HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 29 NOVEMBER 20, 2000
REGULAR ADJOURNED 7:00 P.M.
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
(3-6)
1)
Petition for Curb & Gutter and Overlay of 21 st Street NE
(7-8)
D)
CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
(9-10)
2)
Request for Funding/Historical Society
(11-12)
3)
Change Order No. 6 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for the Terminal
Building Improvements
(13-14)
4)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
(15-16)
5)
Approval of Accounts Payable
(17-22)
6)
Annexation Petition by B&N, LLC to Initiate Orderly Annexation of
Approx. 5 Acres in the SW 1/4 of Section 28, Cascade Township
(23-28)
7)
Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Badger Development LLC to
Initiate Orderly Annexation of Approx..36 Acres in the NW 1/4 of
Section 20, Cascade Township
(29-30)
8)
Right of Way Settlement for 48th Street SW/Village on the Green
Townhome Associations I & II
(31-32)
9)
Amend Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Trailridge at 415f
by IRET
(33-34)
10)
Amend Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrants to Serve the Quarry
Ridge Apartments
(35-36)
11)
Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Lots 2 & 3, Block 1,
Circle Drive Corporate Park Second Subdivision
(37-38)
12)
Pedestrian Facility Agreement(Harold Miller Office Building Property
(39-40)
13)
Pedestrian Facility Agreement(Gerald & Dorothy Arendts Property
(41-42)
14)
Stormwater Management Agreements
(43-44)
15)
Award of Bids/Trunk Watermain in Southeast Service Area, Phase IV
(45-46)
16)
Award of Bids/Water Tower in Southeast Service Area
Council Agenda
November 20, 2000
Page 2
(47-48) 17) Award of Contract/Rehab South Park Drainage Ditch
(49-50) 18) Award of Contract/High Level Water Main to Serve from Orchard
Ridge to Highway 52
(51-52) 19) Professional Services for Stormwater Pond kr-p2.2a at IBM, South of
41" Street NW
E) HEARINGS
(53-54) 1)
Type III, Phase ll, Restrictive Development Preliminary Plan by Waste
Management to Permit Construction of 7,140 Sq. Ft. Transfer Station
(55-56) 2)
Continued Hearing/Vacation Petition to Vacate 20' Wide Utility and
Drainage Easement Along South Line of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Bel Air
Eighth Subdivision/South of 37d' St. NW and East of 11 th Avenue NW
(57-62) 3)
Right of Way Vacation by ISD #535 to Vacate Undeveloped Right of
Way within Project Area for Riverside Central Elementary School
(63-72) 4)
Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Payne Company and Harold
Payne to Annex 13.66 Acres East of East Circle Drive and South of
Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills 3`d and 4 h Subdivisions
(73-80) 5)
Type III, Phase ll, Zoning District Amendment by Badger
Development LLC to Rezone Approx..36 Acres from H District to M-1
District/West Side of West Circle Drive, North of 28"' Street NW &
South of Valleyhigh Road NW
(81-88) 6)
Final Plat to be Known as Orchard Hills South Second Subdivision
(89-96) 7)
Zoning District Amendment by Ron Yanish to Rezone Approx. 24.07
Acres from R-1 to R-1 X District to Allow Development of Townhomes
(97-134) 8)
Amendment to General Development Plan/Salem Heights
(135-158) 9)
Type III, Phase Il, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) by
Payne Company to be Known as Northern Heights East Commercial
Park
(159-160) 10) Hearing for Assessing Weed Eradication, Tree Removal, Debris
Removal, Impound Towing, Secure Property and Snow Removal
(161-162) 11) Special Assessment Hearing for Sidewalk Project No. 2-1998 16d' to
god' Street SE; 3rd Avenue to 11°i Avenue SE
(163-164) 12) Special Assessment Hearing for Sidewalk Project No. 1-1998 13t' to
16d' Street SE; 3`d Avenue to 11 d' Avenue SE; 12t' St. to 13d' St. SE
(165-170) 13) Project Hearing/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 201' Street
NW from 13'' Avenue NW to Valkyrie Drive NW
(171-172) 14) Assessment Hearing/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 20�'
Street NW from 13"' Avenue NW to Valkyrie Drive NW
(173-194) 15) Type III, Phase I Appeal by Frank Kottschade
Council Agenda
November 20, 2000
Page 13
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(195-200) 1) Building Safety - Reconsideration of Abatement Order for Property
at 509 - 9t' Avenue NW
(201-202) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD I CITY ADMINISTRATOR I A
I DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
S. KVENVOLD
This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of
their choice. The following guidelines apply:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 1S 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.
NCIL ACTION: Mouon by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
3
DATE: 11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Letters and Petitions
City Clerk
/t (
C.
DESCRIPTION: Petition for Curb & Gutter and Overlay of 21st Street N.E.
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
A petition has been received from property owners in 21" Street N.E. asking the City to initiate a
public improvement project for Curb and Gutter and Overlay of 21st Street N.E. from 100' Avenue
N.E. to Street End.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition for Curb and Gutter and Overlay
of 21" Street N.E. from 10'h Avenue N.E. to Street End to the Public Works Department for a
/
V' feasibility study.
XIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY OF ROCHESTER
We the undersigned owners of property in 21" St NE in
Olmsted County,Minnesota, do hereby petition the Rochester City
Council to construct the following local improvement project:
Curb Gutter Overlay of 21" Street NE from 10`h Ave NE to
In the year:
We are aware that as owners of property abutting this proposed
local improvement project, we are subject to special assessment
charges according to the City of Rochester's Comprehensive
Pavement Management Program.
Name (please print)
Address
I,
Date: October 26, 2000
To: Property Owners
From: Russell Kelm
Subject: Public Information Meeting
Project: 7tn-10t" Ave NE from No. Heights Drive to 22"d St. NE
The The City of Rochester's Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy intends to
provide a cost effective program for the preservation and rehabilitation of the 300+-mile street
system. The Strategy requires the abutting property owners' support of a project prior to the
project being initiated by the City Council.
A project for your street would typically involve the following items of work:
1. Remove existing rolled bituminous edges and drive approaches.
2. Reconstruct subgrade and gravel base along the edges (6'to 6' wide).
3. Construct new concrete curb and gutter.
4. Construct new concrete drive approaches to match the new curb line.
5. Repair/Replace faulty sidewalk sections.
6. Restore disturbed areas of boulevards with topsoil and sod.
The recommended Strategy requires that the rehabilitation of the roadway including concrete
curb and gutter be assessed against abutting property at the following rates:
Curb and gutter street rate $16.45 per linear foot frontage in Residential Zones
4" Concrete Sidewalk $ 5.15 per square foot
6" Concrete Sidewalk $ 6.70 per square foot
The City has scheduled an informational meeting to explain the Comprehensive Pavement
Management Strategy, scope of the proposed project and our assessment procedures.
Please plan to attend this meeting, your input and support of the project is important.
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
Wednesday, October 11, 2000
6:30-8:30 P.M.
Churchill Elementary
2240 7th Ave NE
P:\PROJECTS\J-PROJ\j9725\Design\Docs%IN FOSHT-CGO. DOC
(a STREET REHABILITATION �
Project Description: The rehabilitation of: 7th - 10th Ave's NE 22nd St NE will include the removal of existing edges
of the roadway and gravel base, construction of concrete curb and gutter and resurfacing of the entire street with
bituminous asphalt. Concrete driveway aprons will be installed and disturbed boulevard areas will be sodded.
Project Schedule:
Informational Meeting .............October 18, 2000
Project Hearing ........................Nov. —Dee 2000
Special Assessment Hearing.... Nov. — Dec 2000
Project Design ..........
Project Bid Letting...
Jan. — April. 2001
May — June 2001
Project Construction .......................... 8-10 weeks —summer, 2001
Estimated Project Fundins:
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$76,487.95
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$18,205.72
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
City Street Share
$491,086,33
TOTAL
$585,780.00
Special Assessments: All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of
7.5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
I.The Curb/Gutter overlay will be assessed at a residential rate of $15.45 per foot of lot frontage (commercial rate of
$23.18 per foot of lot frontage). Comer lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus any
length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed.
2. Sections of existing sidewalk heeding replacement will be replaced as part of the project. Sidewalk replacement
costs will be assessed to the abutting property owner at the rates shown below.
4" Sidewalk = $5.15 per sq. foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches) _ $6.70 per sq. foot
7" Sidewalk (at Commercial drive approaches) _ $7.21 per sq. foot
If the rehabilitation project as proposed is not supported by a vast majority of the abutting property owners, then
two alternative strategies will be considered:
ALTERNATIVE]
Overlay the street without rehabilitation. Since this is not the most cost-effective pavement management
strategy, the City would assess this project cost against the abutting property owners at a rate of $15.45
per foot of lot frontage.
ALITRNATmE 2
If there is not a vast majority of support from abutting property owners for Alternative No. 1, then the
City would revisit the project sometime in the next 5 years. .
CONTACTS
Doug Nelson Engineering Manager... ............................................................ 281-6151
Mike Easley, Construction Supervisor...........................................................281-6199
Russell Kelm, Design Engineer......................................................................281-6193
Mike Nigbur, Assessments............................................................................. 281-6198
City of Rochester, Department of Public Works, 2014" Street SE, Room 108, Rochester MN 55904 287-7800
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D-1-19
PREPARED BY:
G.NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers
an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent
agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
D-1. Approval of Minutes
D-2. Request for Funding/Historical Society
D-3. Change Order No. 6 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for the Terminal Building Improvements
D-4. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-5. Approval of Accounts Payable
D-6. Annexation Petition by B&N, LLC to Initiate Orderly Annexation of Approx. 5 Acres in the SW 1/4 of
Section 28, Cascade Township
D-7. Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Badger Development LLC to Initiate Orderly Annexation of
Approx..36 Acres in the NW 1/4 of Section 20, Cascade Township
D-8. Right of Way Settlement for 48s' Street SW/Village on the Green Townhome Associations I & II
D-9. Amend Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Trailridge at 41" by IRET
D-10. Amend Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrants to Serve the Quarry Ridge Apartments
D-11. Owner Contract(Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Circle Drive Corporate Park
Second Subdivision
D-12. Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Harold Miller Office Building Property
D-13. Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Gerald & Dorothy Arendts Property
D-14. Stormwater Management Agreements
D-15. Award of Bids/Trunk Watermain in Southeast Service Area, Phase IV
D-16. Award of Bids/Water Tower in Southeast Service Area
D-17. Award of Contract/Rehab South Park Drainage Ditch
D-18. Award of Contract/High Level Water Main to Serve from Orchard Ridge to Highway 52
D-19. Professional Services for Stormwater Pond kr-p2.2a at IBM, South of4151 Street NW
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
NCI ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
7D —c��,
DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR FUNDING/HISTORICAL SOCIETY
PREPARED BY:
S. KVENVOLD
The Olmsted County Historical Society has requested funding for the following items:
1. Completion of expenses associated with the connection to
City sewer and water $ 7,750
2. Upgrade of phone system $12,500
3. Equipment to establish internet connections 2,00
$22,250
The C.O.W. has briefly reviewed this request and recommends approval.
The necessary funds would be appropriated from the Future Construction Account (301-1994).
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion appropriating $24,143 from the Future Construction Account to the Olmsted County
Historical Society for the above referenced projects.
NCIL ACTION: Moron by. Second by: to:
I
OLMSTED COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
November 14,2000
Dear Council Members:
The connection of the History Center to city water and sewer service will be complete this week.
We are projecting a $7750.00 shortfall due to some unexpected expenses. We projected costs
from a Yaggy Colby report which was accurate. Unfortunately there is not a way to factor the
incredible building activity in Rochester and the lack of people needing work into a engineering
study. The bid for the construction portion of the project was $3000.00 over budget and
$4750.00 for engineering was inadvertently left out of the original funding request.
The History Center is also requesting one time funding of $12,500.00 for a new telephone system
and $2000.00 for the wiring and hardware to connect the History Center to high speed cable
Internet service provided by Charter Communications.
On behalf of our membership, Board of Directors and staff, I respectfully ask the City Council to
consider an appropriation of up to $22,250.00 to cover these expenses.
The Board is pleased that the Council recognizes the benefit to the city of having a well -
functioning museum complex offering a unique service to residents and visitors in a park -like
setting in the midst of a fast-growing urban area.
An early and favorable decision will enable us to arrange for the work to be done this December
which is a quiet time at the Center. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Strel�,
A] Schafer v
Treasurer
1195 WEST CIRCLE DRIVE SOUTHWEST • ROCHESTER, MN 55902 • PHONE 507.282.9447
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Rochester International Airport
ITEM NO.
h,3
N DESCRIPTION: Change Order No. 6 with Alvin E. Benike Inc. for the Terminal
PREPARED BY:
Building improvements.
Steven W. Legve
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
Execute Change Order No. 6 with Alvin E. Benike Inc. for the Terminal Building improvements. (76942)
The total of the three proposed items results in an add of $16,312.00.
Original contract amount $2,421,900.
Proposed new contract amount $2,449,637.
A copy of the Change Order is attached.
r,nIJNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Change Order No. 6 documents.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion* second by: to:
Rochester International Airport
Proposal Request Summary # 6
moony owes HOIJ. P.
N.936
I 54.926
3
12
1
Pm ide 1a' Stan. SINI Wall in lla i of
Slag Sleet Wbea amend Nevaror
-31,}17
41 Sa7
3
2
Oelete new gypsum mod soml N S.
eM01Rm. 119
310E
x
Ra ixad a02 fo Nnlude manna
3411
=5411
4
3
Provos new lay -in falling in am's
111. 117,E 116
5535
x
4
Provms 1 final 'M Wmnaxa. rwl
Not mcaPNdam Rm, 117
Site
316E
3
5
Provxla I owl" tlao 5gm fa oadt
sib.0"N"
"Now
7870
x
a
pro d. now 1A gratin ON ruin toleN
for hodulg mom roldoans
".as
x
7
P.O.IenXing M ganapaukon bONI
13M
Was
3
0
Re ron Noah NON of Navotor anar
$2.239
x
9
Rafinnin Nonn Ia. of W.A. alnn
52.403
AEB10
1
Raise Head Cleamntl at Gaining Wal
mm
$090
3
AEB11
1
P.O. Pavers on Canopy in lieu of
Snow Gaeta
saps
AES12
A
RaEniN N. and S. MM a WANAW
w1n(1) mat of paint
am
x
AE812
B
Refbvan N. and S. fad of oNvrda
b7 mnomg iNil wag msaatg
OWN" Pnming4 Panan9(1)card
S1,9o7
41,907
4
AES13
Earinata metal sill and hand M
,
rNINow endows (Mayo Dlal Ame)
41,447
-S1.M7
5
13
1
Prowda ltl new wrdu deal IN
OnFSex Radicand
nu
$234
5
2 Rai AI. reveal IN, Mrs Panted
r aail areal saps
3E12
3612
So
S14r5dV
5
S
6
3 HEPA filoaron deduct So
4 Provide road repair along gddfinr'Q' $14.869 514,E89
5
Prcv1do deduct IN reduced No. Of
int.wo Toronto. Inn
-1265
4265
5
8 Pmvae natal doaaee fa Wnunaires
m EAW radial
SE38
5638
5
7 Pro." tod, pang ul dsplav tlM
by elovalur soar
U70
3370
5
6 Prowds vabcrd meet seep at tramtn.
G7awrn rusting ehvatw
and nw IsysOe
SSW
35M
S
14
1
Provide directors for flush i lvo on
Water Clonal$. whom nettled
1563
3363
S563
$660
6
6
2 Add time clock for apron luminaires $960
$$So
Total Debit to Date:
$93,958
Total Credit to Date:
4e4.700
U316,312Proposed
Proposed Total to Accept:
Total to Decline:
Pending Total :
SO
CHANGE ORDER TOTAL:
TO DATE:
$27,737
11NN230o
HG tnRO No ROOT X20540
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 13
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
> _ 4
DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNA JSCHOTT
The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or
disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding
debts with the City of Rochester.
ON SALE 3.2% BEER
Sky Ventures, LLC DBA Pizza Hut
2001 W Frontage Rd and 28 9th St SE
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Transfer from Pizza Huts of the Northwest, Inc.
GAMBLING — TEMPORARY
Chorale Arts Ensemble of Rochester
1001 14" St NW
Rochester Mn 55901
Raffle 2/3/2001 AT
Marriot Hotel
101 Ist Ave SW
Rochester Mn 55902
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses and permits.
C ICIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 11;
DATE: 11 /20100
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
-D _ C
A DESCRIPTION:
Approval of Accounts Payable
PREPARED BY.
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $1,569,645.02.
Less: Any exceptions
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
I rt
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
D (�
M DESCRIPTION: Annexation Petition #00-15 by B & N, LLC to initiate Orderly
PREPARED BY:
vnnexation of approximately 5 acres of land located in the SW % of Section 28, Cascade
Brent Svenby,
Township. The property is located along the south side of 191h Street NW, west of 32Id
Planner
Avenue NW.
November 15, 2000
City Planning and Zoninq Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on November 18, 2000.
Motion by Petersson to recommend approval Orderly Annexation #00-15 and to place the property in the H
(Holding) Zoning District, seconded by Staver. The motion carried 7-0.
Property Taxes:
As part of the Orderly Annexation agreement, the City agreed to pay taxes to the Township as if this were an annexation by Ordinance.
The property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective will be paid to the Township. For the five years following annexation,
the City will make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and 10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the
year the property was annexed. The 1999 Township portion of the taxes, on the property to be annexed, is $32.48.
Council Action Needed:
I. Should the Council wish to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment
to the Cascade Township Orderly Annexation Agreement indicating that the 5 acres located along
the south side of 19d' Street, west of 32nd Avenue NW should be annexed without hearings by the
Minnesota Municipal Board. This amendment document should be signed by the City. (The
Cascade Townboard has signed the amendment document)
2. The signed amendment should be transmitted to the MN Planning /Office of Strategic and Long
Range Planning by the City Clerk (attached is a filing fee for the application in the amount of $25).
3. The motion should also include placing the property in the H - Holding zone upon annexation to
the City.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk: (Check in the amount of $25)
3. City Attorney: (Amendment to the Joint Resolution signed by Cascade Townboard)
4. City Finance Director. (Tax Informabon attached)
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 20, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the
Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center.
7. McGhie & Betts, Inc
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seamd by: to:
I8 ANNEXLiTI®N EX JIBIT
al- ...
DESCRIPTION: 9 ys . 26TH
SEE ATTACHED: 22ND ST
J �
o ti�cy cy���FS
soya Cl
-EXISTING CITY LIMITS fly
�W CORNER - 19TH ST NW
NE 1/4, SW 1/4
SEC. 28-107-14
5.0
L-ACRES
-�a
SCALE 1 " = 600' -EXISTING CITY LIMITS /��(/
Dokota, Mrr�n�sota � ST��I
EasIL
o�
Railroad
9TH ST) N�-
M
FOR :
B&N, LLC Ghie
C/O GREG NESLER McMc hie
2728 7TH STREET NW
ROCHESTER, MN
55901 1648 3rtl AVE. a.E
smE. 1 " = 600'
BettSBDRAWN Br. JJJ
d Sum ,Tnc. DATE : 10/25/00
Lentl uneyon
ACCT. NO.: 6989A/05:
men
uN. ssaw soy-zea_sais GDD NO.: 0554ANNE
W
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 8, 2000
�OIWN"7 , a,r,
♦nr�!
,
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELL/SEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
RE: Annexation Petition #00-15 by B & N, LLC to initiate Orderly Annexation of
approximately 5 acres of land located in the SW 1/4 of Section 28,
Cascade Township. The property is located along the south side of 19th
Street NW, west of 32nd Avenue NW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners:
B & N, LLC
2728 7 ° Street NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Location of Property:
The prope Is located along the south side of 191h Street NW,
west of 32,Avenue NW.
Existing Land Use:
The property is vacant and undeveloped land and identified as
excess right-of-way for West Circle Drive.
Size:
The property proposed for annexation is approximately
5 acres along the south side of 19th Street NW.
Existing Zoning:
The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural -Urban Expansion)
district on the Olmsted County Zoning Map,
Future Zoning:
The applicant has requested that this land be placed in the H
(Holding) district. The applicant will need to be petition for a
rezoning at a later date.
Land Use Plan:
According to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use this
property is designated for "Industrial" uses.
Adjacency to the Municipal The area is adjacent to the city limits along its northern
Limits: boundary.
Sewer & Water: The property under consideration can be served with city
sewer and water, which can be extended from their present
locations to serve the property. This area is serviceable from
the Northwest High Level Water System.
