 9/18/00 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Hearings City Administrator F. I DESCRIPTION 2001 Community Development Block Grant Program PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth • This Public Hearing is a requirement of the 2001 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program which is a federally funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Comments on the proposed program are to be taken at the hearing, but no appropriations will be made or action taken at this meeting. Following the hearing, the individual appropriation forms are to be filled out by the Councilmembers and are to be submitted to the Administrator's Office by September 27, 2000. The Council will review the individual appropriations and is tentatively scheduled to make their decisions on the 2001 CDBG appropriations at a second public hearing scheduled for October 2, 2000. • At this time we have not received any confirmation from HUD on the exact amount of CDBG funding that will be received in 2001; however, we are using an estimate of $600,000. The City received this same amount in 2000. If the funding that is received is more or less than the $600,000 estimate, the City will need to adjust the amount of the appropriations to the 2001 recipients • The individual requests for CDBG funds have been submitted to the Council separately from the agenda due to their length. The City also received financial information on each non -governmental applicant in the form of IRS Form 990. These Form 990's were not copied with the applications since they are fairly lengthy; however, they are available upon request from the City Administrator's Office. • As we have done for the past several years, this office is strongly recommending that needed funding for the ontinuing of the City's Single Family Home Rehab program and the cost of administration of this program staffing provided by the Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department) be provided up front prior to considering the other requests. The amount recommended for 2001 is a minimum of $250,000 for the Single Family Home Rehab program. The Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department is also requesting, and we are recommending, $35,000 to administer the overall CDBG program. When these amounts are subtracted from the estimated $600,000 there will be $315,000 remaining to be appropriated. • This office also recommends strong consideration be given to the request of the Park and Recreation Department's request for the modifications to park facilities required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These improvements are required under ADA and if they are not funded with CDBG dollars, they will likely have to be funded with property tax dollars. Please recall that the Council has committed $50,000 annually, over a 5 year period to the Rochester Area Foundation for the "First Homes" program. It Is the staffs recommendation that the $50,000 allocation for 2001 be pulled out of the CDBG Contingency Fund, (That is what was done for 2000). The CDBG Contingency fund received program income from the RAEDI small business loan repayments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: • Hold and close the public hearing. The applicants should be advised that another hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 2, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. after which the Council will approve the appropriation of the 2000 CDBG funds. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: - 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM TO: Terry Spaeth, Assistant to the City Administrator FROM: Theresa M. Fogarty, CDBG Administrator DATE: September 12, 2000 RE: 2001 Community Development Block Grant Requests TOTAL CDBG REQUESTS: $998,975 The following is a review of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) requests primarily containing comments on eligibility, fundability, previous appropriations, balances and program benefit. A. PUBLIC SERVICES. The following are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 507.201(e). Please note that the amount allocated for public services cannot exceed 15% of the Grant Allocation (507.201(e)(1)). This year's estimated grant amount is $600,000, therefore, the total amount of the public services allocation cannot exceed $90,000. Aldrich Memorial Nursery School. Aldrich Memorial Nursery School (AMNS) is a nationally accredited learning program for pre-school aged children. AMSN has served Rochester for over 50 years. In 1953, AMNS became Rochester's first independent, incorporated, non-profit nursery school. AMNS provides two, three and five day a week, 150 minute nursery school program to over 500 pre-school children, ages 2 1/2 to 5. Main streamed nursery school experience for 21 Early Childhood Special Education Students of Rochester Public Schools, inclusion of children requiring support in learning English as a second language, inclusion of children with special needs and children from abusive families, a six week summer school program and a lending library with over 600 children's books and a collection on parenting skills and child development. Aldrich Memorial Nursery School is requesting CDBG funding to provide financial assistance to four and five year old children from low income families allowing participation of early childhood education. Past CDBG allocations amounted to $5,000 in 1999 and $4,600 in 2000. As of this date, all 2000 funding has been committed, but not spent. Amount Requested: $6,000 2. Arc Southeastern Minnesota. Incorporated in1955 to improve the quality of life for people with developmental disabilities. Arc Southeastern Minnesota previous known as Arc Olmsted County has merged with six smaller Arc chapters in Southeastern Minnesota. Arc Southeastern Minnesota is requesting funds to assist with the cost of administration for their People First Program. The People First Program of Olmsted County offers support and assistance to group members as a whole and to the Leadership team individually, as needed. Assists individuals with developmental disabilities with integration into community activities that will enhance their development, such as employment, volunteer experiences, recreational and social events. ARC Olmsted, in the past, have included high school age individuals with disabilities. All participants are low -moderate income individuals. Total cost of the program is $34,400. Past CDBG allocations amounted to $12,100 in 1995, $5,616 in 1996, $5,370 in 1997 $5,184 in1998, $6,600 in 1999 and $3,900 in 2000. As of this date, no 2000 funds have been spent. Amount Requested: $17,250 3. Channel One Food Shelves and Food Bank. A non-profit agency that operates a regional food bank warehouse, distributing more than 5 million pounds of food to 150 non-profit agencies in Olmsted County and fourteen SE Minnesota counties. Channel One also distributes approximately 1.5 million pounds of food to more than 3.200 low income Olmsted County households annually through the Supplemental Food Shelf program. Channel One is requesting CDBG funding for an agency -wide planning and capacity building process. Channel One plans on completing a self - assessment and strategic direction planning by working with a consultant who will facilitate the board governance and strategic focus process. In the past, Channel One has received CDBG funding for acquisition of their current food shelf building and installation of a freezer room in the building. All CDBG funding has been expended. Amount Requested: $5,000 4. Child Care Resource and Referral, Inc. (CCRR). CCRR is a multi- program, private non-profit agency providing child care services for low - moderate income families. CCRR is requesting 2001 CDBG funding to assist with the cost of child care for families residing in Rochester, who are attending school or working. The parent pays a co -payment, based on his/her income and family size, leaving a program share of approximately $369 per month. Ten percent ($6,000) of the funding request will be used to assist with the administration of the program. 11 Child Care Resource and Referral, Inc. has received, in the past from the CDBG program, $448,864 and most recently $23,400 in 2000 for child care subsidies. As of this date, there exists a balance of $14,450 for child care subsidies. Amount Requested: $60,000 5. Community Youth Mentorship Program. The Community Youth Mentorship Program was established to provide mentoring as a multicultural program which builds bridges for youth by helping them to discover their own abilities and by broadening their experiences and opportunities. The Community Youth Mentorship Program (CYMP) is in its eighth year of providing a Mentorship Program to the youth of Olmsted County. CYMP is a prevention program. Their mission is "to provide mentoring as a multicultural program which builds bridges for youth by helping them to discover their own abilities and by broadening their experiences and opportunities". Each of the youths and mentors involved are screened prior to being matched. The adult mentor is required to make a minimum one-year commitment to the youth match. The Community Youth Mentorship is requesting $10,000 from the CDBG funding to recruit new mentors for their mentoring program to be used as general operating funds for the program. The Community Youth Mentorship has received a total of $74,777 since 1994 of that total $6,400 was allocated in 2000. As of this date, they have not spent any 2000 funding. Amount Requested: $10,000 6. Family Action Collaborative. Family Action Collaborative (FACES) is a partnership of City of Rochester and Olmsted County professionals, public officials, consumers, parents, businesses, human services funders and providers, foundations and non -profits. Together they have designed a community based collaborative system that improves the lives of, services for, children and their families by providing comprehensive service delivery for families and children, integrate funding streams to provide services and to integrate the delivery of services among agencies in the City of Rochester and throughout Olmsted County. FACES is requesting CDBG funding to continue the collaborative by assisting with the cost of program administration expenses. The Family Action Collaborative received CDBG funding in 2000 for the amount of $13,400. Funds have not been spent, but have been committed. Amount Requested: $20,000 7. Hiawatha Homes Foundation. Hiawatha Homes Foundation, Inc. was created in 1983 as an agency whose mission is to financially support community services, including residential facilities administered by Hiawatha Homes, Inc. The mission of Hiawatha is to establish and conduct community residential services that promote dignity and independence in the lives of people with developmental disabilities and to provide appropriate care, supervision, and guidance consistent with individual abilities. Hiawatha Homes Foundations is requesting CDBG funding to assist with the start-up costs for a "Family Day Care" as a benefit to the employees of Hiawatha Homes Foundation. Start-up costs include equipment, supplies, building rent, utilities, insurance and a passenger van. Hiawatha Homes Foundation has received CDBG funding in the past for accessibility improvements at their Group Homes. This is the first time they have requested CDBG funding as a Public Service category. Amount Requested: $69,785 B. NAMI Olmsted County. Formerly known as Rochester Alliance for the Mentally III (RAAMI), is a non-profit agency providing education, support, and advocacy services to an estimated 3000 persons per year. NAMI Olmsted County works to reduce the stigma of mental illness in our community and increase understanding and compassion towards those who suffer with a brain disorder. NAMI Olmsted County is requesting CDBG funding to increase the number of staff hours for responding to requests for information, referral, education, crisis assistance, treatment options, how to access the community mental health service system and/or provide caring, non- judgmental support and to provide resource materials on mental illness to persons with a mental illness, family members and the general public. NAMI Olmsted County (previously known as RAAMI) received approximately $3,500 several years past to assist with the cost of program administration. All CDBG funding was expended. Amount Requested: $6,200 9. Olmsted Community Action Program (CAP). The Olmsted Community Action Program (CAP) is part of the Division of Community Support and Assistance within the Olmsted County Community Services Department. CAP provides five (5) primary services for individuals/families with limited means: 1) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Services, 2) Community Outreach Services, 3) Emergency Assistance (primarily housing and employment support), 4) Energy Assistance and 5) Family Support Services. 4 �0 CAP is requesting CDBG funding for the Homeless Response Team which is a collaboration of 22 service providers and landlords who represent renters who sometimes experience homelessness or the risk of being homeless. Almost every landlord uses some sort of screening process and many potentially good tenants are being denied housing for something adverse in their rental history. Due to the extremely tight rental housing market in the area, many lower income tenants have a difficult time securing housing. The Renter's Education Partnership is an education program that would assist low-income tenants in Rochester to overcome the barriers to housing caused by negative rental histories. CDBG funding will be used for start-up costs which include, assisting with the cost of staff, conference room fees, office supplies and distribution materials. CAP received $4,032 of CDBG funding in 1998 to assist with the cost of dispute resolution services. All funding has been expended. Amount Requested: $40,000 10. PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota. A non-profit organization founded in 1961 by parents and advocates for persons with developmental disabilities (formerly known as DAC). This agency was one of the original nine pilot projects established by the Minnesota State Legislature to support individuals with developmental disabilities in their home communities. PossAbilities is committed to assisting people with disabilities to be contributing members of the community. Everybody supported by PossAbilities has mental retardation and many also have significant physical disabilities. All of the 150 people supported by PossAbilities reside in the City of Rochester or Olmsted County. PossAbilities is requesting CDBG funds to purchase a new transportation vehicle (mini -bus), due to an expansion of their programs and increased referrals of persons with wheelchairs. PossAbilities received CDBG funding $3,997 in 1997 towards the purchase of an accessible van, $3,072 in 1998 to purchase an automated mail system, $2,400 in 2000 to purchase adaptive computers and software and $2,900 to purchase sensory equipment and furnishings for their Life Enrichment Program. To date they have not spent any of the 2000 CDBG funding. Amount Requested: $5,000 T 11.Rochester Area Disabled Athletics and Recreations, Inc. (RADAR). The Rochester Area Disabled Athletics and Recreation, Inc. was incorporated in 1985. Prior to that date, a Wheelchair Sports committee was assisting the management of wheelchair basketball team with limited financial support from the Courage Center. RADAR is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote and sponsor recreation and athletics for the disabled. Physical fitness and recreation are major components to living an independent life style and mainstreaming, including good health, after re-entering the community. RADAR is requesting CDBG funds to assist with the cost of hiring a Program Assistant. RADAR was allocated $4,000 of 1999 CDBG funding and $2,900 of 2000 CDBG funding assisting in the underwriting of the expenses of adaptive recreational and sporting opportunities for individuals with a disability. To date, none of the 2000 CDBG funding has been expended. Amount Requested: $10,000 TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES REQUESTS: $249,235 B. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER REMOVAL. The following is an eligible activity as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.208(a)(2). CDBG funds may be used to removal material and architectural barriers which restrict the mobility and accessibility of elderly and handicapped persons to publicly or privately owned buildings and facilities. City of Rochester, Park & Recreation Department. All shelters are in need of some accessibility modification to meet with the new ADA standards. Such improvements consist of parking, access from parking lots, bathroom facilities, access from shelters to playground equipment and signage. CDBG funding has been allocated each year since 1994. At the present Cooke Park, Silver Lake Park, and Slatterly Park are completed. 2000 funding was allocated to begin accessibility improvements at Soldiers Field Park which will take several years to complete. Past CDBG spending has been good. The CDBG 2000 balance of $46,100 exists. Amount Requested: $50,000 2. Friends and Quarry Hill Nature Center, Inc. Quarry Hill Nature Center is a community supported day -use Environmental Education Center which help to instill environmental principles and ethics into the individual participants of each and every program. The two main strengths of Quarry Hill lie in the fact that is it easily accessible to Rochester area 11 residents and it has a broad base of support with three bodies, Rochester Public School District, Park and Recreation Department and the Friends of Quarry Hill, all contributing to the operations of the Nature Center. The Friends of Quarry Hill is a non-profit organization. Quarry Hill Nature Center is requesting 2001 CDBG funding to address the accessibility needs of the Quarry Hill Pond. In order to make the pond more accessible to individuals with special needs three issues need to be addressed: 1) blacktop the west side of Quarry Hill pond to adjoin other accessible blacktop trails adjacent to the pond; 2) build an accessible bridge for crossing the Quarry Hill pond and 3) build an accessible fishing dock. The Friends of Quarry Hill Nature Center, Inc. have also requested funding assistance from the Department of Natural Resources. Total project cost is estimated at $64,500. The Friends of Quarry Hill Nature Center, Inc. received $81,600 of CDBG funding in 1999 for the completion of accessibility improvements at the Nature Center. This project has been completed. Amount Requested: $32,000 3. Southeastern Minnesota Center for Independent Living, Inc. (SEMCIL). SEMCIL is a non-profit organization that provides programs and services which empower persons with disabilities to live independently within the community. SEMCIL's services include information and referral, peer counseling, independent living skills training for youth and adults, accessibility services, housing/home modification, disability awareness/sensitivity training, personal care assistance services, support groups and home health care services. SEMCIL is requesting CDBG funding to allow continuation of their Home Modification Rehabilitation Program. The Program assists persons with disabilities to remove architectural barriers and address other accessibility issues. Since the program's inception in 1994, the demand for service has been steady. The maximum award grant will be $2,500 per individual to ensure that are many individuals as possible receive assistance. Ten percent of the request will be applied towards administration costs of the program. SEMCIL anticipates to assist approximately ten or more households. The program will be promoted to persons with disabilities through public service announcements, newsletters and networking with other human service organizations. SEMCIL has received CDBG funding sincel994, totaling $85,914 . As of this date, a balance of $1,135 exist. Amount Requested: $25,000 TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER REMOVAL REQUESTS: $107,000 7 q-5 C. REHABILITATION: The following are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.201(b). Ability Building Center. Ability Building Center is a not -for -profit vocational rehabilitation work center serving persons with disabilities. They are continually providing realistic and appropriate work for over 43 years, with varying degrees of limitation. These hundreds of persons are able to be productive, earn money, build skills, and move onto other community jobs because of their experience at ABC. Ability Building Center is requesting 2001 CDBG funds to complete three improvement projects: 1) refinish the stucco on the south and east side of the building; 2) replace