Townboard Review: The applicant has met with the Cascade Townboard regarding
�,,..� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
POPage 2
November 8, 2000 /
this orderly annexation. The Townboard signed the
amendment to the orderly annexation agreement at their
November 61" meeting.
Report Attachments: 1. Annexation Map
2. Referral Comments( lletter)
Staff Recommendation:
• The staff recommends that the City pursue an amendment to the orderly annexation agreement
with Cascade Township which would state that the property should be annexed to the City
without a hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board. Staff would also recommend that the
property be placed in the H (Holding) zoning district.
a1 .
we pledyt, we deliver
November 1, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexation Petition #00-15 by B & N, LLC to initiate Orderly Annexation of
5 acres of land located in the 3200 block of 19`h St. NW.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property maybe subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
determines the applicability of these fees.
2. Northwest High Level Water System service is available to this property along the north side
of 19`h St. NW with anticipated static water pressures just above 100 PSI. We recommend the
installation of pressure reducing devices within each building on the domestic water lines.
3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
0640A 44�
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
B & N, LLC
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a3
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT
PLANNING
D _ 17
M DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-13 by Badger Development LLC
PREPARED BY:
to initiate Orderly Annexation of approximately .36 acres of land located in the NW114 of
Theresa Fogarty,
Section 20, Cascade Township. The property is located along the west side of West Circle
Planner y
Drive, north of 280' Street NW.
J
November 14, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on October 25, 2000.
Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval of Annexation Petition #00-13 by Badger
Development LLC. Ms. Schultze seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Properly Taxes:
As part of the Orderly Annexation agreement, the City agreed to pay taxes to the Township as if this were an annexation by Ordinance.
The property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective will be paid to the Township. The .36 acres of land proposed for
annexation is designated as right-of-way for West Circle Drive (CR 22). Therefore, no taxes were paid for this parcel.
Council Action Needed:
Should the Council wish to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
amendment to the Cascade Township Orderly Annexation Agreement indicating that the
.36 acres located north of 28th Street, along the west side of West Circle Drive should be
annexed without hearings by the MN Planning / Office of Strategic and Long Range
Planning. This amendment document should be signed by the City. (The Cascade
Townboard has signed the Annexation Agreement.)
2. The signed amendment should be transmitted to the MN Planning /Office of Strategic and
Long Range Planning by the City Clerk (attached is a filing fee for the application in the
amount of $25).
Attachments
I. Staff report, dated October 1 B, 2000.
2. Minutes of October 25, 2000 CPZC meeting.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director; Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 20, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the
Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
UNPLATTED
i0'00'00" 500.65
0 P `\
L=232.24
a=79'40'43"
R=167.00 ................ t
CH=213.97 a ��
CHAZ=309'50 22" r o
79'AOo4�.
,a
5
2
27Qoo'00'
�g 4
n
D #.
�I
3g9 og 26T09'39 477
UNPLATTED
CIRCLE DRIVE BUSIN
a•
o
�
0
d�
L
/i
k N
13.5¢ '
O
'o
s
N �1V.G P
7e
1 5
.20 '
ami ,
•tt)t....
80.40 Q
3 e
\VG um p
A t
rn
e i
4
�N t
N
t
4
395.10
C:
Lon
0
p�
3
t'1
iv
i9.41" 406.19
L
�
5�
n
t
1b 0
2
9T09'41' 41946
t00'
,.5
--ram--T Tow [i I
255'55'46"- 95.32
CIRCLE�19 R - 1PLAZA 2 — 1 CH CHAZ -42"
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planneri-4
DATE: October 18, 2000
I
-:p ♦v:'�Aa
II,;1i�r ���ia�►���
Ibus���
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSINW 5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGMRA 5071285-8224
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
RE: Annexation Petition #00-13 by Badger Development, LLC to initiate
Orderly Annexation of approximately .36 acres of land located in the NW
1/4 of Section 20, Cascade Township. The property is located along the
west side of West Circle Drive, north of 28'" Street NW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners:
Badger Development, LLC.
Mac Hamilton, Chief Manager
400 South Broadway, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property:
The property is located along the west side of West Circle
Drive, North of 2811 Street NW.
Existing Land Use:
The property is vacant and undeveloped land and identified as
excess right-of-way for West Circle Drive.
Size:
The property proposed for annexation is approximately
.36 acres consisting of excess right-of-way for West Circle
Drive (CR 22).
Existing Zoning:
This .36 acre parcel is designated as right-of-way, there is no
zoning classification for right-of-way. The property adjacent to
the west is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district
according to the City of Rochester zoning map and was zoned
A-4 according to the Olmsted County zoning map prior to the
area being annexed to the City of Rochester.
Future Zoning:
The applicant has petitioned for this .36 acres to be zoned
M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district. This zoning
petition request will be considered by the CPZC, October 25,
2000,
Land Use Plan:
According to the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use this
property is designated for "low density residential" uses.
Because the .36 acres is so small and the area surrounding
the .36 acres has been designated as "Commercial" Land
Use, it has been determined that a Land Use Plan
�« ..
Amendment is not necessary.
��
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
�r Page 2
b October 18, 2000
Adjacency to the Municipal
The area is adjacent to the city limits along its western
Limits:
boundary.
Sewer & Water:
The property under consideration can be served with city
sewer and water, which can be extended from their present
locations to serve the property.
Utilities:
This area is serviceable from the Northwest High Level Water
System with the construction of Superior Drive NW.
Townboard Review:
The applicant will need to meet with the Cascade Townboard
regarding this orderly annexation. The Townboard has not
signed the amendment to the orderly annexation agreement.
Prior to City Council action, the Cascade Townboard will need
to sign the amendment to the Orderly Annexation Agreement.
General Development Plan:
This property is included Badger Ridge General Development
Plan.
Report Attachments:
1. Annexation Map
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments( iletter)
Staff Recommendation:
• The staff recommends that the City pursue an amendment to the orderly annexation agreement
with Cascade Township which would state that the property should be annexed to the City
without a hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board.
a�
we pledge, we delw r
September 27, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexation Petition #00-13 by Badger Development LLC to initiate Orderly
Annexation of 0.36 acres of land located in the NW '/4 of Section 20, Cascade Township.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. Northwest High Level Water System service will be available to this property with the
construction of Superior Drive NW.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
064A p
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507.280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
'�y( Page 4
6 t1 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
9 and 6, Block 1, providing the minimum 10' coverage for the existing and
pro ed wateir mains
g Relocati he existing fire h)rdrant located et tFie a the cul-de-sac to either
side of 4be-y b �� �k'�
t°
h InyOeasing the c to -curb diameter of the e-sac to a 96' clear diameter,
allowin r " ' ;,. g parking required fire depa t vehicle turd arg4hd rad�us,.OR
leave.tha cul.desac h the 92' curb. atrh'r11a'rrintse:�nel nn�f sa ^I,IA Die 4t�w:
ORDERLY ANNEXATION:
Annexation Petition #00-13 by Badger Development LLC to initiate Orderly Annexation of
approximately .36 acres of land located in the NW'/4 of Section 20, Cascade Township.
The property Is located along the west side of West Circle Drive, north of 28 Street NW.
Ms. Fogarty stated that the applicant has obtained the access right-of-way for West Circle Drive
from Olmsted County. The .36 acre parcel is already included in the General Development Plan
for Badger Ridge.
Ms:, Nterssoip moved to recornrnerld appra„veI rOf. A- nnexation Petition #00-18 y Badger
Deve�opnieritLLC . Ms Schultze seconded t ii motton.:The motion carried ir0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Addition.
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING c;;q /
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works I a - S
U DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Right of Way settlement for 48" Stree
Village On the Green Town Home Association I & II
PARED BY:: `'
�l
M. Nigbur
The City and the Village on the Green Townhome Associations I & II have reached a settlement
on the acquisition of a part of the needed right of way of 48' Street SW. The settlement amount
is $3,600. The difference from the offer amount to the settlement amount included an increase
in the payment for landscaping to assist the Owners in screening the property. The property
prior to construction had some natural woodland and undergrowth along with a hedge to protect
the property. With this settlement we are also able to avoid the costs associated with the
condemnation of the property.
The Settlement Agreement outlines the payment for the right of way and landscaping. The
Agreement also allows a portion of the public bike path located from Tee Court SW to 200 feet
to the East is allowed to be used for golf carts. This use replaces the current private path
located adjacent to the public path. The Path would be signed appropriately for the combined
use.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D � q
:M DESCRIPTION: Amend Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve Trailridge
PREPARED EIYkF
at 41" by IRET (J9620)
M. Baker
VIt
Background:
• The Owner and City entered into a City -Owner Contract on or about October 24, 2000, whereby the
City authorized the construction of the project entitled "Basic Construction to Serve Trailridge at 41st
by IRET".
• The Owner has requested to amend the contract by extending the completion date to June 15,
2001.
Staff would offer the following Amended City -Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
• Investors Real Estate Trust (Owner) & Terra Pacific (Contractor) are requesting an amended City /
Owner Contract J9620 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Trailridge at 41' by IRET".
7
IM
0_'a,¢rj
qM
as t
.511
I BE
ii
I
I
I
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amended City / Owner
Contract for J9620 "Basic Construction to Serve Trailridge at 411 by IRET'
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
33
11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D--(Q
=M DESCRIPTION: Amend Owner Contract — Watermain & Hydrants to Serve the
PR ARED BY:
Quarry Ridge Apartments (J9736)
M. Baker
Background:
• The Owner and City entered into a City -Owner Contract on or about October 19, 2000, whereby the
City authorized the construction of the project entitled "Watermain & Hydrants to Serve the Quarry
Ridge Apartments (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision)".
• The Owner has requested to change the inspecting engineer.
Staff would offer the following Amended City -Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
• Rochester Leased Housing Associates V, LP (Owner) & Rochester Sand & Gravel, a Division of
Mathy Construction Co. (Contractor) are requesting an amended City / Owner Contract J9736
consisting of "Watermain & Hydrants to Serve the Quarry Ridge Apartments (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1,
Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision)".
---- .-_.w-_-- — — -- -- i — J
—j
F :.
� 1 I
�r
i
adStNN I.
C Tr irk — r
11
.71
l.T yr
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Amended City / Owner
Contract for J9736 "Watermain & Hydrants to Serve the Quarry Ridge Apartments (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1,
Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision)"
UINCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
3g-
11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
Z)— j r
M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Lots 2 & 3,
1 PREPARED BY:
Block 1, Circle Drive Corporate Park Second Subdivision (J9755)
( M. Baker "
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Circle Drive Corporate Park LP (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City !
Owner Contract J9755 consisting of "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Circle Drive
Corporate Park Second Subdivision ".
U0
3
C' �Q
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City ! Owner Contract for J9755
"Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Circle Drive Corporate Park Second Subdivision".
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 3-7 �
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facility Agreement — Harold Miller Office
Property
ITEM NO.
D-t'C,;-
1ARED BY: P"
M. Baker "17
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
Harold Miller & Shirley Miller are the Owners of the Harold Miller Office Building property (p/o Lots
5, 6, & 7, Block 1, Arends Industrial Park First Subdivision). The Owners have requested that a
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement be approved to address the Owners' obligations with regard to
providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage of the North Frontage
Road of T.H. 14.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement
with Harold Miller & Shirley Miller for the Harold Miller Office Building property.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
°M DESCRIPTION:
Property
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
— Gerald &
Public Works
MEETING 39 11
DATE: 11/20/00
ITEM NO.
D-l3
PREPARED BY:
M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
• Gerald & Dorothy Arendts are the Owners of Lot 1, Block 1, Cooper's Subdivision, and the portion
of the abutting vacated ROW of 5'" Ave SW. The Owners have requested that a Pedestrian
Facilities Agreement be approved to address the Owners' obligations with regard to providing a four
(4) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage of 22nd Ave SW, and a five (5) foot wide
concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage of 5' Ave SW.
aa,as sw
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement
with Gerald & Dorothy Arendts for Lot 1, Block 1, Cooper's Subdivision, and the portion of the abutting
vacated ROW of 5'" Ave SW.
UNCIL ACTION: motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
V/ /
11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
i) —14
M DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
PREPARED BY:
M. Baker �
The Department of Public Works has received requests on five (5) 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:
• David Niebuhr Mini Storage (SDP#00-72)
(p/o Lot 19, Allendale Subdivision) $ 4,633.55
• Bear Creek Services (SDP#00-78)
(p/o Lot 18, Allendale Subdivision) $ 190.00
• Medicap Pharmacy (SDP#00-91)
(909 37t' St NW) $ 2,788.71
• Carlson Wholesale (SDP#00-81)
(Lot 9, Block 1, Airport Industrial Park) $ 2,882.89
• Unni Commercial Building (SDP#00-82)
(20' Ave SW & 2' St SW) $ 6,815.48
The Owners of these properties have already provided payment for their respective charges.
These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the properties to participate
in the City's Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted properties, in the
City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 149
DATE: 11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
b_ / Lj'
?M DESCRIPTION: Award of Bids: 'Trunk Watermain in Southeast Service Area,
PREPARED BY -
Phase IV" J-9604
J. Loehr
Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m. on November 14, 2000 for the following local
improvement project:
Project Number:
M007, J9604
Project Name:
"Trunk Watermain in Southeast Service Area, Phase IV"
The following bids were received:
Bid Amount
1. A-1 Excavating $297,521.40
2. Swenke Co. $321,405.00
3. Elcor Construction $335,444.50
4. S.J. Lewis $347,640.50
5. Winona Mechanical $367,035.60
6. American Plumbing $380,286.45
7. Haselton Construction $383,622.75
Engineers Estimate $362,554.50
The project is proposed to be funded from the following sources:
1. Sales tax eligible Water Availability Charges (WAC) included in future Utility Connection
Agreements.
2. J8201 previously collected WAC charges in the water tower service district.
3. Water Utility for oversize watermain costs.
Internal borrowing to be recovered from Water Availability Charges (WAC) included in future Developer
Agreements and/or City -Owner Contracts.
Proiect Action:
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, 'Trunk Watermain in Southeast Service Area, Phase IV"
(J-9604) to A-1 Excavating.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f
DATE: 11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
!M DESCRIPTION: Award of Bids: "Water Tower in
ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO.
Public Works D—(lp
PREPARED BY:
J. Loehr `
Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m. on November 14, 2000 for the following local
improvement project:
Project Number:
M006, J9603
Project Name:
"Water Tower to Serve Southeast Service Area (Rose Harbor Site)"
The following bids were received:
1. Chicago Bridge & Iron
2. Cauldwell Tanks
3. Maguir Iron
Engineers Estimate
Bid Amount
$734,000.00
$821,600.00
$894,000.00
$685,000.00
The project is proposed to be funded from the following sources:
a. Sales tax eligible Water Availability Charges (WAC) included in future Utility Connection
Agreements.
b. J8201 previously collected WAC charges in the water tower service district.
c. Internal borrowing to be recovered from Water Availability Charges (WAC) included in future
Developer Agreements and/or City -Owner Contracts.
Project Action:
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution awarding the contract, "Water Tower to Serve Southeast Service Area (Rose Harbor
Site)" (J-9603) to Chicago Bridge & Iron.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 ? -'
DATE: 11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS
D - f 17
M DESCRIPTION:
Award of Contract:
PREPARED BY:
" Rehab South Park Drainage Ditch " (J-2454)
(IJ( R. Kelm, ,-,,
Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., September 13, 2000 for the following local improvement project:
Proiect Number
6309-3-99, (J-2454)
Project Name
"Rehab South Park Drainage Ditch"
The following bids were received:
Total Bid
1. Winnona Mechanical Inc. $ 102,124.00
2. Elcor Construction $ 151,250.80
Engineers Estimate $ 107,453.00
Protect Backaround:
The project feasibility report was approved during the August 7, 2000, City Council meeting.
This project will involve the placement of a low flow drainage pipe, drainage structures, grading overflow ditch, and
topsoil and sod.
Project Funding:
This project is included in the CIP, page 46, item #20. The project, engineering and construction will be funded with
Special Assessments
and tax levy.
Project Action:
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopted a resolution awarding the contract, " Rehab South Park Drainage Ditch " (J-2454) to
Winnona Mechanical Inc.
NCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
CITY PROJECT No. 6309-3-99, (J-2454)
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE FLUME IN BACK YARDS OF
SOUTH PARK AND PINEWOOD SUBDIVISIONS
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AUENOA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
M DESCRIPTION: I Award of Contract:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
MEETING
DATE: 11 /20/00
ITEM NO.
D,18
Level Water Main to serve from Orchard Ridge to Hwy52"
Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., August 30, 2000 for the following local improvement
project:
Project Number
M025, (J9655)
Project Name
High Level Water Main to serve from Orchard Ridge to Hwy 52
The followina bids were received:
Total Bid
1. Swenke Constr.
$ 118,299.00
2. Elcor Constr.
$ 118,365.50
3. Winona Mechanical
$ 120,999.35
4. A-1 Excavators
$ 135,119.20
5. Northdale Constr.
$ 148,268.91
6. S J Louis
$ 149,947.50
7. Winona Excavating
$ 155,952.28
Engineers Estimate $ 201,762.00
Protect Background:
The project feasibility report and assessments were approved during the January 19, 2000, City Council
meeting.
The project, engineering and construction will be funded with City Funds (40%) the petitioner's share
(20%) and the remaining funds from water connection charges as land is developed.
This project will involve the extension of the high level watermain line from the Orchard Ridge
Subdivision across to the East side of Trunk Highway 52 right of way.
Prolect Action:
The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopted a resolution awarding the contract, " High Level Water Main to serve from Orchard Ridge to
Hwy 52 " (J-9655) to Swenke Constr.
UNCIL ACTION: Mation bv: Secondbv: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 57t
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D—�Q
_M DESCRIPTION: Professional Services for Stormwater Pond kr-p2.2a at IBM,
PR PAREttD BY:�
south of 41at Street NW (J2467)
dtX D. Kramer
Construction of regional stormwater pond kr-p2.2a has been proposed to serve existing and future
development of the IBM property, as well as other upstream property west of the pond.
A development agreement between the City and IBM indicates that the City will provide the pond
design, IBM will dedicate the land for the pond to the City, and the City and IBM will share in the pond
construction costs. The $500,000 pond cost is included in the draft CIP for 2001, with $200,000 private
funding from IBM, and $300,000 from voluntary stormwater management contribution reserves
(J2137).
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates proposes to provide pond design services for $35,600.00,
plus optional construction services. Staff recommends a professional services agreement be entered
with Bonestroo for engineering services.
y
a
ET NW
POND`"
kr-p2.2a
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Bonestroo, Rosene,
Anderlik and Associates for engineering design services for Stormwater Pond kr-p2.2a, J2467, in an
amount of $35,600, plus optional construction services.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLYING
rG I
:M DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development #00-29 Preliminary Plan by
PREPARED BY:
Waste Management to permit the construction of a 7,140 square foot transfer station. The
Brent Svenby,
transfer station would accept mixed municipal solid waste and recyclable as well as some
Planner
industrial and demolition debris type waste. The property is located along the east side of
111h Avenue SW and south of 10ei Avenue SW.
November 16, 2000
he applicant's representative, Dunlap & Seeger, P.A., have requested this item be continued to the
ecember 11, 2000 Council meeting. The additional time is needed to resolve issues with City Public
Works and Olmsted County.
Council Action Needed:
1. A motion to continue the hearing until the December 11, 2000 meeting.
Attachments:
1. Letter from John Arnold
Distribution:
City Clerk
_. City Administrator
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 20, 2000 in the Council/Board
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
6. A.B. Systems, Inc.
1NCIL ACTION: MoBon by: Second by: to:
NOV-15-2000 16:41
DUNLRP & SEEGER PR
5072880812 P.01i01
J
RONALD L SEWER
MILTONA.ROSENRLAD
PAULA. PINSETH
DANIEL E. BERNDT
JOHN B. ARNOLD
PETER C. SANDBERO
TINA L. MORE
E'ENNBTH R. MOEN
WILLIAM J. RYAN
PAUL W, BUCHER
DOUGLASA WERE
T80MM W. JACOBSON
November 15, 2000
VIA FAX 287-2275
Original to follow by mail
LAW OFFICES
DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A.