several weather damaged doors and doorjambs and 3) install a room partition in the dining area. Ability Building Center has received several years of CDGB funding in the past with the most recent being $9,300 for sidewalk and loading dock replacement. To date, all CDBG funding has been expended. Amount Requested: $50,000 2. City of Rochester. This request is made by the Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department. A consolidated agency providing services for the City of Rochester and Olmsted County. This request is to continue administration of the home rehabilitation program that provides assistance to low -moderate income single family homeowners for home improvements. This program is administered in several target areas within the City of Rochester. This program has been active for fifteen years. This program provides an affordable financing tool for homeowners to eliminate substandard housing conditions. Because of their lack of financial resources, low and moderate income homeowners are unable to obtain financing elsewhere for the improvements. This program provides that opportunity and does not create a financial burden through an additional monthly payment. Funds are provided to a homeowner in the form of a zero interest, deferred loan which must be paid when the homeowner sells or transfers title to the property. Over the past three years, the City has average approximately $50,000 per year in loan repayments. Of the total amount requested, $40,000 will be used for administration of the program. Past CDBG spending has been excellent. Amount Requested: $250,000 3. Olmsted County HRA (OCHRA). The OCHRA is a public corporation of the State of Minnesota, providing affordable housing to low -moderate income persons through rental assistance, homeownership and home rehabilitation programs throughout all of Olmsted County. The OCHRA is requesting CDBG funding to convert an existing garage to a usable workshop for HRA maintenance staff. The garage is located at 919 NE Seventh Street, Rochester, MN. The workshop will be used to house the lawn mower/snow removal tractor, accessories and other maintenance supplies. The OCHRA did receive a variance on April, 1999 for a Type III Conditional Use Restrictive Development from the City Council for this use. The OCHRA has received CDBG funding in the past. In 1998, 1999 and 2000 they received CDBG funding to assist with the cost of administering the MHFA HOME Rental Rehab Program, a total of $ 17,584 was allocated. To date a balance of $11,229 exists. In 2000, $56,000 of CDBG funding was allocated for land acquisition for affordable housing. To date, no CDBG funding has been expended for this project. Amount Requested: $25,000 4. Samaritan Bethany, Inc. A non-profit organization, providing holistic health services and congenial living environments to aging persons. Samaritan Bethany's services include two nursing homes, an independent senior's living facility and a home health care agency, an adult day care facility and a foundation. Samaritan Bethany, Inc. is requesting CDBG for the following projects: The Home on Eight has no backup boiler and the current boiler is several years old and in poor condition. There are significant condensation problems causing decay and weakening of the pipes, which is a safety issue. Estimated boiler replacement cost is $68,000. The second project is to replace the existing asphalt parking lot. The uneven surfaces make it unsafe for residents and their family members to walk around. Estimated cost is $15,000. Samaritan Bethany, Inc. received $8,532 from the 1998 CDBG funding, $11,900 from the1999 CDBG program and $11,900 for roof repair and seal coating the parking lot at the Home on Eighth. To date a balance of $7,900 exists, but Samaritan Bethany has signed a contract for the roof repair. Amount Requested: $83,000 5. Southeastern Minnesota Center for Independent Living, Inc. (SEMCIL). SEMCIL is a non-profit organization that provides programs and services which empower persons with disabilities to live independently within the community. SEMCIL's services include information and referral, peer counseling, independent living skills training for youth and adults, 9 accessibility services, housing/home modification, disability awareness/sensitivity training, personal care assistance services, support groups and home health care services. SEMCIL is currently located in the Northgate Shopping Center. The present location minimally meets Minnesota Building Codes and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Remodeling the existing space is not an option due to the construction of the building. SEMCIL is in the process of purchasing the old Coast to Coast building located at 2720 Highway 63 North. The total project cost including purchase and remodeling is $968,000. SEMCIL is requesting CDBG funds to assist with the remodeling of the Coast to Coast building to meet their present and future needs. Estimated remodeling cost is $200,000. SEMCIL has not requested CDBG funding in the past for this type of project. CDBG funding has been awarded in the past for their Home Modification Rehab Program. Amount Requested: $50,000 6. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. has provided programs and services to the seniors of Olmsted County for more than 39 years. Begun as a small group of individuals who met two afternoons a week in a local hall, Senior Citizens Services, Inc. (SCS, Inc.) has grown to a membership of more than 2,100. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. is composed of five components: Recreational programs, Senior Dining, Senior Advocacy, Share -A -Home and Community Education classes. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. is requesting CDBG funding assist with the following building improvements: exterior brick work, exterior painting, replace ceiling tiles, replace floor coverings and upgrade restrooms. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. received CDBG funding prior to 1987, no history available as to how much or what activity. They did received $29,300 of CDBG funding in 1999 to purchase the Amoco Site, north of the Senior Citizens Center and again in 2000 for window and HVAC replacement. To date, the 2000 funding has not been spent but the work is under contract and in the process of being completed. Amount Requested: $32,740 7. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center, Inc. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center provides mental health and chemical dependency treatment programs for the residents of southeastern Minnesota since 1965. Services are provided for adults, children/adolescents, employers/employees, educators, social service organizations and community service organizations. 10 �(o .J Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center is requesting $17.000 of CDBG funds to replace the boiler, grind, line, and tuckpoint the boiler stack, and replace the cap the Riverview Center located at 47 NW 13 1/2 Street, Rochester, MN and $5,000 to improve the landscaping at the Psychological Services Outpatient office located at 1939 Viking Drive NE, Rochester, MN and at the Day Programs Building located at 315 Elton Hills Drive NE, Rochester, MN. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center has received CDBG funding in the past. In 1995, $48,800 to purchase a duplex, 1996 - $4,311 for driveway replacement at the Thomas House, 1999 - $6,200 for window and sidewalk replacement and in 2000 - $3,900 for roof at a duplex owned by Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center. Spending of the CDBG funding in the past has been good. The 2000 CDBG funding is currently under contract and in the process of being completed. Boiler Replacement - Amount Requested: $17,000 Landscaping -Amount Requested: $ 5,000 TOTAL REHABILITATION REQUESTS: $512,740 D. ACQUISITION. The following activities are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.201(a). 1. Bear Creek Services Foundation. Bear Creek Services Foundation is a non-profit that was formed in 1978 by a group of Rochester residents expressing the need for residential and support services in the community for children and adults with developmental disabilities or mental retardation. Presently Bear Creek Services provides residential and support services to 52 clients in 14 group homes. Bear Creek Services Foundation is requesting CDBG funding for land acquisition to construct a four bedroom wheel -chair accessible home. Bear Creek has received CDBG funding in the past, with the most recent being in 1999. They received $14,000 to remodel the lower level of an existing house to accommodate an apartment as a crisis receiving unit and $6,900 in 2000 for installing an accessible bathroom in the lower level of an existing group home. To date a balance of $11,900 remain with the 1999 CDBG funds and the total $6,900 remain with the 2000 CDBG funds. Both projects are in the process of being completed. Amount Requested: $50,000 11 2. Hiawatha Homes Foundation. Hiawatha Homes Foundation, Inc, was created in 1983 as an agency whose mission is to financially support community services, including residential facilities administered by Hiawatha Homes, Inc. The mission of Hiawatha is to establish and conduct community residential services that promote dignity and independence in the lives of people with developmental disabilities and to provide appropriate care, supervision, and guidance consistent with individual abilities. Hiawatha Homes Foundation is requesting CDBG funding for land acquisition to construct a fully accessible home for five persons with disabilities. Hiawatha Homes Foundation has received CDBG funding in the past for accessibility improvements at their Group Homes. This is the first time they have requested CDBG funding as an Acquisition project. Amount of Request: $45,000 TOTAL ACQUISITON REQUESTS: $95,000 E. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. This activity is eligible as described in the CDBG Regulations 570.206(a). No more than 20% of the anticipated grant allocation can be used for program administration. This year's estimated grant amount is $600,000, therefore, the total amount of program administration cannot exceed $120,000. 1. Program Administration. Funds requested to assist with overall program management, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of the CDBG Program for the City of Rochester. Staffing is provided by the Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department. CDBG funds have been appropriated to this activity each year. Amount Requested: $35,000 TOTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION REQUEST: $35,000 Attached for your information is a copy of each application requesting the Community Development Block Grant funds. I have labeled the cover page of each application to correspond to the category which it is identified (ex: Aldrich Memorial Nursery School A-1). Also, non-profit agencies requesting CDBG funding have enclosed their 990 forms (provided under separate cover). Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. r:lplandata\theresa\cdbgkcitizenplrequests200l.rtfr:\plandataktheresa\cdbg\citizenpkrequests200l.r f 12 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING fA DATE: 9-18-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. TABLED ITEM - PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING _a DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment petition #00-08 by Billman-Orr LLC to PREPARED BY: amend the Zoning Map to re -zone 18.86 acres of land from the R-1 (Low Density Mitzi A. Bake r, Residential) district to the B-4 (General Commercial) district. The property is located Senior Planner west of Highway 52, south of 65th Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A General Development Plan is being considered concurrent with this request. September 13, 2000 This item was heard by the City Council on June I9, 2000. The hearing was closed and this item was tabled. Please see the attached memo and minutes from the June I9, 2000 Council meeting for additional information. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on May 24, 2000, to consider the land use plan amendment request for the property. The applicant is requesting to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 18.86 acres of land for "Commercial" uses. The Land Use Plan currently designates this property as appropriate for "Low Density Residential" types of uses. During the public hearing, it was clarified that prior to annexation of this property in 1998, the land was zoned HC (Highway Commercial) in the County. Upon annexation of the property in 1998, this land was zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City, consistent with the City Land Use Plan designation for this property (low density residential). Motion by Petersson, seconded by McGowan to recommend denial of Zoning District Amendment #00-08, with ie finding suggested by Staff. Motion carried 5-3. Werven, Quinn, and Burke voting nay. Council Action Needed: The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision on this zone change. If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the Zoning Districts. `I' Distribution:qum 1. City Clerk C� fZCA 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description was previously sent 4. Planning Department File 5. GGG Engineering 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday September 18, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 2 COUNCIL ACTION: I n By: Seconded By: Action:' R'fjjy+r+.e- DATE: September 13, 2000 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner A p 01 "itaerir, vi�wv�ry , ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/2B5-8213 WELUSEPTIC 50712B5-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Tabled Items: GDP #154 O & B and Zone Change #00-08 from R-1(Mixed Single Family) to B-4 (General Commercial) for 18.86 acres of land located south of 65`h St. NW and west of T.H. 52. Background: On June 19, 2000 the City Council approved (6-1) a Land Use Plan Amendment for this property to change the land use designation from "low density residential" to "commercial". After a motion to deny the Zoning District Amendment failed (6-6) and a motion to approve the Zoning District Amendment failed (6-6) the Council voted to table Zoning District Amendment #00-08. At the time, some members of the Council suggested that a different zoning district be considered for this property (i.e. B-1), In conjunction with the Zoning District Amendment, the Council also tabled GDP #154 on June 19, 2000. The Council also waived application fees for re-submitting/revising the applications. New Information: Since the June 19. 2000 City Council meeting, the consultant met with staff to discuss AM and PM peak hour trip generation and roadway capacity. As a result, the applicant revised the GDP to indicate the proposed intensity and type of development, including AM and PM peak hour trips. A revised GDP was submitted to the Planning Department on August 16, 2000. The Zone Change Petition was not modified. Council Action: Zone Change: The City Council will need to either approve or deny Zone Change #00-08. Either decision must be supported by findings. The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact (and an Ordinance if approved) to support a decision on the Zone Change. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER M.511 11 General Development Plan: The City Council will need to approve, approve with conditions or deny General Development Plan #154. The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings to support the Councils decision. If the Council wishes to approve the revised GDP, staff would recommend the following conditions/modifications: 1. The applicant shall execute a development agreement with the City that outlines the land use intensity and trip generation limits of the property and that also outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 2. This property shall be platted. The extension of 34fb Avenue NW is show to straddle two properties. When this property is platted, partial dedication f the right-of-way will not be acceptable. The Plat will either need to be signed by multiple property owners or the roadway will need to be shifted entirely on the applicant's property with access and utilities provided to the abutting property to the west. 3. The General Development Plan shall be revised to modify the language limiting uses and trips to read "Uses allowed shall be limited to only those permitted uses in the B-4 District which are characterized by a AM Peak Hour distribution with a percentage of inbound trips at 70% or greater AND a percentage of PM Peak Hour outbound trips at 70% or greater. The current institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual shall be the primary reference source for making this determination. Uses permitted shall be further limited to those permitted uses in the B-4 District which have a typical trip generation rate of 125 trips per acre or less, as reported in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, or where the calculated trip generation based on the proposed site development plan will be less than 125 trips per acre." 4. The utility easement indicated along the north property line shall be dedicated at the time of platting or upon written notification from the City that the easement is necessary for a utility extension. Attachments: Revised referral comments Revised General Development Plan Original staff report and attachments ,% • /--\ i ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: May 18, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment petition #00-08 by Billman-Orr LLC to amend the Zoning Map to re -zone 18.86 acres of land from the R-1 (Low Density Residential) district to the B-4 (General Commercial) district. The property is located west of Highway 52, south of 65th Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A General Development Plan is being considered concurrent with this request. Plannina Department Review: Petitioner: Jerry Orr and Kent and Cynthia Billman 6254 34u' Ave. NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: GGG Engineering and Surveying 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 . Location of Property: The property is located south of 65`h St. NW, west of T.H. 52. Requested Action: The applicant requests 18.86 acres be rezoned from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the B-4 (General Commercial) district. A Land Use Plan amendment request is being considered concurrent with this zoning district amendment. Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped. Proposed Land Use: The applicant has not specified uses for the property other then those allowed within the B-4 (General Commercial) district. Adjacent Land Use and Property to the west is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Zoning: Family) district. Property to the north is currently outside of the City limits and is zoned HC Highway Commercial. The property to the south is zoned B-4 .TJYYM AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER le Page 2 • �_71\ VV May 18, 2000 (General Commercial) in the City and is developed with a church campus. Transportation Access: Access to this property will be from a township road that serves the existing commercial development in the County/Township. This roadway accesses 65'h St. NW, just west of T.H. 52, Wetlands: There do not appear to be hydric soils on this property. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department —Transportation 2. Rochester Public Works Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Zoning Map 3. Referral Comments 4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Analysis for Zoning District Amendment: Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: Page 3 May 18, 2000 a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). The adiacent property to the south is zoned B-4. This property is develoned with a Church campus and will not be developed commercially. Staff Recommendation: Staff suggest that the findings do not support re -zoning this property to the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district at this time. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING S / / DATE:9-18-00 / AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. TABLED ITEM - PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING f „ 3 DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B's Commercial PREPARED BY: Center. The applicant, Billmann-Orr LLC, is proposing to develop approximately 18.86 Brent Svenby, acres of land with commercial uses. The development may consist of the permitted uses Planner consistent with the B-4 zoning district. The property is located west of Highway 52, south of 65'h Street NW and Westgard's First Subdivision. A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are being considered concurrent with this request. September 13, 2000 This item was heard by the City Council on June 19, 2000. The hearing was closed and this item was tabled. PIease see the attached memo and minutes from the June 19, 2000 Council meeting for additional information. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this GDP on May 24, 2000, The Commission also reviewed a Land Use Plan Amendment and Zone Change Amendment currently with this General Development Plan. See the minutes of the Commission meeting for a summary of the issues discussed at the meetings. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Ma. McGowan made a motion to deny General Development Plan #154, to be known as O $ B's Commercial Center, taff-suggested findings. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3, with Mr. Werven, Mr. _-------- and Mr. Burke voting nay. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department GIS Division 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 19, 2000 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. R , f n 6. GGG Engineering -�q�.C.� f COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: H" WP^q A4&f A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 0 & B's COMMERCIAL CENTER ---------------- I 1 IPT 1 I R.0 �� I � 1 01 —_� �Nro o2sca.Nnox 1 a1 1M NplMall Wpnw el SKIIM i. la.nMb 101 XTA Rynp la Ynl. Oma1N CwnIN 4Mxs1O MaelM as latlert 1. U. W.mY evew. vmW LZI;A= eaclRrn bt ualn Ya2 nwo� a aw2rkr ISN.IO[ IRY mRp� — — NXlor aollvw --- a111.R3C YkC'ke aanewc u.. n Ip�X.R -I entlld k Itml Lrihm awlm- 623. SHN a.. " RocMalw. MN 5] COC En&—kA YEl9d CCC rn21nm3q, sampnv. k %mnln0 N NMmu CM4.c M4 NN 35Y23 Mga�lmt m tna pan . b .a m IM NetbrW GK.na vwtkM v.t— a Ii20 bu.�'ia�`anw-.Ikvxl Ik28 . — SaCpal b -WM , xx.R. [mop pma T—k Nl h... N. Dw" metl.. RW.'IY b rvrtl IM .1w 32W SX.mbm. NNfac.. StlGtlYMS w t m n.2 N bit CA U" kw W. CA 6M.ay —t 25' NW 0 2Lap VICINITY SECTION 0-107 1�p CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY Eylw.elak 64r..„R2 �A DATE: September 13, 2000 TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner ri �r•1�1i'� �b��saYsaew•!?I •. ���•�j 1��W IjI �I Sri ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-B232 PLANNING GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-B232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Tabled Items: GDP #154 O & B and Zone Change #00-08 from R-1(Mixed Single Family) to B-4 (General Commercial) for 18.86 acres of land located south of 65r8 St. NW and west of T.H. 52. Background: On June 19, 2000 the City Council approved (6-1) a Land Use Plan Amendment for this property to change the land use designation from "low density residential' to "commercial'. After a motion to deny the Zoning District Amendment failed (6-6) and a motion to approve the Zoning District Amendment failed (6-6) the Council voted to table Zoning District Amendment #00-08. At the time, some members of the Council suggested that a different zoning district be considered for this property (i.e. B-1). In conjunction with the Zoning District Amendment, the Council also tabled GDP #154 on June 19, 2000. The Council also waived application fees for re-submitting/revising the applications. New Information: Since the June 19, 2000 City Council meeting, the consultant met with staff to discuss AM and PM peak hour trip generation and roadway capacity. As a result, the applicant revised the GDP to indicate the proposed intensity and type of development, including AM and PM peak hour trips. A revised GDP was submitted to the Planning Department on August 16, 2000. The Zone Change Petition was not modified. Council Action: Zone Change: The City Council will need to either approve or deny Zone Change #00-08. Either decision must be supported by findings. The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact (and an Ordinance if approved) to support a decision on the Zone Change. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER MM.a. ql FA General Development Plan: The City Council will need to approve, approve with conditions or deny General Development Plan #154. The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution with findings to support the Councils decision. If the Council wishes to approve the revised GDP, staff would recommend the following conditions/modifications: 1. The applicant shalt execute a development agreement with the City that outlines the land use intensity and trip generation limits of the property and that also outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 2. This property shall be platted. The extension of 34rh Avenue NW is show to straddle two properties. When this property is platted, partial dedication f the right-of-way will not be acceptable. The Plat will either need to be signed by multiple property owners or the roadway will need to be shifted entirely on the applicant's property with access and utilities provided to the abutting property to the west. 3. The General Development Plan shall be revised to modify the language limiting uses and trips to read "Uses allowed shall be limited to only those permitted uses in the B-4 District which are characterized by a AM Peak Hour distribution with a percentage of inbound trips at 70% or greaterAND a percentage of PM Peak Hour outbound trips at 70% or greater. The current Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE) Trip Generation Manual shall be the primary reference source for making this determination. Uses permitted shall be further limited to those permitted uses in the B-4 District which have a typical trip generation rate of 125 trips per acre or less, as reported in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, or where the calculated trip generation based on the proposed site development plan will be less than 125 trips per acre." 4. The utility easement indicated along the north property line shall be dedicated at the time of platting or upon written notification from the City that the easement is necessary for a utility extension. Attachments: Revised referral comments Revised General Development Plan Original staff report and attachments September 2000 From: Charlie Reiter RE: GDP 154 O&B Commercial Center To clarify the restrictions on use types proposed as part of the GDP would suggest the following language: "Uses allowed shall be limited to only those permitted uses in the B4 District which are characterized by a AM Peak Hour distribution with a percentage of inbound trips at 70% or greater AND a percentage of PM Peak Hour outbound trips at 70% or greater. The current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual shall be the primary reference source for making this determination. Uses permitted shall be further limited to those permitted uses in the B4 District which have a typical trip generation rate of 125 trips per acre or less, as reported in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, or where the calculated trip generation based on the proposed site development plan will be less than 125 trips per acre." FrA ROCHESTER Minnesota 8/29/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur REVISED 8/29100 rn DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for REVISED General Development Plan #154 on the O & B's Commercial Center fStuve Property) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: The following comments from 5/15/00 are still applicable. New comments are indicated with BOLD. 1. Development of this property should require Platting, and execution of a Development Agreement. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for development of this property. The City's Regional Stormwater Management plan shows a future regional detention facility on the adjoining parcel to the south of this property. 3. Access to this property, via the extension of 34'h Ave NW, will require the dedication of the entire ROW width at the time of platting. 4. Pedestrian facilities will be required along the entire frontage of bath sides of all new public roads to serve this development. 5. Easements will be required for off site utilities, if applicable. The 20 foot utility easement indicated along the north property line of the GDP shall be dedicated at the time of platting, or upon written notification from the City that the easement is necessary for a utility extension. 6. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure needed to serve this property. 7. With limited access to TH 52, and with 65'" St NW, and 34" Ave NW both being substandard in width & weight limits in its current condition, there does not appear to be adequate public facilities to serve commercial development of this property. 8. B-4 land of this acreage should have two access points. The single access point of 34th Ave at 65'h St would not have enough capacity. C:ITEMPIGDP154 Revised 8-OO.doc A� ROCHESTER Minnesota 8/29/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 20140 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1605.50 per developable acre •3 J9265 "Water Tower to Serve High Level Northwest Area" @ $1154.67 per acre plus 7.5% interest from 4/15/96. Substandard Street Contribution for future reconstruction of 34 h Ave NW @ $48.00 per foot of frontage plus a proportional share cost for the Capacity Component of the Northwest Area TED. a Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: Q: TEMPIGDP154 Revised 8-00.doc RECO' -) OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF, '"`1E COMMON COUNCIL 5892 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MIN,.ESOTA Regular Adjourned Meeting No. 12 —June 19, 2000 Agenda Item E-6) J A Hearing on General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B's Commercia Center located west of Highway 52, south of 6e Street N.W. and Westgard's First Subdivision. Wishing to be heard was Jeff Griffin, GGG Engineering, Chatfield, representing the owner. At the request of the neighbor to the west and the City, the land was annexed approximately two years ago. The sewer line will go through the property to allow the Penz property to the west to be developed. A transmission water line extending from the North Park Tower to serve property east of TH52 will now be placed on the north side of the property. There have been traffic problems; MnDot has now closed the intersection at 65'" Street. The proposed commercial use of the property will not diminish the peak periods of traffic usage because the traffic pattern will run the opposite direction of peak traffic. If the proposed R-1 had been developed, a bottleneck would occur in the morning and evening. There are currently billboards on the property that are non -conforming. The property owner would like to put warehouses on the property. Mitzi Baker, Planning Department, addressed the section in the land use plan talking about strip commercial development; it noted it should be prohibited. The use of strip development distracts from the general appearance of the property and surrounding commercial uses. Terry Adkins, City Attorney, suggested that the Council consider the next item on the agenda, the Land Use Plan Amendment #00-06, prior to taking action on the General Development Plan. Councilmembers Senjem moved, Stobaugh seconded, to table General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B's Commercial Center to consider the Land Use Plan Amendment first. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. (This item appears again after Item E-8.) E-7 A Hearing on Land Use Plan Amendment #00-06 by Billman-Orr LLC to amend the Land Use Plan from "low density residential" to "commercial" located west of Highway 52, south of 65t' Street N.W. and Westgard's First Subdivision. Wishing to be heard was Jeff Griffin, GGG Engineering, Chatfield, representing the owner. A neighborhood meeting was held with no objection to the project. Councilmember Senjem said that this seemed to be more of a destination development rather strip development. The people that go there are specifically wanting to go there. Jeff Griffin, GGG Engineering, noted that they intend to extend the cul-de-sac into the development as shown on the general development plan. Councilmember McConnell did not agree with the B-4 zoning designation due to th fact that B-4 supports numerous uses other than a warehouse. He noted that the findings do not support the use of a commercial land use designation, 96 RECORD OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, M' ESOTA Regular Adjourned Meeting No. 12 — Juno 19, 2000 5893 Agenda Item E-8 Terry Adkins, City Attorney, noted that the Planning Staff suggested an incentive development which acts like a conditional use permit. They would need to reapply for the incentive development. , Jeff Griffin, GGG Engineering, indicated that they would be willing to restrict the available uses at the site by the way of the general development plan. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hunziker closed the hearing. Councilmembers Hanson moved, Evans seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 430-00 approving Land Use Plan Amendment #00-06 by Billman-Orr LLC to amend the Land Use Plan from "low density residential" to "commercial" and instructed the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Ayes (5), Nays (1). Motion carried. President Hunziker voted nay. A Hearing On Zoning District Amendment #00-08 by Billman-Orr LLC to rezone from R-1 to B-4 land located west of Highway 52, south of 65'" Street N.W. and Westgard's First Subdivision. Wishing to be heard was Jeff Griffin, GGG Engineering, representing the owner. They noted that they were looking at a low -traffic usage of a warehouse. Wishing to be heard was Kent Billman, 5100 West River Road N.W., co-owner of the project. He noted that because of the access and location, a large development, such as a Wal-Mart, would not be possible. The access dictates common sense. We are interested in doing a warehouse. The zoning has to be B- 4 in order to allow the billboards. Terry Adkins, City Attorney, disagreed with the zoning statement and said that the billboards would be non -conforming but would remain. Phil Wheeler, Planning Department, said that an M-1 district would allow for a warehouse district. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hunziker closed the hearing. Councilmembers McConnell moved, Stobaugh seconded, to deny Zoning District Amendment #00-08 by Billman-Orr LLC to rezone from R-1 to B-4. Ayes (3), Nays (3). Motion failed. Councilmembers Evans, Hanson and Senjem voted nay. Councilmembers Hanson moved, Evans seconded, to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-08 by Billman-Orr LLC to rezone from R-1 to Bit. Ayes (3), Nays (3). Motion failed. Councilmembers McConnell, Stobaugh and President Hunziker voted nay. Councilmembers Senjem moved, Evans seconded, to table Zoning District Amendment #00-08 by Billman-Orr LLC to rezone from R-1 to B-4 to allow the developer to work with staff. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. Councilmember Marcoux returned to the meeting. RECOF9 OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF IHE COMMON COUNCIL 5894 CITY OF ROCHESTER, Mh =SOTA Re gular Adjourned Meeting No. 12 —June 19, 2000 Agenda Item M Councilmembers Hanson moved, Stobaugh seconded, to remove from the table General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B's Commercial Center. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. t Councilmembers Hanson moved, Stobaugh•seconded, to remove from the table General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B's Commercial Center. Ayes (6), Nays (0). Motion carried. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hunziker closed the hearing. Councilmembers Hanson moved, Evans seconded, to table General Development Plan #154 to be known as 0 & B's Commercial Center in conjunction with Item E-8 and to waive the required filing fees. Ayes (6), Nays (0), Abstain (1). Motion carried. Councilmember Marcoux abstained. Councilmembers Hanson moved, Marcoux s )peal of the Variance Denial by Rochester M ion carried. ber Marcoux asked that if the would APT comply with the Ic landscape Wishing to be 4 Bloomington, rep they would move plan. remove from the table the :s. Ayes (7), Nays (0). -e request were approved and of their building to comply with the was Gregory KorstSd, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren, enting APT Min apolis, said that if the variance is approved, it building to a)cation designated on the RPU landscaping After the neighbors met consensus of the neighbo the companies are to work wanting a moratorium to la concerns in residential arii; would not impact APT, M'ig )up, Councilmember Marcoux said that it was the t the variance be allowed with the location but that the neighbors on the landscaping. They are also what is currently in place for restrictions and other ny Adkins, City Attorney, noted that a moratorium p t PCS, and would impact AT&T. Wishing to be heard was Mark Utz, r resenting AT&T. He said that his client, AT&T has submittedAe landscaping p n and would like to have the variance passed subject to 0 landscaping plan changed as necessary. Wishing to be heard were the following neig borhood residents noting that Councilmember Marcoux spoke to the conse us of the neighbors, that they had not seen the final landscaping plan until this ev ing and should have a say in the plan and urgErthe Council to approve a morator m for looking at future placeme in residenti areas: Mellon, 2128 Baihly Summit Drive S.W\ Boese, 2217 Baihly Summit Drive S.W. Canzanello, 2212 Baihly Hills Drive S.W. Having no one further wishing to be heard, President Hunziker closed the hearing. 1 g � � M�NN� l p�.4pCHE5TER: �• sCr u •; y �i COUNTY OF� �WIL�L4W 2 m C� •. '4y GRp _,_ 9 GRq TED•q UGUST•5'P• ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 DATE: May 18, 2000 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B Commercial Center Planning Department Review. - Applicant: Jerry Orr and Kent and Cynthia Elliman 6254 341h Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultants: GGG Engineering 14070 Hwy. 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Size and Location: The area includes approximately 18.86 acres of land located along the west side of Highway 52, south of 65th Street NW and allows for the continuation of 34 Avenue NW. Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped. The current use of the property is agricultural. There are 2 billboards located on the property. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to develop the property with uses which are allowed within the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. Land Use Plan: This property is identified for "Low Density Residential' uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map. The applicant has filed a petition to amend he Rochester Urban Service Areas Land Use Plan Map from the "Low Density Residential" to the "Commercial' designation. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. The applicant has filed a zoning district amendment to rezone the property to the B-4 (General Commercial) district. The property was �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 of 7 4A/ GDP #154 May 18, 2000 annexed in 1998. Prior to the annexation, it was zoned Highway Commercial in Olmsted County. Streets: The plan proposes one roadway which is the southerly extension of 341h Avenue NW. The roadway is shown as ending as a cul-de-sac. Half of the roadway is shown on the adjacent property. The adjacent property owner will need to be in agreement with the placement of the roadway. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required along the frontage of both sides of all new public roadways serving this development. Drainage: The General Development Plan identifies existing topography. The property generally drains to the east and south. Storm water management is not addressed on the GDP but will need to be addressed when the property is developed. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is platted. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. According to the Olmsted County Soil Survey, no hydric soils exist on the property. Public Utilities: Currently sanitary sewer is available in the southwest corner of the property, which is near the lowest point of the site. The City is planning on the extension of a 12" watermain from the Orchard Ridge development to the Bandel Hills development. This extension will run along the north property line of the parcel. Parkland Dedication: If this property develops with commercial uses, as proposed, there would not be a requirement for parkland dedication. Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works Department, Planning Dept. - Wetlands LGU, Planning Dept. —Addressing, Long Range Planning Division, RPU Water Division, RPU Operations Division, and Fire Dept. Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of General Development Plan Map 3. Referral Comments (3) 4. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative Summary: This GDP includes approximately 18.86 acres of land and proposes to be developed with uses that are permitted in the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. The applicant has filed a zoning district amendment and a land use plan amendment for this property. The applicant is Page 3 of 7to • • / GDP #154 May 18, 2000 proposing to designate this property for "commercial' uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area land Use Plan and to rezone this property to the B-4 (General Commercial) district. A neighborhood meeting was held on May 11, 2000. The GDP proposes to develop this parcel with uses that are permitted within the B-4 zoning district and does not identify any density or intensity of uses to be developed on the site. The B-4 zoning district allows a wide range of uses from those that have high trip generators (retail oriented) to those with relatively low trip generators (office, business -industrial). According to the report prepared by the Long Range Planning Division, the majority of the traffic approaching the site from the south would use the 751h St. intersection and the West Frontage Road (located north of 651h St.). A project is programmed for the year 2003 for the construction of an interchange at 75`h St, and TH 52. It is anticipated that once this interchange is constructed the direct access to TH 52 at 65�h St. will be closed. The current Long Range Thoroughfare Plan identifies an overpass at 651h St. that would connect 65'h St. on the west with Bandel Road on the east. No decision regarding if this overpass should be constructed has been made. ROCOG is also in the process of updating and expanding the area covered by the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to encompass the additional 5700 acres recently added to the 25 Year Urban Growth area northwest of Rochester. This study is also evaluating the cost and benefits of considering a full interchange at 651h St, as an alternative to an overpass. The preliminary analysis from this study should be available by mid -summer. The three key intersections that could be affected by development of this site include: • The 6e St, right -in, right -out at TH 52 • The 75th St. intersection with TH 52 • The intersection of the East Frontage Rd. and 551h St., if an overpass is built in the future to provide access via Bendel Rd to 6e St. According to the information prepared by the Long Range Planning Division these intersections have limited capacity in terms of handling additional traffic. Because of the limited capacity and the fact that the applicant has not identified the intensity or specific types of uses on the site, a limitation on trip generations should be established for the site which would restrict the development to low trip generators or uses that would compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare system. Limiting the trip generation of the site would maintain trip generation levels similar to what would occur with townhomes or apartment type developments which could be compatible with the street system of the area. Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the criteria for approval of a general development plan (affective May 15, 1999). Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. A land Use Plan Amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP to designate this property for "commercial' uses and a zone change is also being considered to zone this property B-4 (General Commercial) to allow uses permitted in the B-4 zoning district. If the land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are approved, the labeling of the parcel as being designated for "commercial' uses would be consistent with those documents. It may be necessary, however, to identify land uses and intensity along with a trip generation limit on the GDP to limit development 11 Page 4 of 7 �D GDP #154 May 18, 2000 to uses that are compatible with the existing and planned thoroughfare system. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. There is limited access to the site. No specific uses are shown on the General Development Plan, except for those uses which are allowed within the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. With a wide range of permitted uses in the B-4 zoning district, development of this site could result in uses that are not compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare system and could result in safety concerns. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. No housing is proposed for this development. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. Access to the site will be provided from 34`h Avenue NW, which is currently a township road. Routes to and from the site differ. With the closure of the median access at the intersection of 65h St. NW and TH 52, traffic approaching the site from the south will either access the development by using the 75`h St. NW and TH 52 intersection and travel south on the West Frontage Road to 34`h Ave. NW or use a combination of roads including West Circle Drive, 55`h St. NW past North Park, 50`h Ave. NW and 65`h St. NW. Projects are programmed along TH 52 that will further modify access to the site in the future. The major project is the construction of an interchange at 75`h St. and TH 52. This project is programmed for the year 2003. This will provide a major improvement in safety at that intersection which will have a positive effect on travel to the site from the south once it is completed. When this project is completed it is anticipated that all direct access to TH 52 south of the interchange would be closed, including the right -in, right - out access at 65`h St.. All access absence any other roadway system improvements would need to occur through the 75`h St. interchange or other more circuitous routes. The current Long Range Thoroughfare Plan calls for construction of an overpass at 65`h St. that would connect 65`h St. on the west with Bandel Road on the east. When this improvement is completed access to and from the site from the south would likely shift to the 55`h St. interchange in combination with Bandel Road. The construction of this overpass may be completed as part of the 75`h Street interchange project, though at this time no decision has been made. Further decisions regarding what additional work will be completed as part of the 750' St. project will need to await completion of the various pre -construction planning and design work that must be completed for the 75`h Street interchange. This work is anticipated to start later this year or next year. Page 5of7 • • GDP #154 May 18, 2000 ROCOG also has a project underway to update and expand the area covered by the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to encompass all of the additional 5700 acres recently added to the 25 Year Urban Growth area northwest of Rochester. In addition to identifying roadway capacity and location needs throughout this area, part of this study is devoted to evaluating the cost and benefits of considering a full interchange at 65!° St. as an alternative to an overpass. The preliminary analysis from this study should be available by mid -summer. Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. The General Development Plan does not establish any specific uses or intensity of development for this site other than those uses permitted In the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. With a wide range of permitted uses in the B-4 zoning district, the development of this site could result in uses that are not compatible with the existing and proposed thoroughfare system and could result in safety concerns. in order to insure that the capacity of the roadways are adequate to safely accommodate trips of this development, the developer and the City should enter into a Development Agreement outlining the trip and use limits of the property. Also see the above response to Criteria "D" 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. This property is within the Northwest High Level System Service Area, which will be available, approximately 1700' to the west with the completion of the Orchard Ridge development. The alignment for the extension of the 12" watermain is proposed to be along the north property boundary. Sanitary sewer is available in the southwest corner to serve this property. i Page 6 of 7 GDP #154 May 18, 2000 The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. Stormwater management will need to be reviewed further for this development. The GDP does not propose any on -site stormwater detention ponds on the property. According to the applicant's consultant, since the exact use of the property is not known at this time, stormwater management will need to be addressed at the time a specific development is proposed for the site. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. The site generally drains to the south and east. The site summary submitted with the application indicates that the exact uses of the property are unknown at this time and that stormwater and erosion control methods will need to the addressed at the time a specific development is proposed. Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The General Development Plan does not address any lot or block layout. According to the plan, the site will be developed as one lot with only one roadway serving it. Depending on the intensity or type of use developed on the site, the development of the site may not be compatible with the existing and planned development of the adjacent parcels. Recommendation: If the Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are not approved for this site, staff would recommend denial of this GDP. The applicant could apply for specific uses on the site through the Restricted Development Conditional Use Process if the land use plan and zone change amendments are not approved. If the CPZC and Council approve the Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment, staff would recommend approval subjected to the condition that the applicant enters into a Development Agreement with the City which outlines the land use intensity and trip generation limits of the property. If the applicant enters into a Development Agreement with the City, which outlines the land use intensity and trip generations limits of the property, Staff would recommend the following conditions or modifications to the proposed General Development Plan: 1. The applicant enters into a development agreement with the City outlining the land use intensity and trip generation limits of the property. The GDP be revised to 103 10 Page 7 of 7 • GDP #154 May 18, 2000 identify land use intensity and trip generation limits as established in the development agreement. 2. Storm water management must be provided for this development. 3. The 20' utility easement indicated along the north property line must be dedicated at the time of platting or upon written notification from the City that the easement is necessary for a utility extension. 4. The extension of 34"' Avenue NW is shown to straddle two properties. When this property is platted, partial dedication of the right-of-way will not be acceptable. The Plat will either need to be signed by multiple property owners or the roadway will need to be shifted entirely to the east with access and utilities provided to the abutting property to the west. DATE: TO: FROM: RE: CC: ROCHESTER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E. ROCHESTER, MN 55904-7996 PHONE 507-285-8232 FAX 507-287.2275 MEMORA-ADUM May 17, 2000 .Mitzi Baker Planning Division Charlie Reiter Long Range Planning Division low' Comments on Billman-Orr Request for Land Use Plan Amendment, Zone Change & GDP The following provides a summary of information related to the traffic related issues related to the proposed request for a LandUse Plan amendment and Zone Change request on the Billman-Orr property south of 651St NW on the west side of TH 52. ACCESS Routes to and from the site differ due to the closure of median access at the intersection of TH 52 and 6e St NW. This closure was implemented based on the expected impact that will be created in the near term by development along 65`h St, including the Orchard Ridge Subdivision and other residential development to the west as well as anticipated development of this property and the area immediately to the west. Traffic approaching the site from the north or leaving the site to travel south has direct right turn access on or off the southbound lane of TH 52, but traffic approaching the site from the south or leaving to go north must use a more circuitous travel path to access the site. The primary alternative route for trips approaching from the south is to use the CSAH 14 (7511, St NW) intersection and travel south on the west frontage road to 34`h Ave. Another alternative would be to use a combination of roads including West Circle Drive, 55h' St past North Park, 50 Ave and 651hSt from the west. However, this route is approximately 20% longer in distance and an estimated 55-60% longer in terms of travel time. Thus, 1 would expect that all the traffic approaching the site from the south would use the 75`h St intersection and the West Frontage Rd to access the site. Projects are programmed along TH 52 that will further modif� access to the site in the future. The major project is the construction of an interchange at 75 h St and TH 52. This project is Programmed for the year 2003. This will provide a major improvement in safety at that intersection which will have a positive effect on travel to the site from the south once it is completed. When this project is completed it is anticipated that all direct access to TH 52 south of the interchange would be closed, including the right -in, right -out access at 65'h St.. All access absence any other roadway system improvements would need to occur through the 751h St interchange or other more circuitous routes The current Long Range Thoroughfare Plan calls for construction of an overpass at 65'h St that would connect 65 St on the west with Bandel Road on the east. When this improvement is completed access to and from the site from the south would likely shift to the 55'h St interchange in combination with Bandel Road. The construction of this overpass may be (No • • completed as part of the 751h Street Interchange project, though at this time no decision has been made. Future decisions regarding what additional work will be completed as part of the 75 1h St project will need to await completion of the va.rious pre -construction planning and design work that must be completed for the 751h St interchange. This work is anticipated to start late this year or next year. ROCOG also has a project underway to update and expand the are covered by the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan to encompass all of the additional 5700 acre area northwest of Rochester that was recently added to the 25 Year Urban Growth area on the Land Use Plan. In addition to identifying roadway capacity and location needs throughout this area, part of this study is devoted to evaluating the costs and benefits of considering a full interchange at 65th St as an alternative to an overpass. It is expected that the preliminary analysis from this study will be available by mid -summer. TRIP GENERATION The proposed change in land use would result in a shift in trip generation patterns from that which would be expected under the current residential zoning. The following table summarizes what the estimated trip generation from the site would be for a variety of uses that would be permissible under existing and alternative residential zoning as well as non-residential zoning. The non-residential uses chosen for comparison are uses not demanding of a high levels of easy and direct access and visibility. These uses are not retail oriented but are more service or industrial in character. Because of the access limitations affecting this site, it was felt that these uses are more likely to be characteristic of the type of development that would occur an the site and should be used for comparison purposes. Daily AM Peak Inbound % I Outbound% J PM Peak Inbound test Outbound I Use Intensity Trips Hr Trips est # of trips est # of trips Hr Trips # of trips est # of trips Single Family 56 units 645 49 24°k 112 76%137 64 64%/ 41 36% / 23 Townhouse 100 units 965 58 25%115 75% / 44 71 600/6171 40% / 45 Apartment 225units 1490 115 16%/18 84%!97 140 67%/94 330/6/46 Office Park 160,000 2077 136 89°6l121 11%115 301 17%!42 83%/259 sgft Warehousing 18 acres 1064 160 72% 1115 28°I° 145 187 35% / 39 65% / 148 Business Park 160,000 2467 158 85°/,1133 15%125 148 22%134 7891./114 sgft ark EGenEeral 18 acres 1459 184 82%/ 160 18%124 200 21 °/s l42 79%/ 158 ght Ind 18 acres 1024 186 85%1158 15°/°128 195 25%!49 75%1146 Two items that should be noted in looking at the data in this table. First, the overall level of trip generation for the types of non-residential uses shown is similar in nature to that which would be expected if the site was developed for a higher intensity residential use. Second, the peak hour trip patterns are highly directional in nature for both residential uses and non -retail types of business uses, and the directionality of trips for these two types of land use will be in opposite directions. Thus, while the large areas of residential use occurring west of the site on 65'h St and along Bandel Road will generate primarily outbound traffic in the morning and inbound traffic in the afternoon, the business uses illustrated will do the opposite (inbound in the morning and outbound in the pm). Thus, the level of conflict and capacity demands created by these types of uses are not expected to have the type of impact that would be expected if the travel routes were in the same direction, or if the overall distribution of traffic was more evenly distributed on the key access roadways such as 65'h St or Bandel Road. TRAFFIC OPERATION IMPACTS The transportation staffs concern with the proposed rezoning of the site relates primarily to the potential that B-4 zoning would provide for retail type of development to occur, which generally will be more intense than other types of business uses and will not be as highly directional as the office or business/industrial uses summarized in the trip generation table. There are three key intersections that could be affected by development of this site: ➢ the 65'h St right -in, right -out at TH 52; ➢ the 75'h St intersection with TH 52; ➢ if an overpass is built in the future to provide access via Bandel Rd to 55'h St, the intersection of the East Frontage Rd and 55" St These intersections have limited capacity in terms of handling additional traffic, and it would be staffs opinion that if a rezoning is considered appropriate that as part of the General Development Plan approval process a limitation on trip generation be established for the site which would restrict development of the site to office and/or business -industrial type uses and not provide for retail uses to be developed on the site. This would maintain trip generation levels similar to what would occur with townhouse or apartment type development on the site, and would in our opinion be compatible with the street system of the area. Staff would suggest that this condition could be waived in the future if the Long Range Transportation Plan is amended through agreement with MnDOT to provide for the future development of an interchange at 651h St and TH 52. Without such an agreement in place, we would have a concern that retail development on the site may lead to operational problems at the above identified intersections. (bgage 8 ity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 k to submittal of the final plat that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improveme ts, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infras cture. The Development Agreement shall also include that the property is sub It to Traffic. Capacity Improvement Area Char9es and that the property shall be aded ia manner consistent with the prof' and cross section of 50w Avenue NW, estabnlished by the Gitr Stormwater Manegeme must bd.provjded for this` eio men#, The item was tabled earlier in AND General Development Plan #154 to be known as O & B's Commercial Center. The applicant, Billmann-Orr, LLC, is proposing to develop approximately 18.86 acres of land with commercial uses. The development may consist of the permitted uses consistent with the B-4 zoning district. The property is located west of Highway 52, south of 65' Street NW and Westnard's First Subdivision. A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are being considered concurrent with this request. Ms. Baker presented the staff reports, dated May 18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that the applicant is asking for three things: 1. A request for a land use plan amendment to change the designation of the property from low -density residential to a commercial designation, 2. Rezone the property from the R-1 zoning district to the B4 general commercial district. 3. Approval of a general development plan. le Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes r fj Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Baker explained how staff came to the conclusion to use the category and criteria for evaluating the proposal for "Highway Commercial Uses". Ms. Baker stated that the transportation staff is working on a transit study to justify a full interchange at the intersection. However, it could be some time before the findings of the study can be presented to Mn/DOT. Ms. Baker stated that the findings do not support approval of a commercial land use designation for the property. A commercial land use designation opens up the opportunity for a broad spectrum of uses that could go on the site. She explained that there are some limited uses that may be compatible with the site, given its access and location. However, rezoning the property and changing the land use, at this time, could open up a lot of other uses that could be inappropriate for the site and current access. Therefore, staff suggested that the land use plan amendment and zone change not be approved. Ms. Baker stated that the general development plan that was prepared was based on a proposal for commercial land use and B4 zoning. She indicated that, if the land use amendment and zone change are not approved, staff would suggest that the general development plan not be approved either. Mr. Werven stated that the property to the south of the site is in the B-4 zoning district. He asked why the proposal would not be consistent for the area. Ms. Baker responded that staff recommended against the zone change for that area a number of years ago. She stated that a church has purchased the property and has developed a church campus on the site. She explained that it is a property that will not be commercial in nature. She stated that a church is an area accessory use permissible in a residential zoning district. Ms. Baker stated that, a number of years ago, the Council initiated a land use amendment and zone change to rezone the property to a residential category. The Council tabled the request to allow the property owner to work through some issues. She explained that staff may ask the Council to now take the request off of the table and ask staff to restart the process to rezone the property to residential. Mr. Burke asked what types of business are allowed in the highway commercial district. Ms. Baker explained that the highway commercial designation is a category used in the land use plan to give staff guidelines for the different types of commercial sites. She explained that the B-4 zoning district allows offices, contractors yard, wholesale, retail, fast food restaurants, drive through banks, hotels, motels, auto sales, storage lots, etc. Discussion ensued regarding trip generation. Ms. Petersson asked if an access could be put onto Highway 52. Ms. Baker responded no. Ms. Petersson asked if there are plans for a frontage road along the highway. 1 ()age 10 0 • 11 1 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Baker responded no. She explained that, when the property to the south was rezoned and developed, a determination was made that a frontage road would not connect to 65'h Street. Mr. Geoff Griffin, of GGG Engineering Surveying and Planning, addressed the Commission. He stated that that property was previously zoned highway commercial for over 15 years in the county. He explained that the applicant only annexed his land into the city because he was asked to bring the property into the city to help out the neighbors to the west for city sewer and water. He indicated that the applicant did not know that they would not be able to keep their current designation. Mr. Griffin stated that they have been working with Charlie Reiter for the last two years on the proposal, since they did not know what would happen with the intersection at Highway 52 and 65th Street. Since Mn/DOT made a decision to close the intersection, the applicant brought the request forward. He stated that switching from an R-1 to a commercial district helps Mr. Reiter's peak notes. Mr. Griffin stated that he does not have any problems with working with staff or accepting the limitations on trip generation. Ms. Schultze stated that one of staffs recommendation is an option to encourage the applicant to propose a specific use of the property through the restricted development conditional use permit process. She asked if the applicant would be interested in going through that process. Mr. Griffin responded no. He explained that they want to rezone the property to the B-4 zoning district with the limitations that it can only be used for certain uses. He explained the benefits of this option for marketing. Ms. Schultze asked staff to comment on the fact that the property was zoned highway commercial in the county. Ms. Baker stated that the property was zoned highway commercial in the county. She explained that, when property is brought into the city, it is automatically zoned residential consistent with the land use plan designation for the property. She stated that, when the property was annexed into the city, the county zoning district was not consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan for the area. She stated that the property is vacant, except for two billboards. She explained that the billboards are non -conforming use in a residential zoning district in the City. Mr. Suk asked what the neighbor to the west thinks of the proposal. Mr. Griffin responded that he is in favor of the request. He stated that he would write a letter in support of the proposal. Ms. Schultze asked whether or not the site is appropriate for commercial property. She asked if staff is saying that the site is not appropriate for commercial uses. Ms. Baker responded that the broad spectrum of uses that are allowed in a commercial zoning district are not appropriate for this site. Page 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes LL Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Schultze stated that, if the applicant is willing to abide by trip restrictions, which would then have the request fall within a category that staff would think is acceptable. Ms. Baker responded that there may be an opportunity to make the uses work appropriately for the roadway and the existing and proposed uses. Ms. Schultze stated that, if the Commission approved the request and they have restricted trips allowed within the development, it would allow certain things. She asked what the city would gain, if the commission pressed the applicant to go for a restricted development. Ms. Baker responded that there are two different options. These include: 1. If the Commission approved the request with limitations, staff would suggest that the Commission table the request to allow the applicant and staff to work together to come up with some limitations and uses and to allow the.applicant to revise the general development plan. 2. If the applicant goes through the restricted development conditional use process, because they do not know what the uses of the property will be, it would provide them the opportunity to consider things that they perhaps would not put on a list of uses. It would allow staff to look at a more specific use and how it works with the roadways and proposed uses of neighboring properties. Mr. Griffin stated that they are willing to work with Ms. Baker and Mr. Reiter on the traffic. They would rather have the property rezoned to B-4, with a restriction for the traffic count. Ms. Schultze stated that staff is not only concerned about traffic. She stated that, if the Commission tabled or recommended that the applicant come back with a restricted development application, it would not hurt the marketability because people would know that the Commission and/or City Council is likely to support commercial within a restricted development application. Mr. Griffin stated that he believes it would make it harder to market. Discussion ensued regarding benefits of morning and evening traffic. Mr. Burke asked what the appropriate zoning would be, other than B-4, if the property to the west were developed. Ms. Baker responded that the land use plan shows the property to be for low -density residential land uses. It could be zoned R-1, R-1x, and R-2. Mr. Burke asked how it would affect traffic counts. Ms. Baker responded that staff would look at 65'" Street, 50th Avenue, and whether or not improvements to 65th Street would be made to have an overpass. Mr. Burke asked what the property to the north was zoned. �C a 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Baker responded highway commercial in the county. It is not shown in the city land use plan as being designated for commercial uses. She explained that the property would go through the same question of what the appropriate land use would be when it becomes a part of the city. Ms. Baker stated that the Commission could initiate a study of the appropriate land uses for that entire quadrant. Ms. Petersson stated that it would be appropriate for staff to prepare a study. Ms. Baker stated that, if the Commission wishes staff to do a study, a traffic study would need to be completed first. Mr. Griffin stated that, if the property were developed into apartments, there would be 97 outbound trips in the morning. He explained that the applicant is only proposing to have 24 to 28 trips in the morning. Ms. Schultze stated that she would support a restricted development application. Ms. McGowan asked the applicant if he would be willing to submit a restrictive development application. Mr. Jerry Orr responded that he had waited long enough to develop his property. With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. furs IldcGowap'rnoved tp dpny t_an tis@ ion Amen n{ient by llman-t5rt t:43, with"siaff su�ge$l���lndtfn�g. �lil�. Sc�tp�� ���on�'�ed t]'!e motlop : '��Ie mot�Tt aariried 8 �, with MP, +Quinn anc Itilf.11�envot#pa�� + htmilJGSi a W F 2§ x ry tYt my 5u P Yu ,. Y J,. s� s is •i� 25 t � �a n�: 3�,., �; s d �fi - � yyK t 'I#t17 prb e o atefl� n ' a x s x►e� , 4e n a h% PP ofi,-. e a fw*s ✓ �+ d s r �i 6 Ateitligtp i trsr�ar+ i � h g u § u, tleYelopill 49U 1101411 t ' � y '^ f l edl a *e tail iaat r t iA;��„„ s .6^'fi•. � s k 4 ��, s u s ?•f+-¢ t v F �i iYrtq *'"'��, J t wiJ� � � 'S+ �YYY4 ¢¢��MTSy t ,. r� Y x f3 F � y� bi6y 4d i ♦ < < b I '�1 YFA, s ` ' A10tEM . fiEQltteB4 a fltillit;Rs µ�tFIr e7(5.1 Pe0"Ct����}'d ilil� $st,b lion and, d d� �nf8 a5t� a)flc9pat tite w #:"1'T ffl a�praac i1 he s �o Tno'no Nor jai the to trav ty st�4th ��� dirept r.���.t�i � ess k�n�' q��3�ie s,�}nth,�°gi31t�7�dv��fir'>�iat'�jai#ic- approac�t ng the site -from th jsotittro gavin t o fit h usi lug �a tnora ciicuita travel ':athM'acc�`+1i_s1 N i Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Conunission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 The primary alternative route for trips approaching from the south Is to use the CSAH 14 (7e St. NW) intersection and travel south on the west frontage road to 30 Ave. Another alternative would be to use a combination of roads including West Circle Drive, 5e St. past North Park, 60"' Ave. and 65th St. from the west. However, this route Is approximately 20% longer in distance and an estimated 55-60%e longer in terms of travel time. Thus, staff would expect that all the traffic approaching the site from the south would use the 75'� St, intersection and the West Frontage Rd to access the slte Projects are programmed along TH 52 tjiat will further modify access to tllg site in the future The major project is ire cgn'struction of an inter hangs at 75S anct TH 52. This project is progrv"�iaa maorTijprgvement in safety'at that intersection which wilrhave 'positive:effect on travel ilo the site troin the south once Itis completed, W' 6- this pro ect is cQnlpleted t Yia adi#tclpated that all direct access tp Tif 52 sout�i of ffie lriterchange would fie cla_s�edt including the 001) .i0, riilht-o0t access a AS gsrt , All access, abse"nce;any�ot>�er r adwa sys�f@di tmprovemep would neer! to occiii through the 75 Stlnt�e#chatt qr gthar mtu circito�s.oijte` a 4 iX3"Kn It The current bonging8'r u h�farE 'js for can a -�._ 'u'.3t '� - man. 6i Sk NORk.qn �rl �th14Ini r ve�ne� � d ace q h s�itg fro i;I¢fie +aa% wq , lik Tl #�iferc� nom1 t t�rlel. �� c y t� 1Q�n"q, {ayae` �e coma] eta'a tia„ �tree lrhane tiro ect, oo .at i'sime�d citron has been frlaci% eclsions regarding ' s x Win wovlrpetsopleted as par,�te oectwdl need tel mpl�ttq#%carious pre-construct]i g ng an F destgn'wark�ril�it etom RIP. St interchange Thy er!�isani1cIvatedts3silf w.• }T a I^ b - i iytt s,dFi x r,Kgyas a ffp;Ya x. Ff 9�yF�- �ry= a• 2 I. 4 .� +%� q .Z.r i S JRNv.i r k'smi+s"is",.f':w �r�xAT +tw°ru X'•sn cSZ:c3, 7 ^1^.fl a 3C 5�+'R•ifi'^i5t r t sp tf Ott a eras a protect ...ay,to' update and expand the are covered by th} Niel �w`} L .rah 1 n } a tn'.i 4 l-L.a 51e1OF�' rouglifare Plan to Qncompass all of �ha addttlonai 5�A�acre are��E C�y }S .tL- phester that yv s rscentl dd ..alto tthilg WW--TJrbar p ly�ne , jars Iji adddion o identifying rpadway capacltyand locati3—Ws^V wv t roil . ciarea, part of this study is devoted to evaluating°the costs arj r y 4 .s. t ✓ s_ �� cgpgideping a full interchange of 63 St as an alternative to an ver �r e d t�a the preilmmary1111�i,�i 9" �y �al Sri'E¢§y. :.4 a"lz t •.c e., h y""'i! t ,'}"wtafl Fg y:s bj T01Ws erty n ly rolling YeTraiil t4 i•Cu. , s> nW pAJje d^s� i yUcif.{ YF r., pq u'k OS.x ,# ..va'n il`i tox cP.�%a' leW tr�,3rp-adr`ehr�P s , tyzonCHghyp wCoMmerci' erty not'howeverI shownfor cgmerropq1E S 1 �YYgd i us�t+at esiEQrilt Sennce Area=i_andse Phan This property3s sho�o>l 14 ems i� eiatll� s on the Lanc�'tisean y Uses m the }iC pstncin C >un�gw{rshi prhe ipuch more limited than the uses allowed withlp the t� commercial land use des1 "'nations and commerc�al:zonm dlstncts Inthe Ci "TW tl "rl Page 14 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 property located to the south of this site is designated "commercial' on the Land Use Plan and is zoned B-4 (General Commercial) on the City Zoning Map. This property will not be developed as a commercial property however. it is developed with a church campus. d) See response to "a" above for information regarding access. TRIP GENERATION, The proposed change in land use would result in shift in trip generation patterns from that Which would be ezpecti3il'uhder the curr$rit'resldehtMI zonings following table summarizes what the estimated trip generation from the site would be for is variety, of use's that Would be ermisslble under` elcisting and a)terilath resident lal,zoning as well as non-residential zonln The non residential uses chosen far comparison are,;uses not demanding a h>Igfi evele of n4411rect4oei3ss of and visibility. These uses are not detail orleeted 6,0 are 4i>tare erv)C#a xindustr7al in - are Al, Because of the access Umitat)gtt aflcti>rl� ^tFiis site;;inresglt #fat ti(es� uses are mare, Iikelt7 to be o ctorf pf the f.d t4 s liha, yv�u i143ccdr uYi 'tf� on the sand shquid fi ue u,,fite j' , s { .,.Y .Yi�'V A rI" f4+aG{S. .M 3�. � iH'.r, ` .f`x1 wsc i • 1 . ,. Daly , ., AM Peg Inbound % I . ` OulbaaM% I eat PM Pesk . ht wrid I rid " Ouft" I ' Intens8y! �a Til HrT #'* eattd #Oft* idtdpe ea19e1"A kLL a 'Ht85 Single Farmly r, 56units 645 49 24%112 76%137 84 '. 64%141 �.' 36%123 -Townhouse '-� 100 units - ` 965 t 58 - 25%115 - 75%Ind - 71 Bo%171 ?r 40%I45 Apartment , 225 units -. 1490 115 16%11B 84%197 140 67%194 33%146 Office Park 160000s ft 2077 136 - 89%1121 11%I15 Sol ;: 17%142 7 83%1259 Warehousing 18 acres 1064 :- 160 72%1115 , 28%145 187 ''a 35%139 i. 652/6 1148 .: Business Park ` 160,000scrit 2467 - 158 B5%1133 k 15%125 148 `. ` 22%134 1v 78%1114 . industrial Park 18 acres 1459 184 B2%1160 18%124 200 -, 21%142 ; ' 79'61158 Generaliight rem 18acrea 7 102;4 «�• 186 '. 85%1158 15%128 795 25X119 75X1146 -.Ind 4c hi" yy,',r: x �- a 4wi:d' vv, s}°.,rs. e v+! Po'x.°. a ' � �� S k t iA, .aw t aiteni : apt s icu looking at the data in this tale First, the over �y e.f Elles of llon,residential uses shgwn,is similar in Yel FYrt f sitoEed for"17ig7er1� tri>��lelth pre highly directiq, arin ' a + � OUT O fi bot s„ > � 9nd non retail types i1f mess uses, and tAe� tljM tedecon_ s 'tonalw�ew 1 , e `as 4i residential use'occlirting wfest of tne�site dtt S>;� �M. �./ ,w at Ie ^^"3"X.'a � gyto+ �n 2f ctn ead will'r�enerate rimariloutbou-id traffio Ili the mommQ an P i"�x�fyw,+.0 F a in the aiter000n, the busmess uses illustrated will too the op)7osife � -e mojning an lqutboundAn ne',., V Thus, the le�e��of opfllc rapt ram' {. 1~a a demands creased by tfieseypes 4f uses are not ex�ectec tp have the/I7e t61`i 1�v a+' Y,fi'•�F,a a✓•3 ,H;� h 1CY 1 w'/Y "`'ripe 4"" Tat woulpd b'd expectetl,lf the rravet routeswere-in the«saple rectlon F Yyti of traffq was; more e.vY enly,di§tnbute-d `onth0"c �`:r wa ;sbuflond tch, 1 S. �9Ai"] A :dlane>�ttodVIa Is fi '_Qs dfstrlcils„ They arsx est cte ommerc a (eneral Commercial) n 11 4 ^ �` MlxedlComm rcial Ih ystnal districts: `Each of these zonin districts include land i Page 15 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 uses that vary in intensity and trip generation, and each district allows for retail development. The transportation staff identified concerns with the proposed rezoning of the site relating primarily to the potential for retail type of development to occur, which generally will be more Intense than other types of business uses and would not be as highly directional as the office or business/industrial uses summarized in the trip generation table. There are three key intersections that could be affected by development of this site ➢the 6.5 St. right in, rlglit-out at. 52; ➢th&.75'" St. intersection with TlI 5Re 9if an overpasses built in the futureto provide access v1a Bandel Rsl to 5ss' St., the intersection of #het E4 Fr%ontag'e Fed and 55�' # 4 ` These lntersections have limited capacity itl tenors of handling atraffics and it would be staffs opmeon the if a rezoning Is considered appropda#e that as par# of the General Development-,ap'appzoval process a IfmitaZion 01111tr a4rie1 tl43j tie ' established for the site which W' ould restrict development of tit'A to to OffiCe andfor: business industriat.$YYpe uses vid-viot provide for retail uses tp bet deve�elped arise site This woulet maintain trip genbration iiels,sfmilar t4i what lNoUlcf +aeaelll i�+4' townbousei Qr a .AK-, bn#type d0va1opm # tin the sit$; an a, t ; compat"ibie vjtlh ae s ste pf a crib: Stab wo,sug " t c rrr _ iftpti Fax,xi�-4 CQfrtcl lets vir `ty�Qpd n 3lilr ut----- f t t:o aAge'IXans p e rO ] .+_ rh`' 1 eF Y.s v tsk 4 Yry" *�y�;a.i; wsi'u;Ofaw '"rJ� °x c �.a a in%chanq aEEE an 5 tlioua h an a r e4 a Qb[^ x ' r le < u u`s .aR flair a conterp t nl: ll UM ia�menta o e ei 3I 6 e#rstt p oblepts at t E d a li L r {s $V t a �h �,4 Mxa !d'+s Pj -" 5z.,n Zq n I tri and iaiit(i s' '�' Iris r die r drt �' es ° �i nt 9 s e establish }� rt. ., s Sw i'w' z ° >JP �` ? .fr9i *. r �4 desk ti and #MR, One i on T t tlrnet�d co�a Visas r �s greti for this pro erty, wbtc cc�uul m compWfila wit e# J-fare' h -wn x ,.e ,rn�Rt ('`a- etsisnu a fa fe s�retn Abroad stoke a pro at f y ° rps .+a� n a eya p S r x ,�y "icom di lari use designatre�n and commerciazonmg drstr�ct' however, coed ` 'ti "3P t i i� Y.�° % f T'��551a'�` > c4 4 it 4 0 sI res�r Q e si<abhshment of uses that are not eompi W16 w;th tpe` etCis ir�g an ;1le 31+f °i d �°J+ c f V k4 It S T' to re y 11 p 0 os -J.. tiiorou6hfare system and Yuhfcf could result m safety concerns Ss r( d tim Cn¢i n+ ta[n¢k s '€ > %e �,� 1. 7 c sx 'ri ♦a §*x YSekxt',fsP' e >:•S rH'1g " on ''We �Wa .o-L ,�t"rwy °y "�t.�Y"u rn�.,$ rs Regarding the appearance of,the surrounitmg area, an ae stheircdeslgn cevisr corns►lltee a�rorliinggnr#le s�opmg;destgrecrtler o theTAs2cie41dgiiantif41 , �orl�stcti Yh t mr occ r adjacent to the a aI ethe Crtyounctl liar C M63 a,, ' F t r .,Y aCkn il f this males a orndo need to be Conside ed f��g care sc s� �24irou h�� `itochestgr=vyilPti's' ?_ ^5S Y M tkCst 'p. tcA�sl ati� a _suite resultin,tonal and'aesthettp`i�enefit� he+ aJ . .sa k s R t xa a' ]1 M -1 J aM -J Cc gthe f nd use designation of this pro a to a "commerc ro' r s5 h'9. ^ % ✓ .