X6 SOUTH BnO.41)W",, SUITS 606
MAR@U=BAWAWLDING
PG BOX "s
ROCHXSTXR. MINNXSOTA B6M-W49
TX1"HONXr (607) M-9M
FAX• (607J 2S&& 7
FAX (607) 9S9•P613
ROBERT R. DUNW
(29Itr2993}
ROCHESTER/OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: BRENT SVENBY
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904
MARY A. DUNLAP
WIIJJAM P. YOLEMAR
MARK E. FOSSE
KEN D. SCHUELER
GREGORY J. CRn'FMS
MICHAEL S. D=
SHARON C. 2ENE
KART STONELAKF-xOPKINS
of Ca".1
FRANKLIN 50CWTZ
A.M.'SANDY' KEIM
RE: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development #00-29 Preliminary Plan by Waste
Management to permit the construction of a 7,140 square foot transfer station.
Dear Mr. Svenby:
This fine represents the Applicant, Waste Management, concerning the above referenced
application for restricted land approval. This is to confirm my phone conversation with you in
which I requested on behalf of Waste Management, that the upcoming hearing before the
Rochester City Council on the preliminary plan approval be continued from November 20,
2000 to December 11, 2000 City Council meeting. Pursuant to the Planning and Zoning
Commission preliminary approval of the proposal, we were instructed to negotiate certain items
with the City Public Works. Those negotiations have occurred. To resolve the remaining
issues, we need the additional time to explore alternative resolutions with Olmsted County
concerning their facilities.
It is my understanding that the normal Council meeting for December 4, 2000 has been
changed to December 11, 2000, and we are requesting a continuation to the December 11, 2000
meeting.
.IBA/ck
cc Troy Healy, via fax 282-8961
Dan Rigazio, via fax (608) 784-4464
Glenn E. Metz, via fax 288-5113
TOTAL P.01
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 57G /
DATE: 11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBL�
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
NGS
PLANNING
.
I-EM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00.14 to vacate the 20' wide utility and drainage
PREPARED BY:
casement located along the south line of Lots 3, 4, and 5 Bel Air Eighth Subdivision. The
Theresa Fogarty,
property is located along the south of 37" Street NW and east of 11tb Avenue NW
Planner
November 2, 2000
Planning Department Recommendation:
Staff is suggesting that this item be tabled. The applicant's are considering withdrawing this vacation
request.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council shall motion to table this item.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant:: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday,
November 6, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
6. Robert Suk, Attorney
I�cc • //3yi one .
t,L)UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
5�MEETING
DATE I1-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING
E . 3
4 DESCRIPTION: Right-of-way vacation #00-15 by ISD #535 to vacate
PREPARED BY:
undeveloped right-of-way within the project area for Riverside Central
Mitzi A. Baker,
Elementary School.
Senior Planner
November 14, 2000
Planning Department Recommendation:
The right-of-way included in this petition is proposed to be vacated in order to facilitate construction of the new Riverside
Central Elementary School.
RPU Water has identified a need to maintain utility easements. Staff recommends approval to vacate the right-of-way,
as petitioned, subject to dedication of utility easement prior to recording the resolution to vacate right-of-way.
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this vacation request at the November 8, 2000 meeting. Ms. Petersson
moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petition #00-15 by ISD #535, as presented by staff. Mr. Stever seconded
the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Council Action Needed:
.. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City
Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition with a stipulation
that the resolution shall not be recorded until the applicant has dedicated new utility
easements as required by the City.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated October 31, 2000.
2. Map
D AV
1str►tJUtlOn:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached
4. Planning Department GIS Division
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on November 20, 2000, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motlm by: second by: to:
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner
DATE: October 31, 2000
i
A�saii1iAri�isr
9pvrl,�Ipnq�N
r.
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE 507/2B5-B213
WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
RE: Vacation Petition #00-15 by ISD #535 to vacate undeveloped right-of-way of 5th
St. SE (originally platted as Second Street) lying east of 5th Ave. SE and west of
6th Avenue SE platted in East Rochester Addition; platted and undeveloped
right-of-way of 6th Ave. SE (originally platted as Cherry Street) lying adjacent to
Lot 2, Block 35 and Lot 1, Block 36 Morse & Sergeant's Addition; platted and
undeveloped right-of-way of 5th Ave. SE (originally platted as Penn Street) lying
north of 5th Street to the north line of Lot 12, Block 2 Morse & Sergeant's
Addition. The vacation petition is requested to facilitate the development of
Riverside Central Elementary School.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner(s): ISD #535
Paul Bourgeois, Director of Business Services
615 7' St. SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Reason to Vacate:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
To facilitate the construction of Riverside Central
Elementary School.
RPU Water; Rochester Public Works
1. Location Map
The right-of-way included in this petition is proposed to be vacated in order to facilitate
construction of the view Riverside Central Elementary School.
RPU Water has identified a need to maintain utility easements. Staff recommends
approval to vacate the right-of-way, as petitioned, subject to dedication of utility
easement prior to recording the resolution to vacate right-of-way.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
�e.w
bo
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
10/31/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street BE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904.3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for
Vacation #00-15 by ISD#535 (Riverside Elementary Project). The following are
Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. Public Works has no objection to this request, subject to dedication of
any needed new utility easements.
C:%TEMPIVAC#00-15. DOC
rpu�_
we pledSe, we deliver
October 25, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Vacation Petition #00-15 by ISD #535 to vacate undeveloped right-of-way of 5th
St. SE, 6th Ave. SE, and 5th Ave. SE to facilitate the development of Riverside Central
Elementary School.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. A 20' minimum utility easement is required for both the existing public water main to remain
intact and the relocated public water main between 5`s Ave. SE and 60' Ave. SE.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have any questions.
Very truly you"Scl
rs,
064m.
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Paul Bourgeois, ISD #535, Director of Business Services
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING �3
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
C _ 4
DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-14 by Payne Company and
PREPARED BY:
naroid Payne to annex 13.66 acres of land located east of East Circle Drive and south of
Theresa Fogarty,
Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills 3'd and 0 Subdivisions.
Planner
November 14, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on November 8, 2000. The Commission found that this
property is adjacent to the city limits and can be served by City services. The Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of
this request.
Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval of Annexation Petition #00.14 by Payne Company and
Harold Payne. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated November 1, 2000.
Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township.
For the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and
10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township Taxes on this property for 1999 is
$14.63.
,;ouncil Action Needed:
1. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN
Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning.
Attachments
1. Staff report, date November 1, 2000
2. Minutes of November 8, 2000 CPZC Meeting
Distribution: 4�2
1. City Administrator
z. city Clerk
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director. Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 20, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the
Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Quarry
HUI
Park
Century
High School
l]
Olmsted 4
Waste to Energy
Facalty,
Y
W
W
C
NationalVolleyballCenter
H-92
?
Annexation #00-14
Century Hills 5th
1,500' Notification Distance
Ward 5 Evans
10/13/00
i,
m�
h�
11
� y'vvv
'' tt a S ; °➢%; CENTURY HILLS FIFTH SUBDIVISION ii�i,: ➢
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA IIS1sr➢j{{1�
41�9F:i PE 1➢
s ANNEXATION MAP
p � Y fl�S€� PlEii 7F7+h.
M �
i
VV
i-aa
� Ii wqy
♦�pnijO����� ry
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATIOW 5071285-8232
TO:
City Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/2B5-8232
MAPPING
FROM:
Theresa Fogarty, Planner
HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213
DATE:
November 1, 2000
WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
RE:Annexation Petition #00-14 by Payne Company and Harold Payne to
annex 13.66 acres of land located east of East Circle Drive and south of
Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills 3rd
and V' Subdivisions.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: Payne Company
1700 Northwood Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Harold Payne
789 Sierra Lane NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Location of Property: The property is located east of East Circle Drive and south of
Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills 311 and 4"
Subdivisions.
Existing Land Use: This property is currently vacant, undeveloped land.
Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately
13.66 acres of unplatted land.
Existing Zoning: The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion)
district on the Olmsted County zoning map.
Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed
Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning
map.
Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "low density residential" uses
on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its northern
Limits: boundary.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
w.w
Page 2
Annexation #00-14
November 3, 2000
Sewer & Water: The Northeast High Level Water System service is available
to this property.
Municipal sewer and water is available to serve this area.
Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a
municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric
utility service may change if the land is annexed to the
municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant.
Townboard Review: Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard
members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days
prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public
hearing on this item on November 20, 2000. The City Clerk
has sent the certified notice 30 days prior to the hearing date.
Referral Comments: 1. RPU Operations Division
2. RPU Water Division
3. Rochester Public Works
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
1. Annexation Map
2. Location Map
3. Referral Comments (3 letters)
This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary
sewer and water lines from their present ends. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to
adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3).
6 PU
we pledge, we deliver
507/280-1579
October 17, 2000
TO: Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design
Rochester Public Utilities
SUBJECT: Annexation Petition #00-14 by Payne Company and Harold Payne to annex 13.66
acres of land located east of East Circle Drive and south of Century Hills Lane
NE and Century Hills 3rd and 40' Subdivisions.
RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this annexation petition and has no objection as it is
outside our service area at this time. However, we do intend to serve the total area in the future.
Sincerely,
`-A; &*-
Michael J. Engle
ks
c: W. Lorber
T. Adkins, City Attorney
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813
telephone 507,280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.org
r u�_
_p
we pledge, we delver
October 18, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexation Petition #00-14 by Payne Company and Harold Payne to annex
13.66 acres of land located east of East Circle Dr. NE and south of Century Hills Ln. NE.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property maybe subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
determines the applicability of these fees.
2. NE High Level Water System service is available to this property with static pressures in the
50 to 70 PSI range.
3. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly you"&.1
rs,0OMA
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Payne Company
Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
10
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
10/19/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 40' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for
ANNXOO-14 on Payne Co.. Century Hills Property. The following are Public
Works comments on the proposal:
Sewer & water services are available to serve this property.
C:%TEMP\ANN EX00-14.doc
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly November 8, 2000, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers
of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Mr. Jim Suk, Chair; Ms. Mary Petersson, Vice Chair; Mr. James Burke; Mr.
Michael Quinn; Mr. Randy Staver; Ms. Diane McGowan; and Mr. Ardell Breda
Members Absent: Mr. Gerry Werven and Ms. Christine Schultze
Staff Present: Ms. Jennifer Garness and Mr. Brent Svenby
Other City Staff Present: None
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Mr. Burke made a motion to approve the minutes of October 25, 2000, as
written. Mr. Breda seconded the motion. The minutes from October 25,
2000 were approved unanimously.
Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve the agenda, adding Annexation
Petition #00-15 as B-2. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Svenby stated that Variance Request #00-36 by Sunstone Hotel Investors is a new public
hearing item, even though it was listed under "Tabled Items". He explained that it would need to
be heard concurrently with Incentive Development Plan #00-30 by Sunstone Hotel Investors.
ANNEXATION:
,r Annexation petition #00-14 by Payne Company and Harold Payne to annex 13.66 acres of
land located east of East Circle Drive and south of Century Hills Lane NE and Century
Hills 4th Subdivisions.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated November 1, 2000, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained that the land in the proposed annexation is being considered as part of
the Century Hills Fifth Subdivision.
Ms. Petersson moved to rccol fM4 d rj f6iial.cf Annexation r.009, ort 1t00 '14 by Perna .
Com an "arid Harold Payne. Mr W ti secondetl the'rriq i ' T# 4 frtgtWif carrlaa 7 0,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 13 /
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
9 - Gf
11 DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #00-15 by Badger
PREPARED BY:
uuvelopment LLC to rezone approximately .36 acres from the H (Holding) district to the M-1
Theresa Fogarty,
(Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district. The property is located along the west side of West
Planner
Circle Drive, north of 28`s Street NW and south of Valleyhigh Road NW
November 15, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 25, 2000, to consider the zone change
request by Badger Development LLC to zone .36 acres to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district.
The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended
approval, with staff suggested findings.
Ms. Schultze moved to recommend approval of Type 111, Phase II Zoning District
Amendment #00-15 by Badger Development LLC with staff -suggested findings.
Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 18, 2000.
Council Action Needed.,
1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported
by findings based on the criteria listed in the staff report. If the Council wishes to proceed
with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated October 18, 2000
2. Minutes of the October 25, 2000 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
i yy"
1. City Clerk
2, City Administrator
3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
A. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department - GIS
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 20, 2000 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
° ` BADGER PROPERTY
�saea ° i i9 f PART OF SEG20, T107N, R14W !i
�OCHESTEP., OIMSTED COUNTY, MINryESOTA
e A e GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN��
11
�J
I
1
,PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTSi
'-`) A.Ll A tl
VAu� N Rl�.
n Z rA-"
R 3 M•1
6-z
��Ct��� 0
i
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, PlannerJ�
DATE: October 18, 2000
'311�'ffD �q�lb
Ilf��rt►�hl���lA
OUR.-
���R6iiii �Alujj�
�,'V1�IOI �tl�y 1
,
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
50W285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC
5071285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
RE: Type III, Phase 11 Zoning District Amendment #00-15 by Badger
Development, LLC to rezone approximately .36 acres to the M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -industrial) district. The property Is located along the west
side of West Circle Drive, north of 28"' Street NW and south of
Valleyhigh Road NW.
Consolidated Planning Department Review:
Petitioner/Owner:
Badger Development, LLC
Mac Hamilton, Chief Manager
400 South Broadway, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Consultant:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property:
The property is located along the west side of West
Circle Drive, north of 281 Street NW and south of
Valleyhlgh Road NW.
Requested Action:
The petitioner Is requesting to rezone approximately
.36 acres to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial)
district.
Existing Land Use:
This property is currently designated as excess right-
of-way for West Circle Drive (CSAH 22).
Land Use Plan:
According to the Land Use Plan for the Rochester
Urban Service Area, approximately 19 acres in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of West Circle
Drive (CR 22) and Valleyhigh Road NW (CSAH 4) is
shown as being designated for "Commercial". The .36
acre right-of-way is adjacent to this designation.
`-'Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Zone Change 00-15
October 18, 2000
Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
North: The property to the north is zoned M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -Industrial) on the City of Rochester
Zoning Map.
South: The property to the south is zoned M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -Industrial) on the City of Rochester
Zoning Map.
East: The property to the east, across West Circle
Drive are the Circle Drive Corporate Park Subdivisions
and the Rochester Technology Park Subdivisions.
The land is zoned M-2 (Industrial) on the City of
Rochester Zoning Map. There Is one lot zoned M-1 in
the Circle Drive Corporate Park.
West: The property to the west is zoned M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -Industrial) on the City of Rochester
Zoning Map.
Transportation Access: Access to this site will be most likely from 28"1 Street
NW. Controlled access will need to be dedicated along
West Circle Drive and 2811 Street NW. This property
will likely be added to Lot 1, Block 3, Circle Drive
Business Center to create a larger lot.
A Traffic Impact Study was completed for the proposed
Badger Ridge GDP. The Transportation Staffs review
of this report indicates that their position in planning for
development of the traffic system for this site has been
to provide future improvements that could respond to
higher than expected levels of traffic. This will provide
the ability to respond if growth in the area or traffic
generation at the site exceeds expectations.
Wetlands: There are no wetlands on this site.
Referral Comments: All agencies responding had either no objections or no
:comments on the proposed rezoning.
Report Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Proposed Zoning District Map
3. Badger Ridge General Development Plan
Anatysls and Staff Suggested Findings:
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan currently indicates that the adjacent 19 acres
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of West Circle Drive (CR 22) as being designated for
"Commercial" types of uses. Recent revisions to the Land Development Manual require that a
General Development Plan be submitted with certain "upzonings and a "Traffic Impact Study" is
required. A General Development Plan and Traffic Impact Study was completed for the Land Use
Amendment and Zoning Amendment of the adjacent 19 acres.
qq,
1gPage 3 • •
Zone Change 00-15
October 18, 2000
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 in 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.
The proposed zoning of the property to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial)
district would make the zoning of the property consistent with the Plan.
Employment projections show the most growth of commercial types of uses
(offices, business services, retail trade, etc.). With these employment projections
there would appear to be a need for land that is zoned for commercial to allow for
expansion of employment centers.
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by
formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the
subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and
The permitted uses allowed in the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -industrial) zoning
district would be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with the uses
designated on the proposed General Development Plan. Development of the
property will require that the performance standards within the M-1 district be met.
These performance standards should be adequate to mitigate the impacts certain
uses within the M-1 zoning district may have on the surrounding undeveloped
properties.
A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and reviewed for the property adjacent to
this project. The review of the study indicates improvements and modifications
(now and in the future) are necessary to the adjacent roadways to accommodate
projected traffic volumes.
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 proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning since It would be
consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 4
Zone Change 00-15
October 18, 2000
Staff Recommendation:
e) The staff finds that 1) the area has changed to such a degree that it is in the public
interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area and is
consistent with the Land Use Designation of the area. 2) the proposed use of the
property for commercial use uses is appropriate and compatible with the adjacent
properties and the neighborhood; and 3) the proposed rezoning would not constitute spot
zoning,
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the zoning district, as petitioned.
Planning Commission Action Required:
The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval or denial of this request.
The Planning Commission must also make findings to support this recommendation. This
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council and heard at a later public hearing.
171
t�oPage 5
City Planning and Zoning Coirmission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
This item was tabled above Administrative Business.
Type Ili, Phase[[ Zoning District Amendment #00-15 by Badger Development LLC to
dogrezoned approximately .36 acres from the H (Holding) district to the M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -industrial) district. The property is located along the west side of West
Circle Drive, north of 28` Street NW and south of Valleyhigh Road NW
Ms. Theresa Fogarty presented the staff report, dated October 18, 2000, to the Commission.
The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
AND
Ms. Schultze stepped down fronNe dais and did participate in this request.
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff rep for the a change, dated October 18, 2000, to the
Commission. The staff report is on file at ester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Dumond asked if the Commission w&7Th
eeable to discuss both the zone change and
general development plan at the sam ommission agreed.
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the st port for the ge al development plan, dated October 20,
2000, and a memo to the CoaIrsion, dated October 2000. The staff report and memo are
on file at the Rochester-OI Planning Department.
Ms. Baker stated that tj Fpplicant made the following
1. Chang rt of the general development plan zoning f R-1 to Rals-1x. She
expl ' d that it would allow for different styles of housin She o indicated that
thjAer part of the property was rezoned to the R-2 zoningWistrict earlier in the
rr. Mayo currently owns that property.
Addition of a storm water pond.
A roadway at the southern portion of the property, which wou\beextension of
the existing frontage road.
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCILACTION
MEETING 81 11�
DATE 11-20-00
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
te _ (o
q DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-29 to be known as Orchard Hills South
PREPARED BY:
Second Subdivision
Brent Svenby,
November 15, 2000
Planning Department Review.
See Staff Report dated November 15, 2000
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat. Staff would recommend approval of the final plat with the following
conditions/modifications:
1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that
dedication of cash ($8,000) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat Payment of parkland
dedication fee is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents.
Council Action Needed:
9. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Attachment:
Staff Report dated November 15, 2000.
Distribution:
1. City Attorney
2. Planning Department File
3. Planning Department —GIS
4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, November 20, 2000, in the
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
5. Yaggy Colby Associates
�e
COUNCIL ACTION: Mouonby. Second by: to:
}}
(� t0 4
J u
}¢' UU
I
�� MCI �'1
��•�
0
_ _ N—
e`
r�r \ Jb �
N xr o n
W \ lfl n N
P \
Z �� \ 7 O
U �d \\ Ln J
O J
A1Y
v7 Q r_
z 'I
O
LLIEn D I
I
_'
� I
D I
O I
V)
R
(131 LYIdNrA
lf'LfZ .lZ,£lbS£
m 6
�O�f�{D�IIIf�O�
�Of7� lf�ffl/
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
TO:
Rochester Common Council
ADMINISTRATION/
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSINW
FROM:
Brent Svenby, Planner
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA
DATE:
November 15, 2000
BUILDING CODE
WELL/SEPTIC
FAX
RE:
Final Plat #00-29 to be known as Orchard Hills South Second
Subdivision.
Plannina Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Michael Youngs Development, Inc.
1765 Greenview Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
SurveyorstEngineers:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
1. Park and Recreation Department
2. Planning Department - Wetland LGU
3. Planning Department - Addressing
4. RPU Operations Division
5. RPU Water Division
6. MnDOT
7. Rochester Public Works Department
Report Attachments:
1. Referral Comments (2 Letters)
2. Approved GDP
3. Copy of Final Plat
Plat Data:
Location of Property: This plat is located east of Foxcroft North Fourth
Subdivision, west of 23 d Avenue SW and includes
the extension of Braeburn Lane SW,
Zoning: This property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family)
district in the City of Rochester.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 6.58 acres to be
subdivided into 13 lots for single family residential
development.
507/285-8232
507/285-8232
507/285-8224
507/285-8213
507/285-8345
507/2B7-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
+r�r.
Page 2
Orchard Hills South Second
November 15, 2000
Streets:
The plat dedicates proposes to dedicate the right-of-
way for one local residential roadway. "Braeburn Lane
SW" is a cul-de-sac with a 56' right-of-way.
The proposed streets meet the minimum standards
as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land
Development Manual.
Sidewalks:
In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is
required along both sides of all roadways.
Drainage:
The plat generally drains to the north. Captured
stormwater will outlet at the north property line.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils.
There do not appear to be hydric soils within this plat.
Public Utilities:
Public utilities will be extended from Orchard Hills
South First Subdivision, which abuts the southern
boundary of this plat. The public improvements
construction plans have been approved for this
development.
Spillover Parking:
The proposed roadway appears to be adequate to
accommodate the required spillover spaces.
Additional spillover spaces will likely be
accommodated within the driveways.
Parkland Dedication:
There is no parkland included within the boundaries
of this plat. The Rochester Park and Recreation
Department recommends that the parkland
dedication requirements for this plat be satisfied by
cash in lieu of land in the amount of $8,000. Payment
of parkland fees is required prior to the recording of
the final plat documents.
General Development Plan:
This property is included within the Cook/Thompson
General Development Plan, which was most recently
amended in 2000. The roadway alignments and lots
are generally consistent with the approved GDP.
Preliminary Plat.
A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on August 21, 2000 with the
following condition:
1. Parkland dedication requirements for this plat shalt be met via cash payment
in lieu of land consistent with the memo from the Rochester Park and
Recreation Department dated July 3, 2000.
yf (P Page 3 /
UU Orchard Hills South Second
November 15, 2000
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and finds that it is consistent with the
approved preliminary plat. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs
for parkland and that dedication of cash ($8,000) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication
obligation of this plat. Payment of parkland dedication fee is required prior to the
recording of the final plat documents.
39
ROCHESTER PARK AND CREATION DEPARTMENT '
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 8, 2000
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Final Plat #00-29
Orchard Hills South Second
Acreageof plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Densityfactor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land .............................................
6.58 a
13 units
1.98 units/a
.0244
.32 acres
$25,000/acre
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $8,000 (.32 a X $25,0001a) with payment due prior to
recordation of the plat.
Applicant:
Michael Younge Development
1765 Greenview Drive SW
N:\PARR\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\ORCHARD HILLS SOUTH 2ND.DOC
A 0 0
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
11/15/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 41h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #00-29 on
the Orchard Hills South Second property. The following are Public Works comments on the
proposal:
A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
Charges/fees that are applicable to the development of the property have been addressed
in the Development Agreement.
C:\TEM P\FP1100-29.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 4�q i
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
S _ 07
cM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #00-14 by Ron Yanish. The applicant is
PREPARED/ BY:
petitioning to rezone approximately 24.07 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the
Mitzi A. Baker,
RAX (Mixed Single Family Extra) district to allow for the development of townhomes.
Senior Planner
The property is located west of Woodland Drive SW, north of Salem Road SW and south
of Baihly Woodland 7�h Subdivision and Baihly Hills Drive SW.
November 15, 2000
City Planning and Zoninq Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 25, 2000, to consider this petition.
Motion by Ms. Petersson, seconded by Mr. Burke to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #00-14,
with the finding suggested by Staff. Motion carried 5-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated October 18, 2000.
Council Action Needed:
he 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 for the property.
r
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney. Legal Description attached
4. Planning Department File
5. Yaggy Colby Associates
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on November 20, 2000, in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
°)'lAL'• See. CPFL mint v6 * re4eiv.) C.o+v.wie^4S ern i'm ihe
&DP amerdmevv} rbaisirc hearir wA,'i- eK19'
COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
x
m
Q
ca
0
v
SALEM HEIGHTS
ROCHES
16g, MINNESOTA 3�`sBi ✓4((igqq�s3s3
0 8= u AMWED a PEii �1k�5i
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: October 18, 2000
i
��11�1 D�•I►I�U��
-
rlii:nii �i■:iila
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GI&ADDRESSING� 5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/267-2275
RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-14 by Ran Yanish. The applicant Is
petitioning to rezone approximately 24.07 acres from the R-1 (Mixed
Single Family) to the R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) district to allow
for the development of townhomes. The property is located west of
Woodland Drive SW, north of Salem Road SW and south of Baihly
Woodland 7`h Subdivision and Baihly Hills Drive SW.
Plannlna Devartment Review.,
Petitioner: Ron Yanish
1807 71" St- NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property: The property is located north of Salem Rd. SW and
west of Woodland Lane SW.
Requested Action: The applicant requests 24.D7 acres be rezoned from
R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to the RAX (Mixed Single
Family Extra) district.
Existing Land Use: The property is undeveloped and has been cropped
in the past.
Proposed Land Use: An amendment to the approved general development
plan is being considered for this property concurrent
with this zone change request.
Adjacent Land Use and North: The property to the north is zoned R-1 and is
Zoning: developed with the Baihly Woodland subdivisions.
South: Property abutting this land to the south is
J
�� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATNE ACTION EMPLOYER
(�— Page 2
ZC 99-18
October 18, 2000
included in the approved GDP for this property and
was re -zoned to the R-2 (Low Density Residential)
district earlier this year.
East: Property to the east is zoned R-Sa (Mixed
Single Family Overlay) and is developed with single
family homes.
West: The property to the west is vacant and is
zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family).
Transportation Access:
Access to the site will be provided from Woodland
Drive SW.
Wetlands: Wetlands exist on the property. The GDP identifies
two locations labeled as 'war. A wetland report will
need to be submitted to the LGU and approvals from
the LGU will be required prior to filling or draining any
wetlands.
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
1. Wetlands LGU, John Harford
2. RPU Water
3. Rochester Public Works
1. Location Map
2. Referral Comments
3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Analysis for Zoninq 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.
This property was part of an area 100% surrounded by the City limits, which the City annexed
in 1997. At the time of annexation, the property was placed within the H — Holding Zone to
Page 3
ZC 99-18
October 18, 2000
allow for further consideration of zoning for the area. The areas developed with large single
family lots were zoned R-Sa (Mixed Single Family Overlay), the un-developed parcels were
zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). This parcel was, and still is, undeveloped and was zoned
R-1 (Mixed Single Family). At the time there were no development proposals for this site.
Proposed R-1X. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property
as appropriate for low density residential types of uses. Rezoning 24.07 acres of land to R-
iX (Mixed Single Family Extra) would be consistent with the "low density residential" land use
designation. In addition, it would help further the policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3
of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, which encourage developing a range of
densities and development styles. including R-1X zoning within the development will
encourage mixed housing styles and densities. This will also help to further goals and policies
found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan. This property will have a limitation on the
number of households that can be established, however, due to there being only one
ingres/egress.
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed
by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate
on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the
neighborhood; and
Proposed R-iX Uses within the R-IX Zoning District would be appropriate on the
property and compatible with adjacent properties.
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).
Proposed R-1X. Uses within the R-1X district would be appropriate on the subject
property and would be compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The
amendment to R-1X would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan and would not be considered spot zoning.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above -mentioned findings, it would appear that the zoning district amendment to R-
1X would meet the above criteria.
Staff recommends that the request to amend 24.07 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family)
district to the R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) district be approved, based on the above
suggested findings.
13
rpwU _
we pledge, ive deliver
October 3, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase 11, Amendment to General Development Plan #145 by Ron
Yanish to be known as Salem Heights.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow:
1. The R-lx area must be served by extending the existing High Level water system from
Woodland Dr. SW westerly through the local street to connect into the existing stub -out from
Bell Oaks Lane SW. This system would have sufficient capacity for this type of use.
2. Water main stub -outs or services should be installed to serve the unplatted R-1 property to
the west in the joint roadway area prior to street construction. These stub -out or service
locations may impact the size of the water main extending to the end of the cul-de-sac.
3. The R-2 area must be served by extending the existing Main Level water system from
Woodland Drive SW southwesterly to the existing water main in the Frontage Road.
4. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system
layout to serve this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly youW-�
rs,
064A
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates
Ron Yanish
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ENRIINNEEER$ E
ARCHITECTS 7�
October 16, 2000
Mr. Brent Svenby
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Summary —Neighborhood Meeting
Salem Heights Amended General Development Plan & Zone Change
Dear Brent:
SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
PLANNERS
A neighborhood meeting was held October 12, 2000 at Yaggy Colby Associates' office regarding
the Salem Heights Amended General Development Plan and the proposed R-Ix zone change.
Approximately I 1 individuals were in attendance including Mr. Ron Yanish and myself (please
see attached sign -in sheet). The layout, zone change area, and the future use of the previously
rezoned R-2 area were discussed, as well as individual neighbor concerns, but the major issue the
neighbors had was in regard to traffic (as in the first neighborhood meeting in January 2000).
The zone change to an R-Ix, for the purposes of high -end townhomes, was received well. The
main neighbor concern was the value of these townhomes, and preliminary townhouse drawings
were presented. The neighbors were comfortable with the townhouse proposal on this property.
The previously rezoned R-2 area was discussed and Mr. John Murphy, at the Mayo Clinic
Communications Department, was given as a contact person (284-2430) for questions to be
directed to. The Mayo Foundation purchased the approximate area identified as R-2 and is not a
part of this Amended General Development Plan application.
ROCHESTER OFFIC
The intersection at the Frontage Road and Bamber Valley Road SW was seen as very beneficial
and lessened many of the neighborhood traffic concerns. The Woodland Drive SW and Salem 717 Third Avenue'
Road SW intersection was still considered a problem that needs to be changed, but one neighbor
requested this intersection be considered a right in/right out intersection on the north side. This Rochester, MN 559C
right in/right out could then alleviate traffic using the Frontage Road from the Fox Valley Drive
SW intersection to the northeast. If a right in/right out was built, it could potentially be an unsafe
intersection if the Frontage Road remained in its current alignment. A full intersection for the 507-288-646
south side to Green Meadows West was seen as necessary by the neighbors.
Fax 507-288-505
Sincerely,
YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES
I n r r
MASON CITY OFFIC
Wade DuMond
Project Designer
515-424-634
WCD
YCA #5762 LD2 Fax 51 s-424-035
Attachment
cc Ron Yanish
� Enua! rJmoMmiN Emnlo
ENGINEERS
ARCHITECTS
SURVETORS
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
PLANNERS
OJECT #
5762-
PROJECT
PREPARED BY
DATE
OZ12- 160
CHECKED BY
DATE
SHEET NO.
OF
-A 5 7
-2,ev 7
I SA
Z8
�L
C;2
cl
-',x7-4-f—fV-J9— look S;0%1;
-z_!rl- 7 0
Re
....... ..
tit
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING -1
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
M DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan #145 Salem Heights
LPREPARED
November 14, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning Commission considered this GDP at a public hearing on October 25, 2000. At the meeting, there was considerable
discussion regarding the referral comments from the SWCD as they relate to the Decorah -Edge groundwater recharge areas (see
minutes). The Commission recommended adding six comments from the SWCD as conditions (see conditions 13-18).
Ms. Petersson recommended approval of Type III, Phase 11 Amendment to General Development Plan #145 by Ron Yanish
known as Salem Heights with the staff -suggested conditions from Ms. Baker's October 25, 2o00 memo and Mr. Tony Hills
recommended conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
CONDITIONS:
t. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development If the City accepts participation, Stormwater
Management fees will apply. Storm sewer routing and drainage Information must be provided to the City. The
development must minimize impact oonthe djacent property.
A
R.c«� At* . -- _', j
2. At the time of Platting, adifftional right-of-way may need to be dedicated to accommodate the future design of the
frontage road and its potential access to Salem Road. In addition, controlled access must be provided along the entire
length of Salem Rd. SW.
The most westerly roadway and cul-de-sac are 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 on the Yanish property with access and utilities provided to the abutting
property to the west
4. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department that Identifies future pedestrian facilities along the north side
of the frontage road, potential pedestrian trail along Salem Rd., boundaries of the approved zoning district
amendments, and delineated wetlands.
5. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the obligations of the
applicant relating to, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication, which shalt be cash in lieu of land;
traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities; contributions for public infrastructure, including improvements to Woodland
Dr. NW.
6. Additional Information shall be submitted at the time of platting demonstrating that the new Intersection on Woodland
Dr. SW at the northeast corner of this property will meet the subdivision criteria for vertical and horizontal curves.
7. A detailed Wetland Delineation report and a replacementplan are required if the applicant intends to rill or drain
Wetlands.
a. The volume of traffic from the portion of the property proposed for R-1X zoning shall not exceed 500 A.D.T.
9. The realignment of the frontage road access to Woodland Drive SW Is acceptable subject to the closure of Woodland
Drive SW access to Salem Road S W. (For clarification -the previous GDP proposed bulbing the frontage road to the
north where It Intersects with Woodland Drive SW, the current GDP proposes leaving the frontage road In its current
location of this Intersection).
- CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE -
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Page 2 Q�[ /
RCA t U
November 15, 2000
10. in areas where the Decorah Shale is disturbed, the intercepted recharge water shall be reinfeltrated to minimize an
disruption of the recharge process, where possible.
11. Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be in the form of cash in lieu of land.
1 Z The proposed frontage road access to Salem Road, shown west of the Henderson property, will require additional
review, approvals and permits. The applicant will need to submit an application to the City for a permit under Section
62.1100 Excavation Activities & Substantial Land Alteration. if a permit is not approved for the excavation activities or
other permits such as that for access to Salem Road are not obtained by the developer, the GDP shall be revised to
eliminate this Intersection from the GDP.
13. Require the delineation of wetlands and high water table conditions using a First Order Soil Survey or the multi -spectral
"wetness" maps.
'1�4. Retain the vegetation and existing soils on the site. Limit the extent of grading that can occur where the Decorah shale
Is the first encountered bedrock. The blue and green areas on the multi -spectral maps Indicate near surface water
conditions. It Is Important to keep the existing soils and vegetation In place In order to protect the groundwater
recharge regime. If areas do become disturbed, encourage the planting of appropriate native vegetation.
�5. Preserve the unique hydric features (springs, seeps, and wetlands) of the site. Incorporate these features into common
\5 or public open space, linear parks and/or trallways.
Require vertical and lateral setbacks to minimize the disruption of groundwater recharge. Where the Decorah shale is
the first encountered bedrock, maintain a one -foot vertical setback for structures to the seasonal high water table. In
head and side slope areas, development on the Decorah shale should be avoided and a 75-foot lateral setback should
be maintained above the Cummingsville-Decorah contact and below the Decorah -Platteville contact.
`17. In areas where the Decorah shale does become disturbed, require that the intercepted recharge water be reinfiltratod
:—minimize disruption of the recharge process. Reinfiltration should mimic natural recharge processes where feasil
7m. Require clay plugs to be Installed in utility trenches as a means of maintaining dispersed groundwater recharge flows.
Trenches may inadvertently serve as subdrainage channels.
Council Action Needed.
!f the Council wishes to proceed with the GDP, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a
resolution, with findings, for Council approval.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated October 20, 2000
2. Minutes of October 25, 2000 CPZC Meeting
k ;uir n.•K..ze�t�j cun.11�+�i
a -taw (if
Distribution: 'fa
1. City Clerk p ,lU\
2. City Administrator 'i/+Ud,Ar
3. City Attorney /i
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department GIS Division
6. Yaggy Colby Associates
7. 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday November 20, 2000 in the Council I Board Ch
in the Goverment Center at 151 4th Street SE.
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507) 2 85-8 232
To: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Philip H. Wheeler, Planning Director, AICP
CC: Rochester Common Council
Date: 11 /20100
Re: Development Within Groundwater Recharge Areas
In July 2000 Bonestroo and Associates and Northern Environmental completed a draft report
on the Rochester Groundwater Recharge Management Area Project for the Rochester -
Olmsted Planning Department, in cooperation with the Olmsted County Water Coordinator,
Rochester Public Utilities, and Rochester Public Works. The purpose of the project was to
understand more about the nature of the Decorah -Edge groundwater discharge/recharge
phenomenon. Underlying the project is the observation that nitrate levels in the St. Peter -
Prairie du Chien — Jordan aquifers are lower than would be expected based on recharge from
the contaminated Galena aquifer system. This nitrate reduction could be the result of de -
nitrification by surface wetland features, nutrient uptake by deep-rooted vegetation, or a
combination of the two factors.
The project was intended
1. to identify and map surface features associated with the discharge and recharge of upper
aquifer water at the point where it recharges the St. Peter— Prairie du Chien — Jordan
aquifer system,
2. to demonstrate the usefulness of detailed soil mapping to identify wetland and geologic
features on two sites,
3. for those sites, to develop general development plans that would be economically
feasible while still protecting the functions performed by the discharge/recharge
phenomenon, and
4. to prepare recommended land development controls for the Decorah -Edge areas. This
last step has not yet been accomplished. Based on the draft report, it will entail an overlay
district where special standards will apply that reduce the extent of vegetation removal
and grading while still providing for site -based, flexible arrangements of land uses and
residential densities consistent with protection of the groundwater resource.
0 Page 1
Ultimately, the purpose of the project was to protect the community's water supply as
development begins to expand into previously undeveloped steep -sloped areas surrounding
the City of Rochester. Because the sites associated with discharge/recharge also are
associated with a number of building and road construction problems, the project also
developed recommendations addressing these issues.
Recently, the Soil and Water Conservation District began identifying these recharge areas in
their referral comments. Draft standards included in the draft report have also been
incorporated into their comments. The Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended
to the City Council that these standards be applied to a specific General Development Plan
as conditions of approval.
The Planning Department will approach the Planning and Zoning Commission in the future to
develop regulations specific to groundwater recharge in the Decorah -Edge areas. Guidelines
and standards included in the draft report on the Rochester Groundwater Recharge
Management Area Project will need to be studied further to understand their impacts on
development. In some situations the draft standards could render a property undevelopable,
when it may be possible to develop the property with minimal impact to the recharge area.
Regulations should be developed that prioritize areas of no impact and recognize areas in
which development may occur with minimal impact. The goal of this study was not to prohibit
development within these areas but rather to regulate development to minimize impact on
groundwater recharge. Since that is the case, the recommended guidelines from the draft
report should not be applied to developments as though they are adopted standards and
should not be applied in a way that renders a property undevelopable.
0 Page 2
0 (13 NV
.qqmV-LOS3NNl"'=S3HDON
SiH913H N31VS
16D
00
0
0.
0
E
t2 0
I iN3WdOl3A3O Wd3N3J
V10S3NNIW'N31S3HJOM r
SiHJ13H W31YS In
zi
��4
a
c
A
m:
0
x
Al
CA.
rn2
,
yI11.1r��1I1/�>•��
•�...sa�.N..X�
ii�
aa•rtc� �ana� J
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
�
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
,L"
PLANNING
DATE:
October 25 2000
GWADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGlHRA 507/285-8224
TO:
Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELLlSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FROM:
Mitzi A. Baker
FAX 507/287-2275
RE:
Amendment to GDP #145 Salem Heights
After further consideration of the proposed amendment to GDP #145 for Salem Heights,
staff recommends the following conditions or modifications, to replace those found in the
Planning Commission packet. The changes to those conditions found in the staff report
are shown with 6tfik8ttareug# text for text to be deleted and underlined text for text to be
added.
9. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. If the City
accepts participation, Stormwater Management fees will apply. Storm sewer
routing and drainage information must be provided to the City. The
development must minimize impact on the adjacent property.
Z At the time of Platting, additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated to
accommodate the future design of the frontage road and its potential access to
Salem Road. in addition, controlled access must be provided along the entire
length of Salem Rd. SW.
3. The most westerly roadway and cul-de-sac are 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 on the Yanish
property with access and utilities provided to the abutting property to the west.
4.
A revised GDP shall be tried with the Planning Department that identifies future
pedestrian facilities along the north side of the frontage road, potential
pedestrian trail along Salem Rd., and boundaries of the approved zoning
district amendments.
Mom
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
(03
5. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of
Rochester that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not
limited to; storm water management; park dedication, which shall be cash in
lieu of land; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities; contributions for public
infrastructure, including improvements to Woodland Dr. NW.
6. Additional information will be required shall be submitted at the time of
platting demonstrating that the new intersection on Woodland Dr. SW, at the
northeast corner of this property will meet the subdivision criteria for vertical
and horizontal curves.
7. A detailed Wetland Delineation report and a replacement plan are required if
the applicant intends to fill or drain Wetlands.
B. The volume of traffic from the portion of the property proposed for R-iX
zoning shall not exceed 500 A.D.T.