� i +.i4= t 7'l= s n: a r e` g 9rr 1+ des act the aest tetecsp o€the corridor` y _ UR, n .,F. i�j F r yqw" Ms.iteter5sopmoNeti "dertyZonm lifs 'sn men petltlq i0-08illaq{Qrr carried 5 3axwitri Il�r >tili• I�utnr�n� is �p n + � �� � l I(OPage 16 • • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 1. If Land Use Plan amendment #00-06 is approved, the zoning of this property will be inconsistent with the Land Use Plan designation for this site. This property was not zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error. Upon annexation into the City, the property was zoned R-1 consistent with the Land Use Plan and the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual 2. Although there may be some limited_ uses allowed within the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district could be appropriate for this property, there is a wide range of uses allowed within the B-4 district that would not be appropriate on thi& property considering the existing and proposed thoroughfare system. 3. The adjacent property to theoth jsonetBrtwith a Church campus, and will not be developed cdmmai6pi h, Mg. ,1V1cGowan movefl to deny General bev opmeni Plan #1 tc} lie lcriopvn as Q &''s Commercial Center, wlth staff-auq est ti findi4gs, Ms~ Schultze seoondeiit the mptI The motion carried 9-t with Mr., rvenn, Nlr Qu} n aild lVtr 13urke yotiiig!>a. ,•. 1 r� ! k s y o ppv r L tJi�t a FINO] NGSx A RlansePlanArrlentfman /� a r slafenadc ncurr$ptw1 /tlsGiiiW1D 9n'i '3� �• Yam. 'pf $ � t hareais��ipel�n,, FO' �ldd 10 Vie,£, --• �� :r ., �"w "' ,r, Ps, pYemptterl fn.. � Lf tl�"`� �Ofl�•!(ig 3t/5_ � �7 �`S a �' . � a iperi;d"tilen�r a e !a sl n� pa c t n `ccmmeyrcal'riJse 'yevo` f/_ cords lie Those oAg+ets howeverldgntiifaNO longw�f)r tr one .t11 a.k+ t- . •4Rn� -M Jos -.V t l ��) �l r�,]!O •.%It �r.AJaY ti ST•�ia iy d ll%^. x,•Y ";'ry„Y t..f'A�}�, rg``y* % Ya +" i a^ '" �fK art... < Flx yr 's3w® r M r T T, 5 $ v iq 4 a rjR r �'•e,.,.ts<Ti* `. �t .�ia� .{ &� a„y �.., N F.�' •R Ti'fn.7cN 3r ., s�"r 'p "� "�� f4, B, �f $ s lti ii�e �0e s_ NQ specific uses are s>l �* *> �rl�;ian, except for those uses which are allow��ii €Y i4 rtf. '2n.rr ti r tt f h'' s 5 s: R • me a�mng drstrrc#, l;l �v�de renge o%erm�tted'uses {r aru .o' z tGY a 'r ter, e T"•5 aF ¢-El k P st lopment of this site coufdresulrin uses rhat are not c a_ i d i.h'hY Y .j. M 't✓'fi 4o1P l ��' �aprooseqihoEropf�resyste y1a q�{�rl���� 2 t�Vx'Y•. r�. 4aL" ry , SY5° Ate�++ S ek M; s w e eY t 4 it `€ /`V xta L€ %PfJ�y p�- waqrM1 IYd aE t G � Fl n ✓�( r M n Sr,Ras9. C zI k�P' Y t*'�' f p`:a �.'��iS3}quY .n]4r^ 5 ✓' � � •h C, N itttu t 0 this devarc, t [ a4 n S n t Ut r q�''�1,'1 �§"� a '�tF, k �E'�' �' ,�,,. s _ r/ � r'i4 •%3., a' X i r, � Y t �J �fy�yFy. �,"a�,'* k p Gces tt the 7 it tjyv vtded lrorrt 3� Avent�� is currett M � 'Y n l a 1fo tsf► u d from the site differ i u � ,Sure of_ ► , aesa Tj ec� fi5'Sf Npl/arldTH a/fi oacmg ex t/ sU tiv7le tha ac a deyelopment_by usFn #� St NV / c l ill' a van l�on the West frontage Rod 4 Ave; �� p`aifs%� ing {Nest Cucle pr p t % r rW 12. C Y s 1 f d So . St NIY q: i Page 17 (I� City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Projects are programmed along TH 52 that will further modify access to the site in the future. The major project Is the construction of an interchange at 75th St. and TH 52. This project is programmed for the year 2003. This will provide a major improvement in safety at that intersection which will have a positive effect on travel to. the site from the south once it is completed When this project is completed it is anticipated that all direct access to TH 52 south of the interchange would be closed, including the righNIn, right -out access at 65'* St.. All access absence any other roadway system improvements would need to occur through the 756, St interchange or other more circuitous routes: The current t.on� Range Thoroughfare Plan calls for construction of an:r{ve►passt 64P St. that wou d'connect65�' S o.A the west With Handel i�ond an the eas#� When this tmproverr�ent is corr�leted eccess to and from the sjie train the south would likely shift to the 55a' St, i{�#efchan�e:{n cam>;natfon rv! Banalejoad -s , Page 18 0 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 GDP does not propose any on -site stormwater detention ponds on the property. According to the applicant's consultant, since the exact use of the property is not known at this time, stormwater management will need to be addressed at the time a specific development is proposed for the site. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. F. The site generally drains to the south and east. The site summary submitted with the application indicates that the exact uses of the property are unknown at this time and that stormwater and erosion control methods will need to the addressed at the time a specific development is proposed; G. The General Development Plan o'oee not address any lot or block layout. According to the plan, the site will be devetopeit as one lot with only one.roa4w4 serving its Deaendinn on the intensity or hate of use developed on the site. the &veloorrient'of Mr. Suk stated that the consensus of the majority of the Commission is that, if an appropriate restricted development plan were to be submitted, that there would be interest in approving such a plan. Mr. Burke asked what the reasoning is to bring all new property into the city with a designation of the R-1 zoning district. Ms. Baker responded that the zoning ordinance states that, upon annexation, properties are to be zoned R-1. She explained that the R-1 zoning district is the lowest intensity. Ms. Baker discussed the ability to put property being annexed into the city into a holding zone. Discussion ensued regarding the process to put property into a holding zone. Mr. Burke asked how often the land use plan is looked at. Ms. Baker responded that the plan is assessed on a regular basis. Mr. Suk asked if the Commission would like to consider having staff prepare a study of the appropriate land uses for the area. Ms. Schultze asked staff to clarify what areas would be included in the study. Ms. Baker responded the area north of 65`" Street and west of Highway 52. She explained that planning staff needs to do more extensive study of the entire area up to the northern boundaries of what is now the urban service area. However, a smaller portion of the area could be completed in a more timely manner. Mr. Burke stated that it would help applicants with guidelines. / Page 19 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 24, 2000 Ms. Baker stated that there is momentum working toward a land use study for the entire area to determine land uses and roadway classifications. Ms. Schultze suggested that the Commission recommend that the study be a priority Ms. Schultze asked if segments of the area could be adopted at different times. Ms. Baker responded yes. She stated that she would speak with Mr. Wheeler about the goals for completing such a study, what the plan is for identifying land uses, the time frame, and whether or not they will be doing it in phases. Mr. Sulk stated that it is the consensus of the Commission that the area is a high impact area and that it needs to be addressed quickly. He asked Ms. Baker to report back to the Commission as to what the results of the conversation were. Discussion ensued what is on the agenda for the Commission's next scheduled meeting. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not to hear the presentation on open space at their next meeting. The Commission agreed to listen to the presentation now. A 5-minute break occurred. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Review official map for 16`h Avenue NW: Ms. Baker explained that the map in the packet is for an official map to extend 16`h Avenue NW from where it ends now to 71' Street NW. She explained that the adoption of the official map would allow the City to identify it as an official right-of-way. Also, it would put limitations on building construction within that zone. Ms. Baker explained that the City is looking at doing a project on the site next summer. Ms. Schultze asked if this request was previously held up due to the DM&E proposal. Ms. Baker responded that there were some concerns with the railroad, as the DM&E railroad runs through the property. However, a decision has been made to move forward with the map. Mr. Quinn asked what type of safety signals would be used. Ms. Baker responded that she did not know specifically what would be used but that the City would need to install the minimum required by applicable regulations. Ms. Schultze stated that there was a recent article in the newspaper regarding sophisticated systems being created for safety. Ms Poiersson jmoVe tQ ado cart ofii�a to c Y.i� Y nusi seconded b�+1Vl Ms. Baker introduced Jennifer Garness to the Commission. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING [ a l DATE: 9-18-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING , 4 41 DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development #00-13 Final Plan by Galen & PREPARED BY: Patricia Youngkrantz, to allow for the development of a recreational vehicle park with 49 sites, Mitzi A. Baker, a manager's and assistant manager's unit, and an office/bath house facility. The property is Senior Planner located along the east side of 11` Avenue SW, south of Scenario Lane SW, and north of 10'h Ave. SW. September 11, 2000 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On August 23, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval subject to the following nine conditions. The motion carried 6-0, 1. Manufactured homes proposed for this property must eitherbe constructed to meet the definition of "Dwelling, One Family Attached" consistent with Section 60.200 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDMI OR the manufacture homes must meet Section 62.262, 1,b, 17, d and a and h. 2. Additional development permits and others which may be required through other agencies must be obtained prior to commencement of development activities on this property (i.e. grading and drainage, owner contracts, firelburn permit, building, health department). The applicant shall provide a detailed site plan to Olmsted County Public Health Services for review and approval prior to development. 3. Bumper stops shall be located along the north side of all sites located within Row A and along the south side of all lots located within Row C. Recycle bins shall be provided within the area identified for refuse. S. Prior to development, the applicant shall., • Execute/dedicate an avigational easement over the entire parcel prior to approval of any development permits; • Submit a revised landscape plan that identifies all areas that are not planned for driving or parking surfaces as being covered with sod or turf; • Dedicate controlled access along 11'h Ave. SW, except for one 32' wide access opening; and shall also dedicate utility and drainage easements as required by the City; • Execute a Development Agreement with the City that includes, but is not limited to, the Owner's obligations for stormwater management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities (i.e. along 11a' Ave.), right-cf--way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. The applicant shall provide a right -turn lane into the site from 11fh Ave. SW. 7. The internal roadway must be signed with a roadway name sign and also must be signed "no parking — fire lane", with signs installed in accordance with the Public Works specifications. Signs must face both directions on both sides of the roadway for clear notice to motorists. .......CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE INCILACT,I.O�N: Motion by: Second by: to: wu�i %l t?ont n. - / cw ur� lob is C11 ao coi. fi t4 zu Oo gn U0 lot ---------------- ., r-q - - - - - - - --- r rim It cv 1A M col cli z IN I CJ LO 0. 46 I- z to 0 141tR_1. la 11 —fl-7HAVK sw— HII, / 'flill - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - 17aj.LV7,jqj - - - - - - - 194 _ M CO F+1 e'•1 ^z W N W Q U O � O zza � a� (21 z d � Go o .SYMy� ��y u � z c� vNi �•i ✓i p W 6 �' W H xNJ2&1 Q W J u 8 w SCOO)'S�'E _ _ _ _ ��p Gnu J fy W K YiMMI/�ti�/ O C 1 C 'M1ir@ N p KJ W ap Cl p p 6ole 101 i / IE� / k / �, a C'+ - - -.. .as.ao -------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - fR•. QLLd �9 m 0 r as p m ° c w m m- 0 0 ^ :a v -9 me ^a ow .�doo u e 2 m m n . A n'm ui 3=pq u �u 9 0 0 ^ u a o m a a boa a w c w$ gomo _ mEv ° eo 3 paw '-mrnpoo c cr} Jr U rnC•3 ma_ v'Em C ac 0-0 0 °s S J ° E o V ° , V O p m n � o ED o m Z` E- ^ o 0 p 0 PLI nt W B d 6s yQi W � Ell ° A TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: August 18, 2000 hs.�rnf 21 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 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development #00-13 Final Plan by Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz, to allow for the development of a recreational vehicle park with 49 sites, a manager's and assistant manager's unit, and an officelbath house facility. The property is located along the east side of 11`h Avenue SW, south of Scenario Lane SW, and north of 10'h Ave. SW. Planning Department Review Applicant: Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz 2260 Fisher Court NW Rochester, MN 55906 Architect: GGG Engineering 14070 Highway.52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Property Location and Size: This proposal includes approximately 8.70 acres of land located along the east side of 111h Avenue SW (County Rd. 147) between the South Pointe Subdivisions and the Airport Industrial Park Subdivision. Zoning: The Property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) district. The property is also within the Airport Zoning District "D". Adjacent Land Use: North: Single family residential homes in the South Pointe Subdivisions. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. This property is also within the Airport Zoning District "D". AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER I� CUP #00-13 08/18/00 Page 2 South: The Airport Industrial Park is along the south property boundary. The subdivision is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Some of the lots have been developed. This property is also within the Airport Zoning District "D". East: Highway 63 is along the east side of the property. West: Across 11t' Avenue SW is undeveloped land in the AG (Agricultural) district in the City of Rochester. This property is within the Airport Zoning District "C". Public Utilities: A 12" watermian runs along the western property boundary, while a sanitary sewer line runs through the eastern portion of the site. Other public utilities are location with the 11th Avenue right-of-way. All service utilities are proposed to be privately owned and maintained. The water mains to and including the fire hydrants are public and will need to be within a 20' public utility easement. Referral Agency Comments: Rochester Public Works; Planning Dept.; Olmsted County Public Health Services; Fire Department (see attached) Attachments: Site Plan Referral Comments Application Attachments Summary of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to develop a recreational vehicle park. The proposal also includes 2 manufactured homes placed on the site to be used for the manager's and assistant manager's dwellings. A 40' by 24' building is proposed near the entrance to be used for a registration office, bathroom facilities, storage area and laundry facilities. There is also a refuse area location near the registration building. The Preliminary Plan for this proposal was approved by the City Council in June 2000. The following issues were raised during the Preliminary Plan hearings: Months/Season of Operation: Concern was raised regarding the potential for guests to stay at the RV Park for long periods of time, resulting in the Park serving as long term temporary housing for individuals and families. There was some discussion regarding the ability for guest to stay over the winter months and the consultant informed the Commission that during hard frost the RV Park would not be able to operate. Although there was some discussion of limiting the months that the Park may operate, there were no conditions placed on the Preliminary Plan approval to limit the months of operation. CUP 400-13 • 08/18/00 Page 3 Storm Shelter: Both the Planning Commission and City Council discussed requiring a storm shelter on the property. The City Council concluded that a storm shelter would only be required if existing federal, state, county or local regulations require the shelter. Staff researched this issue and concluded that there were no other known regulations that would require a storm shelter within the Park. Park Rules: The Commission expressed interest in obtaining a copy of the Park rules. A copy of the proposed rules is attached to this report. Fence: There was considerable discussion at both the Planning Commission and Council meeting related to the placement of a fence for buffering and security purposes. Due to the limitations of an existing environmental easement along the northern portion of the Youngkrantz property, a fence can not be located any closer than 50'south of the north property line. The City Council concluded that at a minimum, a 6' chain link fence would be required along the south line of the 50' environmental easement, located along the north property line. Total Number of Sites: Staff learned that Minnesota Rules require a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet to be completed for an RV park with 50 or more sites. The original application for this project included 53 sites. The Final Plan has been revised to include 49 sites. Explanation of Application and Review Procedures: The applicant is proposing to develop a recreational vehicle park in the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district. Since recreational vehicle parks are not a permitted use in the M-1 zoning district, the applicant has proposed the development by proceeding through the Restricted Development provisions. The Restricted Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (Section 62.700) recognize that certain land uses which are generally not allowed within a given zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning regulations". This application requires a two step review process, consisting of a preliminary plan and a final plan. The final plan phase follows the Type III, Phase III, procedure with a review before the Planning Commission and a hearing before applicant has requested that the final plan review procedure be waived. Analysis: When evaluating the final development plan, the criteria included in Sections 61.146 and 62.708 of the LDM shall be considered (see attached). The Planning Staff suggests the following findings to the criteria for a final development plan found in Section 62.708, in regard to the proposed request: �Q aob_ • • - 0 pan/1 sroo Page 4 a) Public Facility Design: Detailed construction plans and grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City orlor to development. b) Geologic Hazard: There are no known geologic hazards on the property that would require engineering beyond the norm. c) Access Effect: in this application. d) Pedestrian Circulation: The Plan accommodates a future pedestrian facility to be located along I I'" Ave. SW. e) Foundation and Site f) Site Status: maintenance of the property. gj Screening and Bufferyards: The final site and landscape plan includes a 6' chain h Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles iZ Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design. 11 Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the and emergency access. CUP #00-13 08/18/00 Page 5 129 In addition to the standards in Section 62.708, the Commission and Council must consider the standards for Conditional Uses, Section 61.146. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public 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 and jublic fire hydrants, utilities will be private (sewer and water) 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the such uses are a Type It use) a minimum 1O' bufferyard is required along the north property. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. Detailed grading and drainage plans will site. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. At this time, a full lighting plan, including illumination required prior to development. however. CUP #00-13 08/18/00 Page 6 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicle access will be provided acco Final utility design and hvdrant locations will need to be approved by the City prior to development. 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. N.A. 