9. The realignment of the frontage road access to Woodland Drive S W is
acceptable subject to the closure of Woodland Drive SW access to Salem Road
10. in areas where the Decorah Shale is disturbed, the intercepted recharge water
shall be reinfiltrated to minimize any disruption of the recharge process, where
possible.
11. Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be in the form of
cash in lieu of land.
12. The proposed frontage road access to Salem Road, shown west of the
�s.■.rsOu.oM
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232
PLANNING
TO:
City Planning and Zoning Commission
GIS(ADDRESSINW 507/285.8232
MAPPING
FROM:
Mitzi A. Baker/Brent Svenby, Planning Department
"OuDING RRA
507/285-82
BUILDING CODE D7/285-821313
WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
DATE:
October 20, 2000
FAX 5071287-2275
RE: Type III, Phase II Amendment to General Development Plan #145
by Ron Yanish known as Salem Heights. The applicant is
proposing to amend the approved GDP to allow the development
of townhomes and/or single family residential homes. The
property is located west of Woodland Drive SW, north of Salem
Road SW and south of Baihly Woodland 7th Subdivision and Baihly
Hills Drive SW.
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Ron Yanish
1807 7' St. NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Consultants:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location:
The property is located north of Salem Rd. SW and
west of Woodland Lane SW.
Existing Land Use:
The site is presently undeveloped.
Proposed Use:
A GDP and Zone Change were approved for this
property earlier this year. The approved Plan included
27.5 acres of land with a majority planned for single
family detached development, and 6.41 acres zoned
R-2. The applicant is now proposing to modify the
portion of the GDP that is NOT zoned R-2 to 1) add
land acquired from the County, 2) identify the intent to
develop housing within the R-IX District, 3) identify a
proposed frontage road access to Salem Road to be
located at the future re -aligned intersection and 4)
identify a stormwater pond in the west central portion
of the property.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY1AFFIRMATIV E ACTION EMPLOYER
nodal.
Page 2
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
designates this property as suitable for "low density
residential" types of development.
Zoning: Most of the property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed
Single Family), with the southeastern portion zoned
R-2 (Low Density Residential). A zone change
petition is being considered concurrent with this GDP,
to re -zone the portion currently zoned R-1 to the R-IX
district to allow for townhome development.
Streets: Access to the property will be from Woodland Drive
SW and the existing frontage road.
The Frontage road currently has access to Salem Rd.
at Woodland Drive and at the west end of this
property. The County has planned to close the
westerly frontage road access to Salem Rd. along
with re -alignment and reconstruction of Bamber
Valley Rd. and its intersection with Salem Rd.
The propose amendment does show the frontage
road extending further west and aligning with the re-
alignment of Bamber Valley Road. The applicant,
applicant's consultant did meet with staff from the city
and county public works department and the planning
department to discuss the re -alignment of the access
road. The layouts discussed were preliminary
designs and additional information was needed. It is
likely if this roadway access is constructed that it will
result in a significant scar in the landscape. It is likely
that a substantial land alteration permit would need to
be issued because of the cut into the hillside
necessary to construct the roadway access. Funding
for the roadway would more than likely be
proportional with some of the cost being the City but
the majority of the cost being the owner's
responsibility, no funding agreements have been
discussed. Any proportional cost sharing for the
roadway would need to be agreed upon in a
Development Agreement.
At this time, the applicant is uncertain if the roadways
within the development will be public or private.
Whether the road is public or private, the applicant is
obligated to provide utilities and roadway to the west
property line. If the road is private, the developer will
need to dedicate an access easement through this
GDP to serve the adjacent property with access to
Woodland Drive.
Sidewalks: Sidewalk will be required on both sides of the
roadways and along the north side of the frontage
road. If the internal roadways are private, pedestrian
facilities will still need to be provided.
mLJ
(do Page 3 0 0
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
Drainage: The General Development Plan identifies existing
topography. The property generally drains to the
south-southeast. A drainageway cuts through the
west -central portion of the property. The applicant
previously stated that they would request voluntary
participation in the City's Regional Stormwater
Management Plan. This application proposes to add
a stormwater pond in the west -central part of the
property. Stormwater management will likely be
provided both on -site and through participation in the
City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan.
The MnDNR — Waters Division has indicted that the
pond structure proposed on the property may require
a Dam Safety Permit through the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. Once detailed
drainage plans are designed, the DNR-DOW will
need to be contacted regarding if a Dam Safety
Permit is required.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
when the property is platted or developed.
Decorah Shale: This property encounters the Decorah Edge
Groundwater Recharge Area. A recent GDP,
Northern Heights Village, also encountered this. The
applicant's consultant has stated that they are aware
of this and certain construction practices will need to
be followed to protect the area and mitigate the
impact through reinfiltration where possible. Such
practices include providing sub -drains and minimizing
the grading activity in the areas where the Decorah
Shale is the first encountered bedrock to protect the
City's groundwater.
Wetlands: Hydric soils exist according to the Soil Survey. The
consultant has established wetland boundaries and
staff has conducted a preliminary on -site review. A
detailed delineation report and replacement plan will
be required if the applicant intends to fill or drain the
Wetlands.
Public Utilities: Services are, or will be, available to serve this
property. A portion of this site will be served by the
high-level water system that will be extended from the
northwest corner of the property. Main level service
will be available from the southwest comer of the
property.
Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication requirements for this
development need to be satisfied via cash dedication
in lieu of land.
Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works (see attached)
2. John Harford, Planning Dept. & Wetlands RGU
Page 4
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
(see attached)
3. Rochester Park & Recreation (see attached)
4. MnDNR (See attached)
5. RPU Operations Division
6. Olmsted County SWCD (see attached)
7. MnDOT
Report Attachments: 1. Copy of General Development Plan
2. Referral Comments (5)
Summary:
A GDP and Zone Change were approved for this property earlier this year. The approved Plan
included 27.5 acres of land with a majority planned for single family detached development, and
6.41 acres zoned R-2. The applicant is now proposing to modify the portion of the GDP that is
NOT zoned R-2 to 1) add land acquired from the County, 2) identify the intent to develop housing
within the RAX District, 3) identify a proposed frontage road access to Salem Road to be located
at the future re -aligned intersection and 4) identify a stormwater pond in the west central portion of
the property.
Access to the property will be from Woodland Drive SW and the existing frontage road.
The Frontage road currently has access to Salem Rd. at Woodland Drive and at the west end of
this property. The County has planned to close the westerly frontage road access to Salem Rd,
along with re -alignment and reconstruction of Bamber Valley Rd. and its intersection with Salem
Rd.
The propose amendment does show the frontage road extending further west and aligning with
the re -alignment of Bamber Valley Road. The applicant, applicant's consultant did meet with staff
from the city and county public works department and the planning department to discuss the re-
alignment of the access road. The layouts discussed were preliminary designs and additional
information was needed. It is likely if this roadway access is constructed that it will result in a
significant scar in the landscape. It is likely that a substantial land alteration permit would need to
be issued because of the cut into the hillside necessary to construct the roadway access.
Funding for the roadway would more than likely be proportional with some of the cost being
shared by the City and the majority of the cost being the owner's responsibility, no funding
agreements have been discussed. Any cost sharing for the roadway would need to be agreed
upon in a Development Agreement.
At this time, the applicant is uncertain if the roadways within the development will be public or
private. Whether the road is public or private, the applicant is obligated to provide utilities and
roadway to the west property line. If the road is private, the developer will need to dedicate an
access easement through this GDP to serve the adjacent property with access to Woodland Drive
The General Development Plan identifies existing topography. The property generally drains to
the south-southeast. A drainageway cuts through the west -central portion of the property. The
applicant previously stated that they would request voluntary participation in the City's Regional
Stormwater Management Plan. This application proposes to add a stormwater pond in the west -
central part of the property. Stormwater management will likely be provided both on -site and
through participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan.
This property also encounters the Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area. A recent GDP,
Northern Heights Village, also encountered this. The applicant's consultant has stated that they
are aware of this and certain construction practices will need to be followed to protect the area
and mitigate the impact through the reinfiltration. The applicant's consultant, staff from the
169 .11
10% Page 5 • •
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
Planning Department and Olmsted County SWCD met on Thursday afternoon to review the
referral comment from the SWCD. There is a difference of opinion to where the Decorch Shale is
located. The applicant's consultant is aware of the potential problems of the site. If problems are
encountered during development, they will need to be resolved at that time. Certain construction
practices will help to mitigate the impact the development will have the recharge area. Such
practices include providing sub -drains and minimizing the grading activity in the areas where the
Decorah Shale is the first encountered bedrock to protect the City's groundwater.
A Zoning District amendment is being considered for this property concurrent with the GDP.
Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation:
Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the
criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted
regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999.
Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have
been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or
plan amendment request.
Land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the '?ow density
residential' land use designation for the property. A Zoning District
amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP application.
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.
The density, access and circulation appear compatible with the existing
and future use of adjacent property. Lot sizes are not identified on the
GDP.
Since the design of the Bamber Valley Rd. and Salem Rd. intersection are
still under review, the feasibility of maintaining an access from the frontage
road to Salem Rd at the west end of this property Is unknown. The propose
amendment does show the frontage road extending further west and
aligning with the re -alignment of Bomber Valley Road. The applicant,
applicant's consultant did meet with staff from the city and county public
works department and the planning department to discuss the re -alignment
of the access road. The layouts discussed were preliminary designs and
additional information was needed. It Is likely if this roadway access is
constructed that it will result in a significant scar In the landscape. It is
likely that a substantial land alteration permit would need to be issued
because of the cut into the hillside necessary to construct the roadway
access. Funding for the roadway would more than likely be proportional
with some of the cost being shared by the City and the majority of the cost
being the owner's responsibility, no funding agreements have been
discussed. Any cost sharing for the roadway would need to be agreed
upon in a Development Agreement.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
J
Page 6
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
The mix of housing Is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan and is
also consistent with the Mousing Plan standards for the physical and
social environments of residential neighborhoods.
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 Woodland Drive SW and the
frontage road. Although the frontage road currently has access to Salem
Rd. at its west end, that access may close in the future.
The County will be reconstructing Bamber Valley Road and is reviewing
the feasibility of different designs. The County is exploring the option of
keeping the west frontage road access open. A determination to maintain
the westerly frontage road access to Salem Road will likely require
dedication of additional right-of-way to provide to accommodate
redesigning and bulbing the frontage road to the north. The propose
amendment does show the frontage road extending further west and
aligning with the re -alignment of Bamber Valley Road. The applicant,
applicant's consultant did meet with staff from the city and county public
works department and the planning department to discuss the re -alignment
of the access road. The layouts discussed were preliminary designs and
additional information was needed. It is likely if this roadway access is
constructed that It will result in a significant scar in the landscape. It is
likely that a substantial land alteration permit would need to be issued
because of the cut into the hillside necessary to construct the roadway
access. Funding for the roadway would more than likely be proportional
with some of the cost being shared by the City and the majority of the cost
being the owner's responsibility, no funding agreements have been
discussed. Any cost sharing for the roadway would need to be agreed
upon in a Development Agreement.
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.
lbq '
Ito Page 7 • 0
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
The applicant will need to enter into a Development Agreement
with the City that will outline the developers responsibility for
improvements to existing adjacent roadways.
Section 64.127 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual (LDMI addresses limitations for trip
generation on specified types of roadways. Section 64.127, 9 limits
cul-de-sac roads to 300 average daily trips (ADT). The proposed
R-1X portion of this development has only one access to
Woodland Drive SW and can be considered to be on one cul-de-
sac, although there are two bulbs. Depending on how the adjacent
property to the west develops, this roadway may exceed 300 ADT,
as planned. Staff suggests that the topographic limitations of this
property and the abutting property to the west make it extremely
difficult to achieve access to another roadway. Although 300 ADT
may be exceeded, the volumes would still be below 500 ADT,
which is the volume limitation for a development with only one
access (64.127, 10). Emergency services has not expressed
concern over the length of the cul-de-sac at this time. Due to the
unique topographic limitations and low traffic volumes, staff and
the City Engineer suggest that the proposed roadways and
projected trips can be considered acceptable.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
Services are, or will be available to serve this property. A portion of
this site will be served by the high-level water system, which will be
extended from the northwest corner of the property. Main level
service will be available from the southwest corner of the property.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways
and along the north side of the frontage road. If the applicant
proposes private roadways within the development, pedestrian
facilities will need to be provided. In addition, access and utilities
will need to be provided to the adjacent property consistent with
Section 64.128.
Stormwater management will need to be reviewed further for this
property. The applicant has expressed in voluntary participation
toward the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan and has
also proposed some on -site management. Additional grading and
IJ
Page 8
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
drainage information will be required to determine whether
participation will be feasible or if on -site detention will be required.
Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through
normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
Stormwater management for this property may include voluntary
participation in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan as well
as on site management. The feasibility of participation will need to be
reviewed further with the City. If participation is not feasible, additional
storm water management will need to be addressed on -site.
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 street layout and density appear to be generally consistent with the
land use and zoning classifications for this property. Lot and block
information is not identified on the GDP. The most westerly roadway and
cul-de-sac are shown to straddle two properties. When this property is
platted, partial dedication of the right-of-way will not be acceptable. The
Plat would either need to be signed by multiple property owners or the
roadway will need to be shifted entirely on the Yanish property with access
and utilities provided to the abutting property to the west consistent with
Section 64.128 of the LDM.
Recommendation:
If the Commission wishes to proceed with this proposed amendment to the Salem Heights
GDP at this time, staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure
compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and
applicable criteria:
1. Stormwater Management must be provided for this development. If the City accepts
participation, Stormwater Management fees will apply. Storm sewer routing and
drainage information must be provided to the City. The development must minimize
impact on the adjacent property.
2. At the time of Platting, additional right-of-way may need to be dedicated to
accommodate the future design of the frontage road and its potential access to Salem
Road. In addition, controlled access must be provided along the entire length of Salem
Rd. SW.
3. The most westerly roadway and cul-de-sac are 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 on the Yanish property with access and utilities
provided to the abutting property to the west.
It(
X Page 9 •
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
4. A revised GDP shall be filed with the Planning Department that identifies future
pedestrian facilities along the north side of the frontage road, potential pedestrian trail
along Salem Rd., and boundaries of the approved zoning district amendments. Upon a
decision by the County regarding access from the westerly end of the frontage road to
Salem Road, the applicant shall file a revised GDP with the Planning Department
reflecting the future configuration of the frontage road and any additional right-of-way
that may be needed.
5. The applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that
outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; storm water
management; park dedication, which shall be cash in lieu of land; traffic
improvements; pedestrian facilities; contributions for public infrastructure, including
improvements to Woodland Dr. NW.
6. Additional Information will be required at the time of platting demonstrating that the
new intersection on Woodland Dr. SW, at the northeast comer of this property will
meet the subdivision criteria for vertical and horizontal curves.
7. A detailed Wetland Delineation report and a replacement plan are required if the
applicant Intends to rill or drain Wetlands.
8. The volume of traffic from the portion of the property proposed for R-IX zoning shall
not exceed 500 A.D.T.
9. The realignment of the frontage road access to Woodland Drive SW is acceptable
subject to the closure of Woodland Drive SW access to Salem Road SW.
10. In areas where the Decorah Shale is disturbed, the intercepted recharge water shall be
reinfiltrated to minimize any disruption of the recharge process, where possible.
11, Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be in the form of cash In
lieu of land.
1
Page 10
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
Criteria for Approval of a General Development Plan
In approving a General Development Plan, the Council shall make each of the following
findings:
A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have
been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or
plan amendment request.
B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation
are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent
property.
C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans
D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and
streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement
Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation
Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City.
Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and
projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses
shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties.
E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the
development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will
provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those
adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance.
3. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to
safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the
existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards,
generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or
disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact
report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in
the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of
adequacy.
4. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64,130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
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
1(3
Page 11 • 0
General Development Plan
October 20, 2000
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for
residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards
contained in Section 64,100 and compatible with existing and planned
development of adjacent parcels.
.
ROCHESTER PARK AND kCCREATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 2, 2000
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
FROM: Denny Stotz
SUBJECT: Salem Heights General Development Plan #145
"AMMENDED"
Parkland dedication requirements for the development to be met via cash in lieu of
land dedication.
The steeply wooded terrain of the area to be subdivided does not meet land dedication
standards. Existing neighborhood parks in Baihly Heights and Baihly Meadows
Subdivisions will provide neighborhood park facilities for the development.
\\CITY OF ROCHESTER\ CITYHALL\ PARn DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\SALEM HEIGHTS GDP.DDC
►((P 0 •
WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
Application Number: RL kXA� l`v t
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 Depaqment, (,Z /,Lice J` + �NYtnrl
W G� �-e/� a, �o hcp L(
A w land 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.
1.� �i�_�R � /_'%. ! � -law ..a .tear_
From John Harford
Wetlands LGU Representative
Memorandum
Minnesota DNR Waters
6epartmenl of 2300 Silver Creek Road NE
.its Noiural Resources Rochester, MN 55906
ga,
(507) 285-7423
To: Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
From: Bob Bezek, Area Hydrologist
Date: October 10, 2000
I /?
Fax (507) 285-7144
email bob.bezek@dnr.state.mn.us
Subject: General Development Plan #145, Ron Yanish, Salem Heights
DNR Waters received a notice that the above referenced GDP will be reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on October 25 s, 2000. Review of the information provided identifies that there
is a water retention structure that may require a Dam Safety Permit through the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. Attached is a brochure identifying the requirements and points
of contact.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please don't hesitate to contact meat the above address
or telephone number if you have any questions.
c: Jim Cooper, Regional Hydrologist
Craig Regalia, Dam Safety Unit Supervisor
J:\DOW\COUNTIES\OLMSTED\CITIES\ROCHESTE\salem heights.wpd
OLMSTED SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1485 Industrial Drive Nw
Room 102
Rochester, Minnesot_ ___01
(507)280-2850
Fax (507) 280-2856
MINNESOTA
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Date: October 12, 2000
To: Jennifer Garness
From: Tony Hill
RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-14 —Salem Heights
General Development Plan Review
Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area: Is present on -site. Multi -
spectral maps (a screening tool) identified wetlands and areas of high water table
conditions within a Decorah shale setting. These type of settings discharge
groundwater from the upper aquifer formations through soils overlaying the
Decorah shale and recharge the underlying aquifer. SWCD staff recommends
further assessment of the site to confirm area of recharge. In addition, general
development procedures for a Decorah Edge setting should be considered for
this site (please see attached documents).
Historical Agricultural Structures: None appear present.
Soils Information:
• Erodible Soils: There appears to be highly erodible soils within the
proposed plan (Marlean silt loam-251F, Shullsburg silt loam-312C and
Doreton loam 473D).
• Hydric Soils: Appear present on -site (Kalmarville silt loam-465).
Wetlands: Are present on -site. Additional assessment should be required.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 280-2850.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Cao ,
Multispectrai Image of Near Surface
Hydrology Features
N
0.6 0 0.6 1.2 sts
C071
General Development Recommendations for the
Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area
1. Require the delineation of wetlands and high water table conditions using a First
Order Soil Survey or the multi -spectral "wetness" maps.
2. Retain the vegetation and existing soils on the site. Limit the extent of grading
that can occur where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. The
blue and green areas on the multi -spectral maps indicate near surface water
conditions. It is important to keep the existing soils and vegetation in place in
order to protect the groundwater recharge regime. If areas do become disturbed,
encourage the planting of appropriate native vegetation.
3. Preserve the unique hydric features (springs, seeps, and wetlands) of the site.
Incorporate these featues into common or public open space, linear parks and/or
trailways.
4. Require vertical and lateral setbacks to minimize the disruption of groundwater
recharge. Where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock, maintain a
one -foot vertical setback for structures to the seasonal high water table. In head
and side slope areas, development on the Decorah shale should be avoided and
a 75-foot lateral setback should be maintained above the Cummingsville-
Decorah contact and below the Decorah -Platteville contact.
5. In areas where the Decorah shale does become disturbed, require that the
intercepted recharge water be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of the recharge
process. Reinfiltration should mimic natural recharge processes where feasible.
6. Require clay plugs to be installed in utility trenches as a means of maintaining
dispersed groundwater recharge flows. Trenches may inadvertently serve as
subdrainage channels.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
10/13/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
REVISIONS 10/13/00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 41h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of P' Works has reviewed the revised application for
MOVIE � ublohts Drooert
and Zone #00-14 on the Ron Yanish (Salem Heiy.
ti oilowing are the Public Works comments on the proposal. Note: REVISED
comments from 2/3/00 are shown in bold, while comments that are no longer applicable,
or that have been addressed by the revisions, are indicated with stwkethFGU0h :
1. Stormwater Management must be addressed for this development —As
must rnaniFn;ze the qFRpaGt OR the adjaGeRt-�. The current proposal
indicates an on -site stormwater detention pond. This will be a private
pond, and execution of a Stormwater Management Declaration and
Maintenance / Ownership Agreement will be required. A Stormwater
Management Fee of $2043.01 per acre will be required for all areas of
this property that will not drain to the proposed detention pond.