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. This application is being considered _through Development Conditional Use process. Staff Recommendation: A text amendment was approved earlier this year that requires an applicant of a Restricted Development to enter into a Development Agreement that binds the applicant to complete certain features of the project as specified by the Council. These features may include landscaping, exterior materials and colors, signage, setbacks, access or others. Staff recommends that the Commission discuss the project and make a recommendation to the Council outlining the project items which should not be changed without subsequent review by the Commission or Council. Staff suggests that this application can be approved subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. Manufactured homes proposed for this property must either be constructed to meet the definition of "Dwelling, One Family Attached" consistent with Section 60.200 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) OR the manufacture homes must meet Section 62.262, 1,b, 17, d and a and h. 2. Additional development permits and others which maybe required through other agencies must be obtained prior to commencement of development activities on this property (i.e. grading and drainage, owner contracts, firelburn permit, CUP #00-13 09/18/00 Page 7 building, health department). The applicant shall provide a detailed site plan to Olmsted County Public health Services for review and approval prior to development. 3. Bumper stops shall be located along the north side of all sites located within Row A and along the south side of all lots located within Row C. 4. Recycle bins shall be provided within the area identified for refuse. 5. Prior to development, the applicant shall. • Executeldedicate an avigational easement over the entire parcel prior to approval of any development permits; • Submit a detailed lighting plan, including illumination levels at the property lines; • Submit a revised landscape plan that identifies all areas that are not planned for driving or parking surfaces as being covered with sod or turf; • Dedicate controlled access along 11tb Ave. SW, except for one 32' wide access opening; and shall also dedicate utility and drainage easements as required by the City; • Execute a Development Agreement with the City that includes, but is not limited to, the Owner's obligations for stormwater management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities (i.e. along 11`" Ave.), right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. The applicant shall provide a right -turn lane into the site from 11a' Ave. SW. 7. The internal roadway must be signed with a roadway name sign and also must be signed "no parking — fire lane", with signs installed in accordance with the Public Works specifications. Signs must face both directions on both sides of the roadway for clear notice to motorists. 8. For maintenance purposes, trees or extensive landscaping shall not be planted within the 20' public utility easement. 9. The applicant shall comply with any State andlor Federal Noise Abatement Regulations which may apply to this development and shall waive rights to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.H. 63. 10. A six-foot fence shall be provided along the south side of the 50' environmental easement, located along the north property line. Additional plantings shall be provided within the 50' environmental easement where the existing vegetation does not provide screening equal to, or in excess of, a Class "F" bufferyard (as defined by the LDM) that is 25' in width. All plantings shall meet the minimum size requirements of Section 63.154 of the LDM. All areas that are not shown for driving or parking surfaces shall be established with turf. 11. This RV Park shall be limited to operating during from March through November. No guests shall be allowed to stay at the Park from December through February. CUP #00-13 08/18/00 • • Page g 12. Lighting on the property shall not exceed lighting standard "C" as defined in Section 63.213 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). EXCERPTS FROM THE LDM 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: Final Development Plan Criteria: k) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted. 1) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside from development. m) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as to: 1) Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways are minimized; 2) Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as noise from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from vehicles entering or leaving the site. In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential problems in the operation of access points, plans for private improvements or evidence of planned public improvements which will alleviate the problems have been provided. n) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians can move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and activities within the neighborhood area, and, where appropriate, accommodations for transit access are provided. CUP #00-13 08/18/00 �� Page 9 ✓ o) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of the surrounding area. p) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the completion of any platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of required public improvements, screening and landscaping. q) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the needs identified in Phase I for the project. r) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design. s) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design. t) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility and emergency access. 62.386 Recreational Uses: 1) Campgrounds and Trailering Parks: The density of proposed developments shall not exceed 20 sites per acre. Spaces for trailers shall be at least 25 feet wide, and a 30 foot separation between any designated site and a residential zoning district boundary shall be maintained. Recreational space equal to 10 percent of the site area shall be provided, with no single area smaller than 800 square feet in size. Submittal information shall include plans for utilities, sanitary facilities, bathing facilities and the waste disposal system. Trailer parks located in the Flood Fringe, Flood Prone and Floodway Districts are subject to the provisions of 62.800. M ROCHESTER Minnesota 8/11/00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4"' Street SE Room 108 TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740 2122 Campus Drive SE FAX07-28 -7800 Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur Public Works has reviewed the requested Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #00-13 Final Plan by Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz to allow a RV Parkin the M-1 Zone.The following are Public Works Comments on the proposal: I. The Owner has deeded 50 feet to the City for the I I" Ave SW ROW, and provided an additional 10 foot easement for future pedestrian facilities. 2. Separate approval of Grading & Drainage Plans is required prior to development of this property. 3. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City, prior to approval of the Restricted Development Application, that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 4. Controlled access is required along the entire frontage of I I "Ave SW, accept for one 32 foot wide access opening. 5. Dedication of all required utility and/or drainage easements is required prior to development of this site. 6. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. As proposed there will be an on -site detention pond. Execution of a Stormwater Maintenance and Ownership Agreement is required, and will be included in the Development Agreement for this property. 7. The Owner will be required to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement, prior to development of this site, that addresses the Owner's responsibility with regard to future pedestrian facilities along the frontage of I I" Ave SW (CSAH 147). The required Pedestrian Facilities Agreement will be included in the Development Agreement for this property. 8. The addition of fire hydrant(s) is being required for this project. The execution of a City/Owner Contract will be necessary, prior to construction of public watermain and/or hydrant(s). The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the subject property (rates are subject to annual review and change. The charges below apply to the entire parcel (not just the north 295 feet as shown on the plan), and will be included in the Development Agreement for this property: ? J9266 "Water Tower to Serve High Level Area & Airport" @ $1,298.94 per acre, plus 7.5% interest from 3/6/95 [Entire parcel, minus 50 foot Environmental Easement]. 4• J9305 "Watermain Extension in I I" Ave SW" = $8,602.21 principal for 495 feet of frontage plus 7.5% interest from 3/6/95. Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge @ $60.00 per foot of frontage on I I" Ave SW, plus a proportional cost share of the Capacity Component for the Southwest Area TID. a Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. i Stop Sign 2 Private Street Name Signs .• A Stormwater Management Fee, if on -site detention is not provided. hod ALL-AMIUCA an R 0 CHE TER . S V t,wejata DATE: August 9, 2000 TO: Suzanne LaPalm, Planning FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief STE R. J3s , DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief Rochester Fire Department 201 4th Street SE, Room 10 Rochester, MN 55904-3726 (507)285-8072 FAX #(507)285-8256 SUBJECT: Type 111, Phase II, Restricted Development. Final Plan Permit #00-13, for recreational vehicle park, located along the east side of 11 th Ave. SW, south of scenario Lane SW and north of I Oth Avenue SW. This project is a full minute beyond the 4-minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire Department and is adding a 53 lot recreational vehicle park 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. Hydrant locations shown are approved and must be installed prior to commencing building construction. 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 made serviceable prior to occupancy and use. 3. Parking areas for residents and visitors must be provided outside of the 20' width of the fire lane. The entire perimeter and length of the 20' roadway must be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane", with signs installed inaccordance with the Public Works specifications. Signs must face both directions on both sides of the roadway for clear notice to motorists. 4. All lots must display the proper lot number in a manner which is plainly visible and legible from the roadway fronting the property. c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division Galen & Patricia :Youngkrantz, 2260 Fisher Court NW, Rochester, Mn. 55906 GGG Engineering, 14070 Hwy 52 SE, Chatfield, Mn. 55923 • • i SURFACE DRAIN BUMPER STOP ANITAR ' SE 34'36' 11' ELE Ti2f ABLE TV PH _ O T SE CE L E 4 ` -ta 5 ... 0' GRAV ;;RA 404� 4 AutumnWoods Circle SW -6" DIP +WA AIN A SE VIC LIN SU . AIN �. 8'x10' C VE. AA ECTRIC, HE - Ep, TER RIS ?� 6" S,41T SEWER `S. ARY RIS AutumnWoods Circle SW x 0' GRAY �WATE R\4 INE LECTRIC, BL, TV, PH01 • yam, .t^ 8, . NITARY E 11 BUMPER S P SANITARY R I ,1 SANITARY RISE D 10 WATER .ISE yc 20' 20' Engineering Prepared -For. 0 30' Galen Youngkrontz Surveying u Plannin2260 Fisher Ct. NW ffrey G Griffin g Rochester, MN 55901 Geo 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, Mn. 55923 Ph. 507-667-1666 SHEET 1 OF 1 1 FILE NO.: 99149 (3"o) r aQ� iLu z-d sge•ON wdzs;'C- aeez :z ar�r 7nn't nn•n1 rV''nnnc r- r WZ 90 9cLU C W E �E ft 2`d 990'ON WdLS:E U l (IMPPV-17-9nr alll/ales IN t Y S m W W H b O n um, � m I =I � t ! 1 tr `v 8 0 W m 2.91 .> AC R 8 Qr • 1 f; T y NW Lo g I I en .: u. m i � O C� cc � W 7N N I V �NR�IN ut 14( I ELEVATION T6.0' 4. o pa Prepared • 1,:• ; t.,..': i•'4• • CONCRETE SLAB W/6' ��i¢. THICKENED EDGE •�•': 't '•'• PROVIDE GATE HINGES AND '•`1�� '�'� S , i �•;, ' ; fLATCH80LT CLOSURE FOR DOORS': • .; .r �• � � : j .� — 2.0' "I`— 5.0' --� TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL 4- TREATED POST 6' TREATED 6' CEDAR TRIM CEDAR DECK BOARDS C"ZC PROVIDE NERTCAL I Ili DOWEL RN TO SET POST ON, 4' CONCRETE SLAB W/ OR SET POST IN CONCRETE #4'S W 24. O.C. EA WAY I6'e6- THICKENED EDGE W/ 2—i4'S CONT. TYP, TRASH ENCLOSURE SECTION *NOTE' RECYCLING BINS WILL BE PROVIDED INSIDE TRASH ENCLOSURE I I0/� Engineering �JS? Surveying Geoffrey G Griffin Planning 241 North Winona Street Chatfield, MD. 55923 Ph. 507-252-2663 For. 1 Galen Youngkrantz 2260 Fisher Ct. NW M DEVELOPMENT SIGN DETAIL 10, I WELCOME AutumnWoods RV Park Engineering Surveying Planning Geoffrey C, Griffin 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield. Mn. 55923 Ph. 507-867-1666 Prepared For. Galen Youngkrantz 2260 Fisher Ct. NW Rochester, MN 55901 I]L Page 3 • 0 Y� City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 23, 2000 1. Each ma actured home lot shall have a stand with a sur drainage aw from the stand. The stand shall be either a gravel or crush stone with a total depth of at least four I should conform ze to fhe perimeter dimensions of t home and be used a e area foil the properly engi ed manufactured home on stand. The remainder of graded areas shall be pl: 2. Signs designating 2 parking In the parking bays adjacent 3. A paved pedestr main door of the 4. Verification aJ�fi� 5. IDWe existing storage uildinas must meet tl e. A permanent r cation can supplant1he regdired tanufactured a lot shall be graded for drainage; All %Lthgras3o�piovent erosion. pag each of the relocated homes shall be provided eh 0 be provided frD%,the designated 0pF4lni; spaces#o the +�.. xr ayq � I4I/u1� YQtIOi 4JJQ Miry Lily. 7QJC,l�a�}@(� � �i k cot ipCatsd c�ver.any easenpents tfiapu ljc sratei'snaln din s ars also be relocated, tfhe.placem Nof those EqU remenis of sect on 52.262 cJt3j TYPE III, PHASE III RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Type III, Phase III Restricted Development #00-13 Final Plan by Galen & Patricia Younakrantz, to allow for the development of a recreational vehicle park with 49 sites, a manager's and assistant manager's unit and an officelbath house facility. The property is located along the east side of 11'6Avenue SW, south of Scenario Lane SW and north of 10` Ave. 5W, Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated August 18, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department, Ms. Baker explained that, since there were a number of concerns expressed with regard to season of operation, she suggested Condition Number 11, as listed in the staff report. Ms. Baker explained that storm shelters are not required. Therefore, she removed the condition requiring one from the preliminary plan conditions. Ms. Baker stated that a copy of the park rules is included in the packet. She indicated that it is not a document that is recorded against the property as a covenant. Ms. Baker stated that staff met with the City Attorney's office and applicant to discuss the placement of a fence. It was concluded that a fence would need to be placed along the southern boundary of the environmental easement. I Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 1f (iL.C,_�•, Hearing Date: August 23, 2000 Ms. Baker stated that Minnesota Rules require that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be completed for any RV park that has 50 or more sites. Therefore, the applicant reduced the number of sites to 49. There were previously 53 sites proposed. Ms. Baker stated that, on staff -suggested Condition Number 5, the second bullet should be stricken. Mr. Burke asked for a description of the difference between a utility easement and environment easement. Ms. Baker responded that the environmental easement is not something that was obtained by a utility company. She explained that a former owner placed it on the northern property boundary. She indicated that there are utility lines overhead. People's Coop Power erected the power poles and RPU acquired them in a settlement agreement between Peoples Coop and Rochester Public Utilities. Ms. Baker stated that the environmental easement prohibits removal of vegetation and does not allow for the erection of structures or man made features. Ms. McGowan asked if the applicant would need to do an Environmental Assessment Worksheet if the applicant adds additional sites. Ms. Baker explained that the ordinance allows for minor changes to be approved by staff. However, if the applicant adds additional sites, the Minnesota Rules would apply and would trigger an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Mr. Burke asked if they would need to do an Environmental Assessment Worksheet if the applicant develops the area to the south. Ms. Baker responded that the Minnesota Rules has regulations with regard to that type of situation. The applicant would need to do an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, even if they developed it under a separate name. Ms. Brede asked if the property owners to the north have the same type of restriction as the applicant with regard to erecting a fence on the easement. Ms. Baker responded that the 50 foot easement is only located on the applicant's property. The applicant's representative, Mr. Mark Welch of GGG Engineering, addressed the Commission. He made the following comments: i. The applicant worked with the neighborhood association to have a 6-foot chain link security fence. 2. The applicant would like the restriction on the months of operation taken out of the conditions. He indicated that there would be heated risers in the middle row of the park. Ms. McGowan asked staff to comment on the months of operation. Ms. Baker responded that the reason it was listed as a condition is due to the number of concerns raised by neighbors at the preliminary plan review. The purpose of the condition was l Page 5 0 • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 23, 2000 to address limiting the possibility of year round residents. She indicted that, if January is the most likely month that they would not have residents, the Commission could revise the condition to limit guests in January. However, the Commission could eliminate the condition entirely. Ms. McGowan asked what months the Silver Lake RV Park operates. Ms. Baker responded that she did not believe they operated in winter. Mr. Suk stated that Condition Number 10 should be revised to indicate that the fence will be a 6 foot chain link security fence. Mr. Staver stated that it would not be unreasonable to take Condition Number 11 out of the list of conditions regarding months of operation. It would be infrequent that there would be RVs parking there in January. Mr. Burke stated that the biggest concern is regarding long term residents. He questioned if it wouldn't be more appropriate to state that the maximum amount of time a resident could stay would be 10 or 11 months. Mr. Suk stated that a resident could conceivably leave the premises for one day and then return Ms. McGowan expressed concern regarding setting a precedent. Discussion ensued regarding possible language for Condition Number 11 limiting residents from parking at the park in January. Mr. Brede questioned if the condition would be that the RV and resident could not be on the premises in January or just the resident. Ms. Baker responded that staff would need to know the exact determination. Otherwise, they would assume that the RVs and residents should not be on the premises in the month of January. Ms. McGowan and Mr. Burke agreed that the RV and resident should not be on the premises in the month of January. Mr. Welch stated that the Brookside RV park is a year round operation. The applicant would like to request the same privilege. Mr. Quinn asked what would stop a person, who has the RV parked in the outer row, from moving the RV to the middle heated row when it gets colder, thereby, the RV residing at the park year round. He questioned if the Commission wants RV parks to operate year round. Mr. Quinn asked if there is a restriction that RV parks cannot operate year round. Ms. Baker responded that if the park is located within the B4 zoning district, it is a listed use. She explained that the present request is a restricted development process, as it is not a permitted use in the M-1 zoning district. Mr. Staver stated that it is unlikely that a person would want to stay at a RV park year round Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 23, 2000 The applicant, Mr. Galen Youngkrantz, addressed the Commission. He stated that he realizes that not many people would want to stay in a RV in the winter. However, he would like the option as he has had a request from a person that is coming to Mayo Clinic around Christmas to park his RV at his establishment. He indicated that they have a large investment in winterizing the pipes in the middle row and have to pay taxes and insurance for the entire year. The Commission agreed to strike Condition Number I I from the staff -suggested conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. McGowan moved to approve Type III, Phase III Restricted Developmerit #QQ-'13 Final Plan by Galen & Patricia Youngkrantz with staff -suggested fit. ncOngs and conditions, striking Condition Number 1l, changing Condition NOn'ber 10 to lhdic.6*11 ttije-#cote will be a 6 foot chain link security fence, and strikin the second bullet under Condition Number 5. Mr. Burke seconded the motlon. T40 ma3ioln oariied 84. FINDINGS: r Section 62.708i a) Public Facility Design: Detailed construction plans and grading and dtaalhla$s plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Git�t ritN to:de�reloplriejrt, b) Geologic Hazard, There are no known geologic hazards otI tjrp.properiy t , would require engineering beyond the raprin.; c) Access Effect Access to thls property will be ilpd�eci #o Q�e al�sss #Q 1#th Ave, SE. This access will be shared witty tfte southetrt C%: ott the prttert, tej tS rfpt Included In th" appUoan, r rt�t+ ; �¢y> , y, zt, �,Ry g x d) PedestrleK tijr+tlatiprrs he Plan arorilii+R q °tea k iota#ed elong 7 I Y& s .1 ' ' a r AYes Cam. .7✓w ys � r.J[ n'SJH�� G. gg 1fi.A}P v a ej Found�tlori'ind��� � p�►�aa w �� � � pp h,�b`�}� a thl� pi•operty�f 1t ������th� a�,ea�w ' '� , �������� � , .. existing vegetal qp. /^drlitiona RM In s_ar r coed t as vs e3a n op no, pral3ide bufiterirn 8q ti3 265 of he RpchesiA..r.fli dlilaP aril# �a(DSve�tt A note on ths.landsca a an, >retserrn fo the areas i3 b a threes need to toe remoVad, area. rll1, fa) lui �d nr th at�t+ i)lr A and shnrhs", If veget P 3o is "ace sh p Wai wRh�etsrTPiantinga as eytl`7the LDMI Areas on the i'I�n that ar not,proposed for rpadyl+a)rs or 5 should be sodded endflo�+ld l¢�'lIis Ii+Rltt,} 1. . '; ' 3 J �,'; „�, `-m�7..��.r.•: t� y "�k'�.`��i�34,YR3u > ci a`a� RF �asi J��� f) Site Status. Th9 roe t as proposed, woU(I remain under t ex wrii#rs�h p nfl management of thea I The ownet'/appliCal nt 11v11! be respons[ble {rttr maintenance of the property. g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final site and landscape plain lnchdes at 6' ctialq *JOAOrMoq eil-b a' s Ueeq log SB4 ayial 'j, n4,111, weld ul vw L M WS1414V (S E,q pqjie,) a' q veld e0 6q.L (p dole 00400t !M,O§V (v p 9 uelj , pappa U6110011dde ,R `J6 81 -UBISGP 60 UOuIP108OLLI 969JO Oseq! GAi6s 0; salsle uopolnoijo w­ o '_ > d Y11(jo .1094"p, JO; iquid isee1v UoRtilhoijo jeujq;uj (I d-iwalsqc] sits JOUJO)U1 ' 0' OA10191 Bid iu9wdoj.8A9p Ajet ilwlletd ul pagpopI s1suoo ij upisep Suipfing.jImU Gq.L:Udjs9Cj BuIpling joul.1 (q NIPIM nq ssel:j B 'UeLl; japaq jo 'o4 jenbe Sulueons OplAoid OA bUjjSjxG 041 dieqM juaweses jBjuqwuojjAue q4t U14tIm seiiodojd duld adoospual 014.L 'UOISIAlpqns Allwej 916uls pjjhq Oue popendes, epjnwd jllM 4jedcud 9jqj jo uoi od JOWUOJIAUO,og Sui IISIXO UV ";UOWBSBO IBIUGWUOJIAUS Ocj 000z'czisngnv mit(IguyvaH 92;ntr!yj UOtSSU=oo glqaoZ ptEj SUMUIICI f4!:) 0 L *Bid Page 8 I (M City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Lll Hearing Date: August 23, 2000 %Page 9 0 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 23, 2000 6. The applicant shall provide a right -turn lane into the 7. The internal roadway must be signed with a roadway signed "no parking - fire lane", with signs installed i Works specifications. Signs must face both director roadway for clear notice to motorists. 8. For maintenance purposes, trees or extensive lai within the 20' public utility easement: iite from 1'1'". Ave. SW.: name sign and also must be 9. The applicant shall comply with any State and/or Federal Regulations which may apply to this development and sh; request future government provision of any noise abatem 10. A six-foot chain link security fence shall be provided alon 50' environmental easement, located along the north pros plantings shall be provided within the 50' environmental e existing vegetation does riot provide screening 69ual to, "R' bufferyard (as defined by the LDM) that is 25' iri width meet the minimum size,requirements of Section 63.154 of are not shown for driving or parking surfaces shall be est� 11. Lighting on the property shall not exceed lightingapridar Section 63.213`of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and La 1. Mr. Svenby presente a staff report is on file at the RoNgste Mr. Svenby explained that the71 properties in the RSD. Staff hac criteria to be placed on the RSD he. �larited nth to J4.63. e of the ional : the Manual' dated August 17Zing ission. The staff ed Planning Dep irs office gave thent a list of through the list erty meets the Mr. Burke moved to approve the annua'of Rural Service District parcels as. nraaanfari hu afnff Mr Sfavnr ... n. lnrf n�nfinn Ti.e �Minn R it 2. TIF Districts • Development District #1 r Diamond Ridge 17" bdivision • Development District for Valley Side Estates Su 'vision • Development Distri #19 for Kingsbury Hills Subdivisio Mr. Svenby presente tters, from Terry Spaeth from the City Administrator's office, dated August 14, 2000, to a Commission. These letters are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Depart nt. r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING % 9-18-00 t AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING �5' M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #99-23 Pinewood Meadows First Addition CIC PREPARED 13Y. 162 Replat of Lots 1- 21, Block 2. Mitzi A. Baker, September 12, 2000 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated September 12, 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 7:00 p.m. on Monday September 18, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6. GGG Engineering INCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: ■ Il omm■ LDCAnoQ -I:N- ME ON > ppF ti _ •�b � N ��� 3E F'Fi�6��s�`fE�SXs if4� ��l�i � ((ii afi jE�Z 3�� 8ft°�• •�:g5{SF ¢ :e gl i i�f6 i. E�i �� Ge EiPj si! fai�`a_••�—�s��..€q��{`:¢3 1fXaj %ia5 FS siaSa yf Pi "Y� !B i � e I , I I 8d €€[=3a3p`g.sgAJAS gg'����� is s �853Ls- zt BS�: gg Sl Fii = a gig g $ gig IRe ib iiijSi# i ` ` I i• a. e � a ea P : P v� i1a i.iJ iit'lli f �31 I IB a #S i�EI Q cn 5 w m O I n 0311VldNfl a!Oldg e M•ZZ ZC.tON r 6l'4Cf MO ---- ry O • Pd � �s4 ,x6 O vr' O O i # O , rr r • � � 1 W , ° ry �f �' 3 L np ,SO'Z89 3•St,LZ.[OS = as MiKanv nsee P NOISWOSFS 1s2W: I � f S,k�3Gl3dN34HO$ NOIS[41Q8 ON003' 5.213 HOS �+�ctllsays�'s� �tnw1)oq� �a�p1•��..-ry�1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 TO: Rochester Common Council ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/2B5-8232 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 DATE: September 12, 2000 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287.2275 RE: Final Plat #99-23 Re -Plat of Pinewood Meadows First Addition CIC #162 Planning Department Review.- Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Report Attachments: Summary Information: Shoenfelders Southstar LLC 1652 Greenview Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902 GGG Engineering 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat This property is located adjacent to Pinewood Road SE, east of 23rd Ave. SE and is currently platted as Pinewood Meadows First Addition CIC 162. This application proposes to re -plat Lots 1- 21, Block 2 to accommodate a larger townhome building. The utilities, grading, access and parkland were reviewed in 1999, when the original final plat was approved. Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ".w.w ROCHESTER Minnesota 9/13/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4m Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #99-23 on the Reeplat of Lots I — 21, Block 2, Pinewood Meadows First Addition CIC#162 property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. Charges/fees that are applicable to the development of the property have been addressed in the Development Agreement, with the exception of: Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: C:\TEMP\FP#99-23 Replat 9-00.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 9-18-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S :M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-43 to be known as The Gardens Second PREPARED BY: Subdivision Brent Svenby, September 14, 2000 Planning Department Review: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat. Staff would recommend approval of the final plat with the following conditions/modifications: 9. The plat be revised to include the following: ➢ Easements for any public facilities within the property be provided on the final plat documents. 2. The developer post "No Parking — Fire Lane"signs in the two hammerhead turn-arounds and along one side of the private roadways. It's the developer's responsibility to enforce these regulations. 3. Temporary turnarounds shag be provided at the southerly ends of Daffodil Avenue SE and Daisy Avenue SE. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant shall execute associated easements for the turnarounds with the City. 4. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that the deferred dedication of land will meet this need, as recommended by the City Park and Recreation in the attached memo, dated September7, 2000, Council Action Needed. 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording/Treasurer/Auditors Statement 3. Recording Fee 4. Title Opinion 5. 1 Original Plat Mylar 6. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated September 14, 2000. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department —GIS 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 18, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6. Yaggy Colby Associates INCIL ACTION; Motion by..Second by:to: tb � W (gyp 6-0. 5 40 ST" 3 w T NWTSx a w G Final Plat #00-43 The Gardens 2nd Subd. 47 rw 3,800' Notification Distance Ward 1 Hanson 09/05/00 HST.SE IN 00 �9 19 99 0P s THE GARDENS PHASE II ' ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA TITLE SHEET Z d bE 50 Z 119 Z b'0N/D4: 9 t '.LS/9b:91 00,£116 (Clam) I O m I N -p rn 3 rn Z m Z cn O V) 1�1 EEgan :fig: ��EE, � •• -LOS AE1O0 A00VA WOEA (cam THE GARDENS {pf'o€ psi ROCH PHASE f R, MNNESOTA I•I I FIt al I e >3 1 k PP a p' ST. BRIOGEf R0. SE 12' 459.26 0 F O FFnn r ° °s G Oct N i y I �O 9s A i "I m 9 3 0 p T A►iolAr�!!lt,� ll���e,�l�sacA! ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 TO: Rochester Common Council ADMINISTRATION/ PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner MAPPING HOUSING/HRA DATE: September 14, 2000 BUILDING CODE WELL/SEPTIC FAX RE: Final Plat #00-43 to be known as The Gardens Second Subdivision. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: The Gardens Manufactured Home Community, LLC 1002 Broadway North Rochester, MN 55906 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 3rd Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Park and Recreation Department 2. Planning Department - Wetland LGU 3. Planning Department —Transportation 4. Planning Department — Addressing 5. RPU Operations Division 6. RPU Water Division 7. Rochester Fire Department 8. Rochester Public works Department Report Attachments:, 1. Referral Comments (5 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Restricted Development Plan 4. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located north of 45th Street SE, east of St. Bridget Road. Zoning: This property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) district in the City of Rochester. Proposed Development: This development consists of replatting Outlot B of The Gardens plat into 1 lot for a manufactured 507/285-8232 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285.8213 507/285-8345 507/287-2275 `-'Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNINJAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 The Gardens Second Subdivision September 14, 2000 Streets: housing development and 1 outlot for future expansion. The plat does not dedicate any public right-of-way, Private roadways will serve the manufactured housing development. The private roadways will be within the utility easements. The no parking will be allowed on the two hammerhead turn-arounds. Sidewalks: According to the Restricted Development Plan approved for this site, a pedestrian lane will be provided on one side of the roadway. Drainage: The property generally drains to the north. According to the approved grading plan, outlet F on The Gardens will be a stromwater detention pond. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. A wetland delineation plan has been approved for this site. The applicant will need to address wetland filling or drainage if grading work is being conducted on the Outlot. Public Utilities: The City has approved the construction plans for the public utilities being installed for this project. Spillover Parking: Spillover parking requirements were reviewed at the time the Restricted Development Plan was approved for this development. Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication be met via deferred land dedication. The applicant will have established 6.15 acres of dedication credit once the 4.15 acre park and 2 acres trail corridor are completed and dedicated to the City. General Development Plan/ The applicant does have an approved Restricted Restricted Development: Development Preliminary Plan on the entire site and an approved Restricted Development Final Plan on the first and second phase of the development. Preliminary Plat. A preliminary plat was not submitted for this plat. This plat is a replat of Outlot 8 of The Gardens. No public right-of-way is being dedicated. All roadways within the plat are all private. l�{ Page 3 111 The Gardens Second Subdivision September 14, 2000 Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat be revised to include the following: A Easements for any public facilities within the property be provided on the final plat documents. 2. The developer post "No Parking —Fire Lane" signs in the two hammerhead turn- arounds and along one side of the private roadways. It's the developer's responsibility to enforce these regulations. 3. Temporary turnarounds shall be provided at the southerly ends of Daffodil Avenue SE and Daisy Avenue SE. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant shall execute associated easements for the turnarounds with the City. 4. The developer agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that the deferred dedication of land will meet this need, as recommended by the City Park and Recreation in the attached memo, dated September 7, 2000. 1-1 ROCHESTER Minnesota 9/13/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4"' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #00-43 to be known as The Gardens Second.. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this development. 2. A Grading Plan has been approved for this development. Charges and fees associated with this development are addressed in the executed Development Agreement. C;\TEMP1FP#00-43. doc • ROCHESTER PARK AND *CREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STRE-E SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2000 TO: Jennifer Gamess Planning RE: Final Plat #00-202 The Gardens 2nd Number of dwelling units ............................................. 124 units Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 3.03 acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. The applicant will have established 6.15 acres of dedication credit once the 4.15 acre park and 2.0 acre trail corridor are completed and dedicated to the City. The dedication requirement for this plat plus the dedication for The Gardens 1" will be met with the dedication of these lands. Land to be dedicated as per GDP., ................ 6. 15 acres The Gardens 1....................................... 2.32 acres The Gardens 2nd...(this plat) ....................3.03 acres Credits for future dedication ................... 0.80 acres Applicant: South Broadway Partners 1002 North Broadway \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOT2\2000\DE➢ICATION\SE 2895\GARDENS 2ND.DOC WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: _ e6d- 400-¢-? 2 4,c6, ZCJ 1) 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. v Other nr Fxninnatinn From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (Gq DATE: 9-18-00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S _ 7 :M DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00-10 by Cottage Homesteads of Rochester, Inc. PREPARED BY: The applicant is proposing to vacate drainage easements located within Lot 3, Block 1 and Brent Svenby, Lot 2, Block 1 Salem Meadows Subdivision. The property is located east of West Circle Planner Drive and north of Salem Road. September 13, 2000 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated September 13, 2000. 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 September 13, 2000 Distribution: 1. City Administrator !. City Clerk I. 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, September 18, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:_e-�+-- 1/70 F 12 TO: City Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: September 13, 2000 Aq�n��i�wpi ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-6213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Vacation Petition #00-10 by Cottage Homesteads of Rochester, Inc. The applicant is proposing to vacate drainage easements located on Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 1 Salem Meadows Subdivision. The property is located east of West Circle Drive and north of Salem Road. Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): Cottage Homestead of Rochester, Inc. 7301 Ohms Lane Suite #560 Edina, MN 55439 Salem Meadows Condominium Association, Inc. Wellington Pointe Condominium Association, Inc. Reason to Vacate: The petitioner is requesting to vacate three drainage easements located on a part of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 1 Salem Meadows. The drainage easements are no longer necessary because the new drainage plan does not use these areas for drainage purposes. The applicant has granted drainage easements in a different location to accommodate the change in the drainage pattern. Referral Comments: No objections Report Attachments: 1. Location Map Staff Recommendation: Staff did not receive any objections to this vacation. It does not appear that vacating the drainage easements requested by the applicant will have an adverse effect. Since that is the case, staff recommends approving this vacation petition as submitted. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .rww :''V,- 711*4� f 9:4 En y t Cie F f e IiE.a eQ� 'pF aF QfA �F- j cca p[ c� I M4 — j��¢'.II'yI( (rA }L`` eFf Sk !1 Est r•FFfi"F — •' rl Ei: tE iF A y3 F �T F'I F;5 fit cr� AF r {E'���'��� fill Fcl FEA :¢ 1 a r i 01.\IfTlal ❑It:llll'd1I;Irl l'I' 111' 1111' I'L.\E \II I IIyj mill I fil $ Ili tr 'fl E J� I w 8 — tP saa610 :s: iY /a}if a•cr Rre F'ipQ2A ` // ��•�p�w"x "sZ'�'�'7„ }�"x•°••' if�i �a pi� �5} � /., J waT . u�;4••yj� x ��ylT1� iy�I�_t'�i �� i",'%" .. AY 111 / o tb X it ld 1ti �/ • •alep wro / eT'psga n 1. N J yy� QE1.62 4c txt . i/1. [ �ry 5 eT1E'SY E L. N I' L A 'I11 E U If Ent r 1 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works M DESCRIPTION: Reassessment of Special Assessments for 1615-19" Avenue SE at This is a hearing to consider the reassessment against property located at 161 MEETING 1/7 DATE: 9/18100 ITEM NO. S -8 PREPARED BY: hW J. Loehr 9' Avenue SE A previous owner of the property became delinquent on payment of real estate taxes and special assessments previously levied against the property for project J8705 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain, and weed removal. The property was subsequently forfeited by the owner to the State of Minnesota for nonpayment of real estate taxes and assessments. Kevin Guy purchased the tax forfeited property from the State of Minnesota at public auction. Kevin subsequently sold the property to Kanal Phang. At the time of closing Kevin provided an amount of $5,690.02 in an Escrow Account for payment of the delinquent assessments at the time of tax forfeiture. The amount of delinquent assessments attributable to the property are as follows: Principal Interest Total J8705 Basic Construction $ 3.913.39 $1,721.87 $5,635.26 Weed Removal $ 50.50 $ 4.26 $ 54.76 Delinquent Amount at Forfeiture $ 3,963.89 $1,726.13 $5,690.02 Olmsted County subsequently reimbursed the City $1,089.86 from the proceeds of the tax forfeited Property sale as follows: Reassess County Actual CM Forfeit. Reimburse Reassess J8705 Basic Construction $ 5,635.26 $1,035.10 $4,600.16 Weed Removal $ 54.76 $ 54.76 $ -0- Actual Amount of Reassessment $5,690.02 $1,089.86 $4,600.16 Eastwood Bank provided a check to the City, from the Escrow Account, of $5,690.02 for the amount of reassessment. Upon reassessment of the delinquent assessments against the property the City will credit for the actual amount of reassessment $4,600.16 and refund an amount of $1,089.86 to Eastwood Bank for distribution consistent with the terms of the Escrow Account. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution Reassessing the delinquent assessments against 1615-19' Avenue SE. INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second i 2-0-