2. The realignment of the frontage road access to Woodland Drive SW is
acceptable subject to the closure of the Woodland Dr SW access to
Salem Rd SW.
3. In addition to the possible access closure of Woodland Drive to Salem Rd
SW (CSAH 22), controlled access must be provided along the entire length of
Salem Rd SW.
4. Coordination of platting and construction of the proposed right-of-way for the
north / south road, along the west property line, must be resolved with the
adjacent property prior to platting.
CATEMPVGDP145Rev 10-OO.doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
10/13/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
r;3
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
5. A development agreement will be required to address in part, the developer's
responsibility for improvements to Woodland Dr SW that are needed as a
result of the proposed development, and associated traffic.
6. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed consistent with City Standards,
along both sides of all public roadways within the development, and along the
north side of the frontage road and the west side of Woodland Dr SW.
7. Execution of a City / Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of
public infrastructure.
9
9. A 10 foot bituminous pedestrian path may be required along the entire
frontage of Salem Rd SW.
10. The new intersection on Woodland Dr SW at the top of the hill shall meet the
subdivision criteria for vertical & horizontal curves.
11. Section 64.127 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual (LDM) addresses limitations for trip generation on specified types of
roadways. Section 64.127, 9 cul-de-sac roads to 300 average daily trips
(ADT). The single-family portion of this development has only one access to
Woodland Drive SW and can be considered to be on one cul-de-sac,
although there are two bulbs. Depending on how the adjacent property to the
west develops, this roadway may exceed 300 ADT, as planned. Staff
suggests that the topographic limitations of this property and the abutting
property to the west make it extremely difficult to achieve access to another
C:tTEMMGDP145Rev 10-OO.doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
10/13/00
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
roadway. Although 300 ADT may be exceeded, the volumes would still be
below 500 ADT, which is the volume limitation for a development with only
one access (64.127, 10). Emergency services has not expressed concern
over the length of the cul-de-sac at this time. Due to the unique topographic
limitations and low traffic volumes, the City Engineer suggests that the
proposed roadways and projected trips can be considered acceptable.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are
subject to annual review and change):
Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1505 50 $1653.67 per dev. acre.
•:• Water Availability Charge (WAC) for the portion of this development indicated as
R-2 & R-5 @ $1605.50 $1653.67per developable acre [main level].
Water Tower J8569, High Level Tower in Baihly Woodland Area, for the
remainder of the property @ $2144.63 [includes 10 years interest @ 7.5%].
Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division.
S• Storm Water Management Fee for regional participation of $1983.50 $2043.01
per acre, for all areas of the residential development where on -site detention is
not provided.
A proportional share of the cost for improvements to Woodland Dr SW and the
Frontage Road.
C:4TEMP\GDP145Rev 10-OO.doc
ras
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wednesday, October 25, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the
Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Mr. Jim Suk, Chair, Ms. Mary Petersson, Vice Chair, Mr. James Burke; Mr.
Randy Staver; Ms. Christine Schultze; Mr. Ardell Brede; and Mr. Gerry Werven
Members Absent: Mr. Michael Quinn and Ms. Diane McGowan
Staff Present: Ms. Jennifer Garness; Ms. Mitzi Baker; Ms. Theresa Fogarty;. Mr. Brent Svenby;
and Mr. John Harford
Other City Staff Present: Mr. Mike Nigbur, City Public Works
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve the minutes of October 11, 2000,
as written. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The minutes from October
11, 2000 were approved unanimously.
Ms. Petersson moved to table Type III, Phase II Incentive Development
#00-30 Preliminary Plan by Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. to November 8,
2000. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Suk stated that Ms. Schultze would abstain from Zoning District Amendment
#00-14 and Amendment to General Development Plan #145 by Ron Yanish.
Mr. Staver moved to remove Amendment to General Development Plan #110
known as Eagle Ridge from the table. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The
motion carried 7-0. Ms. Baker explained to the Commission that no action
needed to be taken on the request, as the applicant withdrew the request.
Ms. Petersson moved to made a motion to approve the agenda, as
modified above. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
TABLED ITEMS:
.1ab Page 5 •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
This item was tabled above under Administrative Business.
Ms. Theresa Fogarty presented
The staff report is on file at thej
With no one else
dated October 18, 2000, to the Commission.
ted Planning Department.
heard, Mr. St]\closed the public hearing.
AND
Ms. Schultze stepped down from the dais and did not participate in this request.
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report for the zone change, dated October 18, 2000, to the
Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Dumond asked if the Commission would be agreeable to discuss both the zone change and
general development plan at the same time. The Commission agreed.
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report for the general development plan, dated October 20,
2000, and a memo to the Commission, dated October 25, 2000. The staff report and memo are
on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Baker stated that the applicant made the following changes:
1. Change part of the general development plan zoning from R-1 to R-1x. She
explained that it would allow for different styles of housing. She also indicated that
the lower part of the property was rezoned to the R-2 zoning district earlier in the
year. Mayo currently owns that property.
2. Addition of a storm water pond.
3. A roadway at the southern portion of the property, which would be an extension of
the existing frontage road.
Page 6
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
raj
Ms. Baker stated that there have been a number of meetings between Planning staff, County
Public Works, City Public Works, Yaggy Colby, and Ron Yanish to discuss the north leg to the
intersection. The County is currently in the design phase for the realignment of the roadway to
the South. The County is planning on constructing a 3-legged intersection. However, the North
leg to the intersection has not been budgeted by the County. Therefore, the County does not
intend to participate in the cost for that leg.
Ms. Baker explained the potential scarring of landscape for the roadway. She indicated that
there are very steep slopes at the intersection.
Ms. Baker asked the Commission to use the recommended conditions in her October 25, 2000
memo, rather than the ones listed in the staff report.
Mr. Werven asked how the issue of the location of the Decorah shale on the property is being
resolved.
Ms. Baker responded that she was out of the office the week that several meetings were held.
Therefore, she deferred the question to Tony Hill from the Soil and Water Conservation District,
and Wade Dumond, of Yaggy Colby Associates. She explained that a study has only recently
been completed on the ground water recharge. She explained the need for developing some
type of development regulations that identify how to develop within those areas and still protect
the ground water recharge.
Ms. Petersson asked when the Commission would review the study.
Ms. Baker responded that she would ask Mr. Wheeler to schedule a presentation of the study,
when available.
Mr. Werven stated that there are a number of recommendations from Tony Hill in the staff
report. He questioned why only one of those recommendations (No. 6) is listed in the staff -
suggested conditions included them.
Ms. Baker explained that there was some hesitancy to recommend certain things that are not in
the ordinance. She stated that she is not sure if that is the only way to address the water
discharge. The one addressed in staff report has already been used in another situation.
Ms. Baker explained that the staff report was a combined effort by several staff.
Mr. Burke asked if the applicant proposed the frontage road extension.
Ms. Baker responded that the extension is being driven by the applicant. Olmsted County has
made it clear that they do not need it and that they are not planning for it within their
reconstruction project.
Mr. Burke asked if it would be a difficult traffic situation if the R-2 zoning district is developed
into commercial.
Ms. Baker responded that, if the applicant plans to use the property commercially, to meet the
site location criteria, it cannot be located on a dead end frontage road. Without the extension, it
would be a dead end frontage road.
. Page 7 • 0 l
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
Mr. Brede asked what criteria would be used to determine if the intercepted recharge water
should be reinfiltrated to minimize any disruption of the recharge process.
Ms. Baker responded that staff would expect that, when the development is actually designed,
that in those locations where a dwelling or roadway is going to impact the infiltration process,
those locations would have some type of interceptors put in.
Mr. Dumond stated that the neighborhood meeting regarding the zone change went well. The
main concern listed by the people that attended was traffic.
Mr. Dumond stated that the extension of the Frontage Road to the west to connect with the
future Salem Road and Bamber Valley intersection is being driven by Mayo purchasing that site.
He explained that the frontage road does not have to be connected, if it is a medical facility. If it
is an office, the frontage road would need to be connected.
Mr. Dumond stated that they would need a substantial land alteration permit for the connection.
Mr. Dumond stated that there is an agreement between Mayo Foundation and Mr. Yanish that
all charges related to their development of the property would be paid by Mayo Foundation. Mr.
Yanish has agreed to dedicate right-of-way for the road.
Mr. Dumond stated that the applicant is in agreement with the General Development Plan
conditions 1-4, 7-9, and 11 listed in Ms. Baker's memo. He sent an e-mail to Mike Nigbur
regarding Condition 5 because the applicant would like to find out what will exactly be in the
development agreement.
Mr. Dumond stated that the applicant may need to request a design modification for Condition 6
because the existing grades on Woodland Drive are at 11 percent. Therefore, it may not be
possible to comply with Condition Number 6. However, they will agree with it at this time.
Mr. Dumond indicated that there are four wetlands on the property.
Mr. Burke asked if there have been any plans for the intersection before the County would
realign County Road 8.
Mr. Dumond responded that it would be done after the realignment. The County does not want
to include it as part of their project.
Ms. Petersson asked what the applicant is proposing to do with the wetlands.
Mr. Dumond responded that they would not known until they find out how it shows on the map.
Where they cannot avoid it, they would replace it.
Mr. Dumond stated that they would request that the roads be public.
Mr. Dumond stated that the County has done a study where the nitrogen in the water has been
taken into roots in the Decorah edge. Because of the shale and clay, the groundwater is closer
to the surface and can be filtered through the plant root system.
Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Conunission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
Mr. Dumond showed where he originally thought the Decorah edge was. He then showed a
smaller area that he know believes where the Decorah edge lies. He explained the difficulty of
knowing exactly where the edge actually is. He explained that they tried using well boring logs
to determine the location.
Mr. Dumond made the following comments on Tony Hill's conditions listed in the staff report:
Condition 1: They found that the multi -spectral "wetness" maps are helpful, but they do not
point specifically where they need to be. They have done a wetland delineation.
Condition 2: They have been trying to determine what is happening with the area. They are
unsure if a 75 foot setback above and below it is necessary.
Ms. Petersson asked if the townhomes would be on slabs or have basements.
Mr. Dumond stated that, if they are single family, they would have basements. However, some
of the townhomes would probably not have any basements.
Ms. Petersson asked if they plan to put beaver systems in.
Mr. Dumond responded no. He stated that there would be subdrain systems.
Ms. Petersson expressed concern as to how the development occurred in Northern Heights on
Teton Lane.
Mr. Dumond continued to make the following comments on Tony Hill's conditions listed in the
staff report:
Condition 3: There are two springs on the site. They will not get close to one for sure, They
may get close to the other.
Mr. Dumond stated that he does not believe that there is enough information on the Decorah
edge right now. They are trying to minimize the impact on site. Therefore, they would like
Condition Number 10 stricken from the staff -suggested conditions.
Mr. Suk asked if the applicant is agreeable to Condition Number 12 of the staff -suggested
conditions.
Mr. Dumond responded yes. He indicated that he was unsure when they would obtain the
substantial land alteration permit.
Mr. Werven asked how his team and the Soil and Water Conservation team do not agree on
where the Decorah edge is, since they must use similar measures.
Mr. Dumond responded that, on downhill sides of slopes, there is a layer of bedrock. If there
are no boring records, it is hard to verify where the bottom edge is.
Mr. Burke asked how many units they plan to develop.
Mr. Dumond responded that they are unsure at this time. Originally, they had sought 30 single
family units.
Page 9 • ,
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
Mr. Werven asked Mr. Dumond if he had any suggestions on what studies could be done to find
out where the Decorah shale is located.
Mr. Dumond stated that he would like to know how much of the slope is needed to capture the
nitrogens.
Ms. Baker stated that, since there have been additional wetlands identified, she asked Mr.
Dumond if he would object to adding "and delineated wetlands" to Condition Number 4.
Mr. Dumond responded no.
Mr. Tony Hill, of the Soil and Water Conservation District, addressed the Commission. He
indicated that he was asked by the Planning Department to start reviewing plats for the Decorah
edge recharge area.
Mr. Hill stated that he worked closely with Terry Lee on the report they submitted. He stated
that the recommendations submitted to the Commission came from the report that was
submitted to the Board of Soil and Water Resources. He stated that they used a well log 1 'A
mile away to verify where they think the Decorah shale is. He indicated that further assessment
needs to be done because they are not 100 percent sure where the Decorah edge lies within
the parcel.
Mr. Hill stated he is unsure if Mr. Dumond is correct of what the requirements should be for a
setback. However, one should be required. He indicated that he would like to work with the
developer and consultant to come up with a solution for the setback requirements.
Mr. Werven questioned who would do additional studies on the Decorah edge.
Mr. Hill responded that he was hoping the consulting firm would be hired to do the further
assessment of the soils survey to determine exactly where the edge lies within that parcel.
Mr. Werven asked Mr. Hill if he believes his six conditions should be placed on the applicant.
Mr. Hill responded that, by adding the recommendations, he hoped that he could work with the
developer on coming up with a compromise or the exact recommendations.
Ms. Petersson asked how important the recharge areas are to the City of Rochester.
Mr. Hill responded that they feel they are very important for the ground water, especially since
they have abandoned the upper aquifer system due to the nitrate levels.
Mr. Bill Johnston, of 1909 Salem Road, addressed the Commission. He stated that the access
to the property over time would entail closure of Woodland Drive and the access by the old
school house. The reason it would close is because access to the highway from there is too
dangerous. He indicated that the he and the surrounding neighbors are concerned about
additional traffic on the frontage road. He stated that he approves of the project, but it puts too
much pressure on the frontage road. He indicated that he believes that 80 percent of the
people will travel on the frontage road when the access points are closed. He explained that the
neighborhood uses the frontage road for recreational uses and is concerned with the safety of
individuals when more traffic is added.
Page 10
'City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
Mr. Johnston asked that the area on the frontage road in question become a cul-de-sac to bring
traffic down to the light and onto the highway.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase 11 Zoning District
Amendment #00-14 by Ron'Yanish with staff,ug�ested findingts Mr. Burke seconded
the motion. The motion carried 5-1, with Mr: Werven votifig'fiiiV.
Ms. Petersson stated that she foresees many problems with the proposal. She stated that she
would like to address them before a motion Is made. The Commission agreed to discuss the
item before making a motion.
Ms. Petersson stated that she would prefer to wait on the request since a study should be
completed in a few months.
Mr. Werven, Mr. Staver, and Mr. Burke stated that they agree with Ms. Petersson.
Mr. Suk stated that the provisions that have been raised contemplate a continuing observation
of working with the developer and with the people who will do the necessary studies. Also, he
indicated that there is a commitment on the part of the developer and the developer's engineer
that it will be attended to.
Ms. Baker stated that there are numerous developments that are impacted by the Decorah
shale. She stated that she believes the Commission is suggesting that there be a moratorium
on the property until they determined what is needed. She stated that it may not be something
that can be resolved in a few months. She stated that staff is under the obligation to process
the application within a certain amount of time. She explained that there would be other
development applications coming forward. She also explained that a moratorium could only be
put in place by the City Council.
Ms. Baker stated that the Commission needs to consider that the applicant has an approved
general development plan on the site that allows for single family homes to be developed, which
could have more impact on the property than townhomes.
Mr. Suk stated that there has to be a general sensitivity to those areas. The proposals being
made react to the area in a positive fashion. Therefore, he believes they should proceed ahead
cautiously and monitor the situation.
Mr. Burke asked if there is something they can propose or approve that would help all the
parties involved to reach a reasonable conclusion.
Mr. Werven asked if they could add another condition that would state that the area be
assessed by the applicant's consultant in cooperation with the Soil and Water Conservation
District to identify the location of the Decorah edge.
Ms. Baker responded that it would be a reasonable recommendation. Once the edge is
determined, she questioned what the next step would be.
131 '
• I Page 11
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
Mr. Mike Nigbur stated that the wording "working in cooperation with" is not looked upon
favorably with the City Attorney as it is nebulous. He explained that he believes the process
should move forward and not be delayed.
Page 12 / ✓J11
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING (�00��
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
M DESCRIPTION: Type 111, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-01 by
PREPARED BY:
_;ne Company to be known as Northern Heights East Commercial Park. The Plat proposes
Theresa Fogarty,
to subdivide approximately 8.56 acres of land into 6 lots for commercial development. The
is located
Planner
property west of East Circle Drive, south of 28th Street NE.
Jq
7
November 15, 2000
NOTE: The applicant has submitted a REVISED Preliminary Plat after the October 25, 2000 City Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting, addressing the staff suggested modifications stated in the staff report, dated
September 8, 2000. Based on the revised preliminary plat submitted, staff recommends revisions to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Recommended revisions are shown as q Wkeeut text for
text to be deleted and underlined text for text to be added.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 25, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat.
Mr. Wade Dumond of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. Mr. Dumond stated that the applicant is in
agreement with the staff -suggested conditions. He indicated that the plat would be revised and submitted to the Planning
Department.
The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following
conditions or modifications:
C The Plat shall be revisedi
a. increasing the Fight o f way of the ..r e v Gul de sae to 66-re.-c,s
b. Eflmina&g the 29'ea-sement eWending from the the
south end ef cul de sac to Viola Re ad NX
G. providing GeniFeNed arees6 along the entMe north UR9 Let 6 150 feet
of and within the neFfheip-o earneF a
J l' fi
1 ^�erig-'2e Street AIE and Clam Lane NE-; Wang the f
and & ufh o nd the plat to thewas!
"t4.-
M•••••fvarcea'*� 'iv'im-4h giFe s Mr.
f Provide additional Pubile Utg%- Easements An the both Lots
neFtheast eafneF of 1 and &, Block l
Releeagnq the eidsting fire hydrant located the
9. at end efthe rui do sac to either side of the bulb.
requimal &e department vehicle turn the de the OX
ar-eundFa"s, PEleave cul saG with v"b to ev
eVameter and pastas We Parking FiFebane".
Z Stormwater Management must be provided for this development.
3. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the
obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; stonnwater management; traffic improvements,
pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, infrastructure improvements and contributions for public
infrastructure.
4. Pedestrian facilities shall be located and constructed concurrent with the development, along both sides of
Clare Lane NE and the south side of 26 h Street NE.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
AL
Page 2 l r
RCA
November 15, 2000
5. The applicant shall agree to constructing a 314 median access at the intersection of 2e Street and East Cirr+-
Drive, allowing only right turns in and out and left turns into the development off of Circle Drive, if no restrictic
on land use intensity is to occur, OR a trip generation cap be established at 50% of the level analyzed in the stu_,
if full median access is retained. The option chosen by the applicant shall be addressed through the
Development Agreement with the City of Rochester for this project.
6. The cul-de-sac shall be posted as "No Parking -Fire Lane".
7. The applicant may need to dedicate an additional 5' easement adiacent to East Circle Drive to accommodate both
utilities and pedestrian facilities.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-01 by
Payne Company to be known as Northern Heights East Commercial Park with the staff -suggested conditions. Ms.
Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated October 19, 2000.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report, dated October 19, 2000.
2. Minutes of the October 25, 2000 CPZC Meeting.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m.
Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
on Monday, November 20, 2000, in the Council
�p //
u
Preliminar_Commercial Plat #00-01
L 11 Notification Distance
rIn a r, Ward 5 (Evans)
1Vld A2IVNIWIl3bd
VIOS3NNIW 'N31S3NJON
9 ('r AVd'WWODISV3'S1H N113HAON lil g
tP`� �;�. ~»9,i, .ul:. i• �'�--� � �-4:i.Yi'6111Q ,Ijl' ++,1 ; !'
04
{ xoIWo6Y wll Y9 L NG11WM 1,'1 ' � 1 •
N
V.11-ti�7-i-
RO
\40 OD
0LROW ED N0' 2
i
I
i
ROCHESTER 13q
Minnesota
11/13/00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740
2122 Campus Drive SE 507-287-7800
Rochester, MN 55904 FAX — 507-281-6216
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
REVISED 11-9-00
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a
REVISED Preliminary Plat 00-01 on Northern Heights East Commercial Park
(Payne Company) property. The following are the Public Works comments on
the proposal: Note — New comments are shown in BOLD, while comments
that have been addressed by the revisions are shown with
STRIKETHROUGH
1. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development.
2. A grading plan must be submitted and approved.
3. A City / owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this
property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and
utilities to serve this subdivision.
4. Pedestrian facilities shall be located and constructed concurrent with
this development, along both sides of Clare Ln NE, and the south side
of 261h St NE. The owner previously agreed to dedicate a 10 foot
pedestrian facilities easement along CSAH 22 & Viola Rd NE, at the
time the City installed sidewalk to the pedestrian overpass bridge. The
easement has not been conveyed to the City, and should be included
with the plat. The 10 foot easement shown on the revised
preliminary plat is sufficient for the pedestrian facilities. An
additional 5 foot easement (15 foot total) may be needed for
utilities.
C:%TEMP%PP#00-01 Revised 11-9-OO.doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
11/13/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 40' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City
that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited
to, stormwater management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities,
right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure.
6. Controlled access shall be dedicated along the entire north line of Lot
6, and within 150 feet of the northeast corner of Lot 1 along 26t' St NE,
and Clare Lane NE, as shown on the revised preliminary plat.
Charges & fees for the following are applicable for the development of this
property:
❖ J9288 "High Level Water Tower in NE Area" @ $1,021.46 per
acre plus interest from May 5, 1998.
❖ The portion of the property that drains to Rocky Creek is subject
to J8680 "Channel Improvement in Rocky Creek' @ $394.6768
per acre plus 7.5% interest from 2117/81 (ten year maximum).
❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic
Division.
2 Street Name Signs
C:%TEMP%PP#00-01 Revised 11-9-DO.doc
rnu'=-
we pledge, we deliver
October 30, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: REVISED: Type III, Phase II, Preliminary Plat #00-01 by Payne Company to be
known as Northern Heights East Commercial Park.
Dear Ms. Fogarty:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow:
Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required to meet Minnesota
Department of Health Requirements. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with
these comments.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly you"S(-,
rs,0O4tA
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates
Iqt 11
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
Ida
in
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner �T
DATE: October 19, 2000
lruseell.vac-::A
Apiiiii liavii
,
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GISIADDRESSING/
507/285.8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGIHRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
5071285-8213
WEWSEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
RE: Type III, Phase 11, Land Subdivision Permit #00-01 (Preliminary
Plat) to be known as Northern Heights East Commercial Park. The
Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 8.56 acres of land into 6
lots for commercial development. The property is located west of
East Circle Drive, south of 28' Street NE.
Piannina Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Payne Company
1700 Northwood Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Surveyors/Engineers:
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 31 Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
RPU Water Division
Olmsted County Public Works
Rochester Fire Department
Rochester Public Works Department
Planning Department - Transportation
Report Attachments:
1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2, Referral Comments (5 letters)
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat
Development Review:
Location of Property: The property is located north of Viola Road NE, south
of 261" Street SE and west of East Circle Drive NE
(CSAH 22).
Zoning: The property is currently zoned B-1 Restricted
Commercial.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 8.56 acres of land to be
subdivided into six lots for commercial development.
`-'� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Northern Heights East Commercial Park
October 19, 2000
Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for one
roadway.
This roadway is a cul-de-sac currently named Clare
Lane NE, intersecting 2611 Street NE from the south.
This roadway is designed with a 50' right-of-way and a
46' (92' curb to curb) cul-de-sac right of way radius.
According to the Adopted Thoroughfare Plan,
industrial or commercial uses that may be located
along a cul-de-sac or other limited local street, a 32'
foot roadway with a 56' right-of-way is recommended.
The purpose of the 30 foot access easement shown
on the preliminary plan extending south from the
cul-de-sac to Viola Road needs to be addressed. The
Olmsted County Public Works Department has
responded that they have access control along CSAH
2 (Viola Road NE) and CSAH 22 (East Circle Drive
NE). Therefore, controlled access along the south
boundary of the plat needs to be extended to the west
line of Lot 3.
Controlled access shall be dedicated along the entire
north line of Lot 6, and within 150 feet of the northeast
corner of Lot 1 along 261 Street NE. and Clare Lane
NE.
The roadway along the north property line of the
proposed plan is labeled as 28'" Street NE. This is
actually 26`" Street NE and the name should be
corrected on the final plat.
Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities shall be located and constructed
concurrent with this development, along both side of
Clare Lane NE, and the south side of 26"1 Street NE.
The owner previously agreed to dedicate a 10 foot
pedestrian facilities easement along CSAH 22 & Viola
Road NE, at the time the City installed sidewalk to the
pedestrian overpass bridge. The easement has not
been conveyed to the City, and should be included
with the plat.
Drainage: The topography is fairly level with 1233' in the center
of the plat and 1229' in the south direction and 1230' in
the northerly direction.
Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved
by the City Public Works Department prior to the
submittal of the final plat.
Storm Water Management must be provided for this
development.
N3 1-1
`4 Page
Northern Heights East Commercial Park
October 19, 2000
Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The
maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this
property.
Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from
26"' Street to accommodate this development.
Additional Public Utility Easements are required in the
northeast corner of both Lots 1 and 6, Block 1, to
provide the minimum 10' coverage for the existing and
proposed water mains.
General Development Plan: According to Section 61.211, Paragraph 1 of the Land
Development Manual: A General Development Plan
shall not be required for any portion of an area for
which a general development plan has previously
been approved by the Council or where the zoning
administer determines that new proposed streets need
not continue beyond the land to be subdivided in order
to complete an appropriate street system or to provide
access to adjacent property.
Since the property is surrounded on three sides by
road right-of-way and along the other by developed
property which there will not be a roadway connection
to, staff determined that a GDP would not be required
for this property.
Thoroughfare Plan: Ajoint recommendation of the City and County Public
Works Department and the Planning Department
Transportation staff is that this development be
approved with a condition enforced through a
Development Agreement.
Note: Staff entire comments regarding this issue are
attached.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
NOTE: In reviewing this plat, staff is concerned with the size of Lot 6. The small lot size may
result in problems accommodating a business structure with parking, meeting the regulations of
the Land Development Manual. The applicant should consider adding land to this lot or combining
it with Lot 5.
Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by
the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application.
This section is attached for your information.
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester
Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff
recommends approval with the following conditions 1 modifications:
Page 4
Northern Heights East Commercial Park
October 19, 2000
1. The Plat shall be revised:
a. Increasing the right-of-way of the proposed cul-de-sac to 56 feet.
b. Eliminating the 30' easement extending from the south end of the cul-de-sac to
Viola Road NE.
c. Providing controlled access along the entire north line of Lot 6 and 150 feet
within the northeast corner of Lot 1 along 26' Street NE and Clare Lane NE; and
along the south boundary of the plat to the west line of Lot 3.
d. Correcting the identification of 281" Street NE to 261' Street NE.
e. Conveying a 10' easement along CSAH 22 (East Circle Drive) and Viola Road for
a sidewalk to the pedestrian overpass bridge.
f. Providing additional Public Utility Easements in the northeast corner of both
Lots 1 and 6, Block 1, providing the minimum 10' coverage for the existing and
proposed water mains.
U. Relocating the existing fire hydrant located at the and of the cul-de-sac to either
side of the bulb.
h. Increasing the curb -to -curb diameter of the cul-de-sac to a 96' clear diameter,
allowing parking with required fire department vehicle turn -around radius, OR
leave the cul-de-sac with the 92' curb -to -curb diameter and post as
"No Parking - Fire Lane".
If the Applicant agrees to revise the Plat, as stated above, and re -submit the Plat at least two
weeks prior to the City Council meeting at which time this item would be scheduled, staff would
recommend that the Plat be approved with the additional following conditions:
1. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the
obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management,
traffic Improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, infrastructure
improvements and contributions for public Infrastructure.
3. Pedestrian facilities shall be located and constructed concurrent with the development,
along both sides of Clare Lane NE and the south side of 261 Street NE.
4. The applicant agree to constructing a 314 median access at the intersection of 2w'
Street and East Circle Drive, allowing only right turns in and out and left turns into the
development off of the Circle Drive, if no restrictions on land use intensity is to occur,
OR a trip generation cap be established at 50% of the level analyzed in the study if full
median access Is to be retained. The option chosen by the applicant shall be
addressed through the Development Agreement with the City of Rochester for this
project.
/l /
/G—' Page 5
Northern Heights East Commercial Park
October 19, 2000
REMINDER TO APPLICANT.
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract
for construction of the public roadways and utilities.
This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15,
1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed
Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the
applicant intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of
infrastructure improvements.
Additional on -site fire hydrants maybe required, depending on the location and nature
of the structures erected as each site is developed.
Page 6 r� /
Northern Heights East Commercial Park
October 19, 2000
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision:
The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing
a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are
made:
A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and
variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance.
B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal
and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and
timely extension to serve future development.
C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of
the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or
adopted drainage or stormwater policies.
D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans
and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service
standards in Section 61.526.
E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and
emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each
lot for planned uses.
F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other
Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of
the subdivision.
G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover
parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426.
H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the
purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the
development.
That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with
adopted plans, policies and regulations.
J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or
wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards.
K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of
permitted uses on adjacent properties.
L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued
development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands.
Effective May 15, 1999
V Page 7
` Northern Heights East Commercial Park
October 19, 2000
M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all
lots are developable for their designated purposes.
N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary
and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use
and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate
drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion
potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future
residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance.
61.226 Conditions on Approvals:
In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving
body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such
modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225.
Effective May 15, 1999
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
507/285-8231
February 10, 2000
Suzanne LaPalm
Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Suzanne:
The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit
(Preliminary Plat) #00-01 and has the following comments:
Olmsted County has access control along CSAH 2 & 22.
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:ss
t:%engindoclpla none. doc
o..
Administration
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
Itp- •
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507) 285-8232
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
FROM: Charles Reiter
Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: October 18, 2000
RE: Traffic Study for Northern Heights East Commercial Park
Last spring the transportation staff recommended that no action be taken on this proposed plat until either
a traffic impact study was prepared or adequate information was available from the Circle Drive Traffic
Management Study' to make a determination on the options for handling the traffic that would be
generated by development of this site. Attachment One summarizes the daily as well as morning and
afternoon peak hour traffic that would be expected based on the mix of uses identified by the applicant.
We would anticipate a total of 5,940 vehicle trips per day (an inbound and outbound trip for each of
2,970 vehicles), with approximately 410 trips in the morning peak hour and 645 in the afternoon peak
hour. Of the total trips generated, it is estimated that approximately 17% would actually be `internal'
trips; that is, they would be trips between uses in the development. Thus, the actual estimated "external'
traffic (traffic actually leaving or entering the development from outside the area) would be 4,900 on a
daily basis and approximately 525 in the afternoon peak hour and 375 in the morning peak hour.
The key traffic management issue is the intersection of 20 St with East Circle Drive. East Circle Drive
currently has an estimated daily traffic of 11,900 vehicles, and a projected volumes of 21,000 by the year
2020. Comparable numbers for the afternoon peak hour are 1,230 vehicles currently and 2,160 vehicles
by the year 2020. At the projected level of traffic there are expected to be some significant constraints on
the ability of motorists to enter onto East Circle Drive from 26tk St, particularly for motorists wishing to
make a left turn onto Circle Drive.
' The Circle Drive Traffic Management Study is being completed by a consultant for ROCOG, and is looking at
issues related to access management, signal spacing and median treatments along all of East and West Circle Drive.
The goal of the study is to identify a plan for managing traffic to achieve average travel speeds of 40-45 MPH with a
reasonable level of traffic progression (i.e., the ability to travel through multiple signals without hitting a red light)
and signal cycle lengths of less than 2 minutes under projected future traffic loads.
1511
In order to evaluate the operation of the intersection under current and projected conditions an analysis
was completed to determine Level of Service. Level of Service is a measure of delay and congestion
during a one hour period, with the hour chosen for analysis typically the afternoon peak hour unless there
is another period of the day with heavier volumes. The Land Development Standard for intersections on
expressways is to achieve a Level of Service C for the intersection as a whole with no single movement
worse than a Level of Service E. The existing conditions were analyzed along with projected 2020
conditions for a number of intersection scenarios. The following table summarizes the results:
Scenario
Intersection Design Assumed
Overall Level of Service
Poorest Level of Service for any one
movement
Existing
Full access at intersection with existing traffic
B
C outbound left turn
2020
Full access at intersection with projected traffic
F
F outbound left turn
2020
Median closed — right in, right out access only at
26" St
C
C (outbound right turn)
2020
Restricted median — left turn into development
allowed but no eastbound left turn out at 260'St;
right in, right out allowed
C
C (outbound right turn)
2020
Full access at intersection but development intensity
capped at 60% of proposed
D
EIF( outbound left turn)
2020
Full access at intersection but development intensity
capped at 50% of proposed
C
D/F (outbound left turn)
The results of this analysis point to two possible scenarios for approving the plat on a conditional basis.
If the desire of the applicant would be to maintain full access at the intersection of 26's St and East Circle
Drive, it would be the staff s recommendation that the development intensity would need to be capped so
that the development at full build -out would not generate more than 50% of the traffic that was
considered in the analysis. This would mean peak hour traffic levels would need to reduced to
approximately 325 total peak hour trips. The other alternative is to maintain the land use intensity as
initially proposed but restrict the median at the intersection of 266'and East Circle Drive to only left turns
into the development, creating in effect what is referred to as a'/. access.
The installation of a traffic signal is not considered a viable option at this intersection due to closeness of
the intersection to the Viola Road and Rocky Creek Drive intersections, and the presence of the support
column for the Century High School Pedestrian Bridge immediately south of the intersection. Among the
concerns these factors combine to create are:
♦ The introduction of another signal between Viola Road (already signalized) and Rocky Creek Road
(proposed as the next signal location north of Viola Rd) will drop average travel speeds in the
corridor below the future target of 40 to 45 MPH and will create spacing problems that would make
it difficult to have any level of traffic progression through the corridor.
♦ There are future northbound queuing problems created on East Circle Drive in both the through lanes
and the left turn lane into 26" St. The through lanes would experience queues that could stretch back
to within 100 feet of Viola Road if a signal was installed at 26`s St; the queues in the left turn lane
would routinely extend past the column support of the pedestrian bridge in an area where it would be
difficult to construct a full left turn lane
♦ Visibility of a signal for northbound motorists just past the pedestrian bridge would be a problem
r.
It is the joint recommendation of the City and County Public Works Departments and the
transportation staff that the development be approved with the condition that either
1. a % median access be constructed at the intersection of 261h St and East Circle Drive,
allowing only right turns in and out and left turns into the development off of Circle
Drive, if no restriction on land use intensity is to occur, or
2. a trip generation cap be established at 50% of the level analyzed in the study if full
median access is to be retained.
The actions necessary to implement either of these options would be addressed and enforced
through a Development Agreement for the project.
The restriction of the median will result in the redirection of certain traffic. While all inbound
movements off Circle Drive from the north or south are accommodated as are all outbound movements to
the south, motorists desiring to travel northbound on Circle Drive will not be able to access the
northbound lanes at 26 h St. This traffic would need to route through Viola Heights Drive to access the
intersection of Rocky Creek Drive and Circle Drive (see Attachment Two for aerial photo view of the
area). It is anticipated this connection will be completed next spring, and the timing of the median
reconstruction to limit outbound left turns under that scenario would not occur until the connection was
made. Based on existing and estimated traffic patterns, this would result in an estimated 660 daily trips
and 75 PM peak hour trips routed through Viola Heights Drive to the Rocky Creek intersection once the
commercial area is fully developed. On the section of Viola Heights Drive between 26"St and Rocky
Creek Drive there will be approximately 80 townhome units, which will generate approximately 640 trips
per day. This traffic plus the commercial area traffic results in a total estimated traffic level of 1300 trips
per day, which is within the target level of 1500 trips per day on a local street. While this represents a
higher than desirable proportion of non-residential traffic on a street with residential frontage, but is a
compromise that needs to be considered given the traffic management issues along Circle Drive.
(S3
M
r
N
r
co
tD
M
y
U'�Incr)0
N
Nr
VR
N
N
U/
'mod'
ODN
Ln
m
N
M
co
to
MAD
N
M
R
R
R
W
tD
DI
r
N
R
m
m
m
a
M
CO
coltn
N
N
r
4M7
r
v
(D
V'
VS
0
0
0
o
a
o
0
(D
4D
t(1
(n
O
(D
O
N
N
N
r
N
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
(()
O
tD
OO
O
M
N
N
r
N
V
V
ui
O
CD
N
(Li
l!1
ct
Qi
M
IOD
�
M
R7
(M
N
-It
Cl)Mtr
LnRMeMLOWOWMnrn
N
N
O
M
r
M
t A
N
R
r
�047
r
r
R
to
r
M
6
w
(A
L6
tfj
W
SD
O
Cl
N
O
111
Cl)
co
v
M
(n
(c
N
N
N
ONa
V'm
R
tR0
tD0
N
ROSDM
ko
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
O
(D
O
t n
O
O
O
r
M
N
N
r
N
R
m
h-
d
m
�RCDM
0
R
(D
vam(0tUnmmo
cn
V
67
M
rtA
t(7
Co
ND1M
co
N
a
Cf
r
CO
y
u
E
E ci
vi ei
o
E
E
(v
ui
o
0
W
W
W
W
�
N
O
r
N
O
N
z
J
a
cn
4
o�
o
o
z
w
W
H
O
w
w
W
w
a
Z
za
aK
W
LL
uj
'v
z
z
za
Y
cn
O
J
a
a
J>.
-
3
U
Z
U
4
Yv_
rij6
+w
K
Yw��¢
Q
+w
K
a' Z
a
w z
O
,C
W
Q
LL
zLLI
O
�cai(r~i
J
w4���caim
0.
O
wa�4LU
0V'
4
a
W?
a
Q
Q<
O
O
a N
a 0
5
tail
O
O
w
to
LL
❑
0
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
Ms. Peterssgn moved to table LaX Use Plan
General Development Plan #136 b uinst
seconded the motion. The motion r'
Amendment to General Develo t n G
a licant is ro osin to re a orti of i
to 4 5t. 5W. The ro s located we o1
end of 4 St. SW to west of HiahlandliCt
This item was*Whdrawn by the applicant, as
lipftdment #00-05 and Amendment to
iCP to November 8, 2000. Ms. Schultze
under Administrative Business.
Type Ili, Phase II Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #00-01 by Payne Company to
be known as Northern Heights East Commercial Park. The Plat proposes to subdivide
approximately 8.56 acres of land into 6 lots for commercial development. The property is
located west of East Circle Drive, south of W Street NE.
Ms. Theresa Fogarty presented the staff report, dated October 19, 2000, to the Commission.
The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Fogarty explained that the request was tabled in March 2000 due to the impact it could
have on the traffic on East Circle Drive. At that time, staff recommended that there be a
completed traffic impact study or wait for the completion of a traffic study being done by
Olmsted County on Circle Drive.
Ms. Fogarty stated that, south of the cul-de-sac on the bulb, there is a 30-foot access easement.
She indicated that staff is unclear as to why it is there since the County is requiring a controlled
access along Viola Road and East Circle Drive. Therefore, staff requests that it be removed
from the plans.
Ms. Fogarty stated that Lot 6 is very small. She explained that staff is concerned that there
would be problems accommodating a business structure with parking.
Mr. Suk questioned when staff expected the revised plat to be submitted by the consultant.
Ms. Baker stated that, since there are a number of revisions that need to be done, staff does not
recommend that the Council take any action until the revisions are done. She explained that the
revised plat needed to be submitted to the Planning Department at least two weeks before the
Council meeting. She indicated that, if the applicant does not want to make the revisions and
resubmit them to the Planning Department, staff would suggest that the Commission table the
request.
Ms. Schultze asked why there was no condition regarding the size of Lot 6.
Ms. Fogarty responded that the applicant could create the lot. However, if the site needed a
variance at a later time to build a structure, it would probably not be approved because they
created the situation.
Mr. Burke asked if the 30-foot easement at the end of the cul-de-sac is a pedestrian easement.
Ms. Fogarty responded that staff did not receive any indication of what the purpose of the
easement was for.
156-
*Page 3
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
Ms. Staver asked if the trips generated included the activity from the gas station in that area.
Ms. Fogarty responded that Charlie Reiter completed the study. She stated that they looked at
the 2002 anticipated projections.
Mr. Wade Dumond, of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He indicated that
there are people already interested in Lot 6, even though it is a smaller lot. The applicant is also
aware that he could sell Lot 6 along with Lot 5.
Mr. Dumond stated that the 30-foot access easement was meant for traffic. He indicated that
he spoke with Public Works and Charlie Reiter with regard to it. Therefore, they will take it off of
the plat.
Mr. Dumond stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff -suggested conditions. He
indicated that the plat would be revised and submitted to the Planning Department.
Mr. Dumond stated that Richard Freese is working on a design for the % median access,
discussed in Condition Number 4 of the staff -suggested conditions. Therefore, the applicant
agrees to the condition in principle only.
Ms. Schultze asked if the applicant agrees with the "orn provision in Condition Number 4.
Mr. Dumond responded yes.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Page 4 /�!%
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes j /,
Hearing Date: October 25, 2000
Lots 1 and 6, Block 1, providing the min
proposed water mains
ORDERLY ANNEXATION:
Ms. Fogarty stated V%
from Olmsted County.
for Badger Ridge.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Addition.
applicant has obtained the access righ!-AjVVay for West Cirde Drive
.36 acre parcel is already included inaFGeneral Development Plan
/ ( /
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING r
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
HEARINGS
City Clerk
IN DESCRIPTION: Hearing for Assessing Weed Eradication, Tree Removal,
Impound Towing, Secure Property and Snow Removal
DEPT:
This is a bearing to pass on the proposed assessments for the following projects:
Project 7021 - Weed Eradication $ 921.39
Project 7022 - Snow Removal $ 117.50
Project 7023 - Debris Removal $ 884.93
Project 7024 - Tree Removal $ 3313,13
Project 7029 - Impound Towing $ 613.84
Project 7030 - Secure Property $ 302.01
ITEM NO.
e - ro
PREPARED BY:
Eileen Schneider
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A motion to approve the prepared resolutions assessing properties for Weed Eradication, Tree
Removal, Debris Removal, Impound Towing, Secure Property and Snow Removal.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /4(
DATE: 11/20/o0
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearings,
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Public Works
e — 11
A DESCRIPTION: Special Assessment Hearing for Sidewalk Project No. 2-1998 161"
PREPARED BY• F1�,
to 201h St SE; 3td Ave to 11'h Ave SE J9488.
M. Nigbur �
This is an Assessment Hearing is to consider the levying of proposed assessments for the
Sidewalk Project No. 2-1998 161" to 20" St SE; 3'd Ave to 11'h Ave SE J9488.
The estimated project construction costs and expenses are $76,282.41. We proposed to
collect $67,054.49 through the assessment process. The assessment for the property
are based on the amount of sidewalk work performed along the frontage of the
property. The remaining balance of the project cost not covered by the assessments are
the City's obligation.
The Assessment Spread = 5 year period.
The City staff would like to remove Lot 5 Block 1 of Meadow Park 14 from the Assessment
Roll. Sidewalk work performed in front of this parcel was required as a result of other work
performed by the City's Contractor.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
doption of a resolution levying of the Assessments
I NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �1P3
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Public Hearings. Public Works
A DESCRIPTION: Special Assessment Hearing for Sidewalk Project No. 1-1998 13"
PREPARED 6Y: b),A
to 16'h St SE; Td Ave to 11 "Ave SE; 12`n St to 13" St SE J9487,
M. Nigbur/21
This is an Assessment Hearing is to consider the levying of proposed assessments for the
Sidewalk Project No. 1-1998 131h to 16th St SE; 3r° Ave to 11'h Ave SE; 12'h St to 131h St SE.
The estimated project construction costs and expenses are $97,953.57. We proposed to
collect $77,771.88 through the assessment process. The assessment for the property
are based on the amount of sidewalk work performed along the frontage of the
property. The remaining balance of the project cost not covered by the assessments are
the City's obligation.
The Assessment Spread = 5 year period.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adoption of a resolution levying of the Assessments
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING:
' Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 20th Street NW from
13th Avenue NW to Valkyrie Drive NW " (J9610)
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6220-4-00, (J9610)
ITEM NO.
el-t 3
RED BY: Q 1�
R. Kelm
Project Name
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 20th Street NW from 13th Avenue NW to Valkyrie Drive NW
Estimated Project Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Gratfino & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$127,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5,100.00
Storm Sewer RepalradUpgrados
$29,000.00
Watermaln Replacement
$0.00
Watermaln Service Replacement
Bonita Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$181 100.00
lEnginBering, Interest Contingencies 30% 1
$48330.00
TOTAL 1
$209,430.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Fronla a
$35,938.95
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$2,083.58
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Ublity Funds
$0.00
Sewer U1111 Funds
$37,700.00
2U.Street Share
$133,707.50
TOTAL
$209,430.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5%
annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
to:
Ive
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
PROJECT NO. 6220-4-00 J9610
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY IN
20TH STREET NW
FROM 13TH AVENUE NW TO TELEMARK LANE NW
October 12, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Reconstruct existing street with a Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 20th Street NW
from 13th Avenue NW to Telemark Lane NW, was referred to the Public Works
Department on January 19, 2000 for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report.
Feasibility Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based
on the current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1964 and additions were
made in 1977.
We recommend that the project be constructed and funded in accordance with the City's
Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS). The CPMS is an objective,
cost-effective program for the preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction of the City's
infrastructure. The most cost-effective strategy at this time for this street, which has a
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 49, is rehabilitation.
Work typically will include the following
1. Removal of existing edges of the roadway and gravel base, boulevard sod
2. Construction of concrete curb and gutter, and driveway aprons
3. Storm sewer design considerations
4. Resurfacing of the entire street with bituminous asphalt.
5. Sidewalk sections reviewed for replacement.
6. Boulevard areas re -sodded.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field
surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications:
Proleet
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$127,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5,100.00
Storm Sewer RepairsoUpgrades
$29,000,00
Watennain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Re lacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$161,100.00
Enalneedna. Interest Contin encles 30%
$48330.00
TOTAL
$209,430.00
/007 .
—2—
OCTOBFR 12, 2000
Assessment Distribution:
Since this project was initiated and supported in the year 1999, the cost of street
rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2000 will be used for
this project as follows:
Residential Zones......... $15.00 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones ....... $22.50 per assessable foot
Residential comer lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus
any length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed.
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
Year
2000
feet
Total
I Cost
Residential Zones
$15.00
2,489.78
$37,346.70
Commercial Zones
$22.50
Subtotal
1
1$37,346.-70
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed
directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates:
4" Sidewalk (residential)..........................................$5.00 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)........................................$5.75 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches) .......... $6.50 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) ........ $7.00 per square foot
6" Conc. Drive Approach (residential).....................$30.00 Der sauare vard
Sidewalks
Year
sq. ft
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk (residential)
$5.00
562.64
$2,813.20
5" Sidewalk commercial
$5.75
6" Sidewalk at residential drive approaches)
$6.50
97.67
$634.86
7" Sidewalk at commercial drive approaches)
$7.00
Subtotal
$3,448.06
Proiect Distribution:
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$37 346.70
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$3 448.06
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sewer Utility Funds
$37 700.00
Ci Street Share
$130,93525
TOTAL
$209,430.D0
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
Douglas Nelson, PE
Engineering Manager
P:\ RcpurIAXX
— 4 — OcI'OBER 12, 2000
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No:
6220-04-00 Date:
October 12 2000
J No:
9610
Description:
20TH STREET NW
FROM 13TH AVENUE NW TO TELEMARK LANE NW
Project
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$127 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5 100.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$29 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
W atermaln Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$161,100.00
Engineering,Interest Contingencies 30%
$48,330.00
TOTAL
$209,430.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$37,346.70
Special Assessments . Sidewalk
$3 448.06
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sewer Utility Funds
$37 700.00
jCI1y Street Share
$130,935.25
TOTAL
$209,430.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Y:'*1.1'1101ECPS\,I-PKf. )f'',j9Gip'•d7eniyn\Ones\fea>ibilip RCrwt.UClC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
�071
11/20/00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
s DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
" Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 20th Street NW from
13th Avenue NW to Valkyrie Drive NW " (J9610)
ITEM NO.
F,—
z#wmil
This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public
improvement project:
Project Number
6220-4-00, (J9610)
Project Name
Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 20th Street NW from 13th Avenue NW to Valkyrie Drive NW
Estimated Project Costs
Protect
cost
Construction:
Grafta Paving, Curb A Gutter
$127,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5,100A0
Slane Sewer RepalreNt,grades
$29,000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
6121'100.00
En Ineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
f18,330.00
TOTAL
3209,43070
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$35,933.25
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$2.083.56
Special Assessments - Service Re inee
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sewer Utility Funds
$37.700.00
City Sheet Share
$133.707.50
TOTAL
$209.430,00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5%
annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. The project is scheduled for
construction in 2001. No payments of the assessments are required until the project is substantially
completed. Assessment Notices (invoices) will be sent to he owners of the property abutting the
project at that time.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments.
NCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
HarryJ. Long, III & Louise M. Long
2001 Telemark Lane NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Subj: Objection to Assessment
Ref: Project No. 62204-M (J-9610) "Concrete Curb and Gutter and Overlay in 20'" Street N.W. from
le Avenue N.W. to Telemark Lane N.W."
Judy Sdrerr, CIVIC
City Clerk
2010 Street SE, Room 135
Rochester, MN 55904-3742
Dear Ms, Scherr,
In response to the Notice of Hearing On Proposed Assessments dated 18 October 2000, we the
owners of the following property subject to the assessment which is legally described as follows:
REPL OUTLOT A B C WOODGATE 1ST 2001 Telemark LN NW
05 3169 00200
LOT 2 BLK 1
respectfully request that the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota consider a
complete or partial deferral of the assessment of $1,364.50 for 41N SIDEWALK REPL 272.900
SQUARE FEE as the need to replace the sidewalk is a direct result of the installation of a Handicap
Accessible Comer at the comer of 2d° ST NW and Telemark LN NW. When the Streets Department
installed the Handicap Accessible Comer Curb approximatety 12 years ago, it funneled rain and snow
"runoff from the intersection of 2& ST NW and Telemark LN NW down the sidewalk instead of the
2e ST NW Gutter, undermining the sidewalk. Numerous telephone complaints to the city Streets
Department resulted in an Asphalt Ridge being installed on the comer without repair to the
undermined sidewalk. Over the ensuing years, snowplows have repeatedly shaved the ridge off of the
comer and the Ridge has been replaced by the Streets Department in the Summer, but only after
additional water was diverted down the sidewalk with resulting additional undermining of the sidewalk.
Since the sidewalk damage is a direct result of the defective design of the Handicap Accessible Curb
by the City of Rochester Streets Department, we do not feel that we should bear any of the cost of
replacement of the irregular sidewalk paralleling 2e ST NW. We would further ask that the design of
the new Curb and Gutter ensure that further water runoff be routed down the 2& ST NW Gutter and
not the Sidewalk.
R ully,
a ,f III ise M tdng
Owners o CDrq
c� -<
0
m c ern
N r M0
xm
m
?c Lq
orri
m n
rn
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING )15
DATE: 11-20-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
— r
I DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase I Appeal #00-04 by Frank Kottschade
PREPARED BY:
Mitzi A. Baker,
Senior Planner
November 16, 2000
Background:
On October 4, 2000 the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals (RIBA) held a public hearing to consider Variance request #00-
32, a request by the applicant that the nine (9) conditions placed on General Development Plan (GDP) #151 be waived.
The Board closed the public hearing on October 4, 2000, and voted 4-0 to deny Variance request #00-32 (please see the
attached report, minutes and resolution/findings for more information).
On October 26, 2000, the applicant filed an appeal to RZBA's decision to deny Variance #00-32 (see attached). Included with
the application was a written narrative explaining the appeal and the grounds for appeal. This narrative identifies 1) "The
Board of Appeals failed to act within the time prescribed by the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance" and 2) "the Board of
Appeals was arbitrary and without any factual support."
City Council Action (see staff report for additional detail):
Section 60.761 states that the review body shall Issue an order at the meeting at which the application for appeal was
reviewed stating the scope of review on appeal to be one of the following:
1) restricted to the record made on the decision being appealed;
2) limited to such issues as the reviewing body determines necessary for a proper resolution of the matter;
3) a de novo hearing on the merits.
On October 25, 2000 the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a text amendment to Sections 60.760 —
60.764 to amend the language regulating processing of Appeals applications. The ordinance currently allows for three
different types of review including
1) restricted to the record, 2) limited to issues determined to be relevant; and 3) "de novo" hearings. The City Council has
heard many appeals as "de nova" hearings, that is, hearings where both previously submitted and new information may be
considered before a decision is made. The initiated text amendment would modify the Ordinance to provide for only "de
novo" hearings of appeals.
The City Council has several options to proceed with this application:
1) Remand to the Board of Appeals to re -open the public hearing and make a decision within 21 days; or
2) Proceed to hear the appeal based on the record which was before the Board; or
3) Proceed to hear the appeal based on the record which was before the Board, but also hear the timing issue de novo; or
4) Proceed to hear the entire appeal de novo, with previously submitted and new information considered.
IF THE COUNCIL WISHES TO PROCEED WITH THIS APPEAL, THE COUNCIL SHOULD DIRECT THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUPPORTING THE
COUNCIL'S DECISION, AS WELL AS//A RESOLUTION THAT CAN BE ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL.
r
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: t� 4
i
Page 2
RCA
November 1 , 2000
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated November 15, 2000
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on November 20, 2000 in the Council / Board Chambers
in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
Mr -
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: November 15, 2000
M��ml�.cawr�l�
1�7�o1\J Now
,
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING+
MAPPING
HOUSINGVHRA
BUILDING CODE
WELUSEPTIC
RE: Appeal #00-04 by Frank Kottschade FAX
PLANNING STAFF REVIEW:
APPLICANT: Franklin P. Kottschade
3800 Highway 52 North, Suite 130
Rochester, MN 55901
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
REQUESTED ACTION:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
507/265-8232
507/285-B224
507/285-8213
507/285-8345
507/287-2275
The property is located along the south side of 40th
Street SW, east of 11th Avenue SW (Co. Rd. 147 and
west of TH 63. The site consists of approximately 16.44
acres of land.
The applicant is appealing the decision of the Rochester
Zoning Board of Appeals to deny Variance request #00-
32 (see attached).
R-1 (Mixed Single Family) District
On October 4, 2000 the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals (RIBA) held a public hearing to
consider Variance request 900-32, a request by the applicant that the nine (9) conditions placed
on General Development Plan (GDP) #151 be waived.
The applicant presented information to the RIBA. The applicant's attorney also addressed the
RIBA. One neighboring property owner spoke.
The Board closed the public hearing on October 4, 2000, and voted 4-0 to deny Variance request
#00-32 (please see the attached report, minutes and resolution/findings for more information).
The resolution and findings were prepared and brought to the RIBA at their next scheduled
meeting on November 1, 2000 for approval and signature. On November 3, 2000, a copy was
forwarded to the applicant.
`3 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
11�
APPEAL APPLICATION:
On October 26, 2000, the applicant filed an appeal to RZBA's decision to deny Variance #00-32
(see attached). Included with the application was a written narrative explaining the appeal and the
grounds for appeal. This narrative identifies 1) "The Board of Appeals failed to act within the time
prescribed by the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance" and 2) "the Board of Appeals was arbitrary
and without any factual support"
In response to the Grounds for Appeal identified by the applicant, staff offers the following:
1) Timing of Decision: The typical procedure for processing a Variance application is as follows:
Following a public hearing to consider a Variance, the Board of Appeals closes the public
hearing and makes a decision. Their decision will incorporate staff suggested findings, or
they will sometimes make their own findings. The minutes from the meeting are prepared and
a Resolution and/or Findings document is prepared. Both are presented to the Zoning Board
of Appeals at the next regularly scheduled meeting for approval. The Chairperson then signs
the Resolution and/or Findings document. The Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals holds a
regular meeting the first Wednesday of each month. On rare occasions when three or more
variance or appeal applications are filed, with adequate time to publish notices, a second
meeting is held on the third Wednesday of the month. The Board has followed this procedure
for several years.
The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, in Section 60.414, provides
as follows:
60.414 Decision: The Board of Appeals shall render a formal decision on an application
within 21 days of the close of the public hearing on the application. The decision
shall include findings of fact and conclusions based thereon, and shall include any
conditions or terms to which issuance of the variance is subject.
Since the Board normally meets only once a month, more than 21 days typically pass
between meetings. It appears that this Section of the Ordinance will need to be amended to
conform to the standard practice of the Board.
2) Evidence of Undue Hardship. The burden in on the applicant to provide information to
substantiate a claim that the conditions result in undue hardship. The Board of Appeals
decision includes the following findings:
Regardless of the jurisdiction of the Board, the applicant did not provide sufficient
evidence to support reversal of any of the nine distinct conditions that the City Council
placed on General Development Plan # 151.
Some of the evidence presented did not relate to the above -described parcel of land, but
rather to other, adjacent parcels of land owned by the applicant.
The applicant did not address the required variance findings in relation to the nine
conditions that the City Council placed on General Development Plan # 151.
The burden is on the applicant to present sufficient evidence to justify a variance. The
applicant presented insufficient reasons to question, vary, or relax any of the nine
conditions.
The narrative submitted by the applicant in his appeal includes reference to specific sections of
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM), from which the applicant
requests a variance. Variance request #00-32 did not include a request to vary any specific
section of the LDM and the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals did not consider a variance to any
specific section of the LDM. The Board of Appeals only considered a request that the nine
conditions be waived, as stated in the application for Variance #00-32.
City Council Action:
Section 60.761 states that the review body shall issue an order at the meeting at which the
application for appeal was reviewed stating the scope of review on appeal to be one of the
following:
1) restricted to the record made on the decision being appealed;
2) limited to such issues as the reviewing body determines necessary for a proper resolution
of the matter;
3) a de novo hearing on the merits.
On October 25, 2000 the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission initiated a text amendment
to Sections 60.760 — 60.764 to amend the language regulating processing of Appeals
applications. The ordinance currently allows for three different types of review including
1) restricted to the record, 2) limited to issues determined to be relevant; and 3) "de novo"
hearings. The City Council has heard many appeals as "de novo' hearings, that is, hearings
where both previously submitted and new information may be considered before a decision is
made. The initiated text amendment would modify the Ordinance to provide for only "de novo"
hearings of appeals.
The City Council has several options to proceed with this application:
1) Remand to the Board of Appeals to re -open the public hearing and make a decision within
21 days; or
2) Proceed to hear the appeal based on the record which was before the Board; or
3) Proceed to hear the appeal based on the record which was before the Board, but also
hear the timing issue de novo; or
4) Proceed to hear the entire appeal de novo, with previously submitted and new information
considered.
60.764 Review Body decision: Upon review, the review body may by order affirm,
reverse or modify in whole or part a determination, requirement, or decision that is
under review. When the review body modifies or renders a decision that reverses a
decision of the zoning administrator or hearing body, the review body, in its order,
shall set forth its finding and state its reasons for taking the action encompassed in
the order. When the review body elects to remand the order back to the hearing
body for such further consideration as it deems necessary, it shall include a
statement explaining the error found to have materially affected the outcome of the
original decision and the action necessary to rectify such.
Attachments:
1. Copy of Application
2. Location Map
3. Staff Report dated September 28, 2000
4. Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals minutes from October 4, 2000
5. Resolution and Findings of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals to deny Variance #00-32
Reviewed
113
60.700 APPEALS:
Decisions made in the administration of this ordinance may be appealed to a higher
administrative body according to the regulations of this section. An appeal shall stay all
proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the zoning administrator
certifies to the Appeal Body that by reasons of acts stated in the certificate, a stay
would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case,
proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by an order of the Appeal Body or by a
restraining order issued by the District Court of Olmsted County on application, with
notice to the zoning administrator and for due cause shown.
60.710 PROCEDURE TO FILE AN APPEAL:
All appeals shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the zoning administrator and
accompanied by the fees established in paragraph 60.175 of this ordinance.
All applications for an appeal shall contain:
1) an identification of the decision sought to be reviewed, including the date of the
decision;
2) identification of the status of the person seeking review in relation to the applicant
(i.e., applicant, adjacent landowner, owner of record receiving notice);
3) the specific provisions of this ordinance involved;
4) if de nova review or review by additional testimony and other evidence is requested,
a statement relating the request to the factor listed in paragraph 60.763.
60.720 WHO MAY FILE AN APPEAL:
Appeals may be filed in the following circumstances:
1) Any person aggrieved, or any agency or officer of the governing body affected by
any decision relating to the interpretation or application of Chapters 60 through 65 of
the Rochester Code of Ordinances made by an administrative official or body
charged with enforcement of these chapters may file an appeal within ten (10) days
of a decision. The basis for such an appeal may be any alleged error of such an
official in making a decision, including his failure to make a decision within the
prescribed time limit. A decision means any decision, order, requirement or
interpretation which the official or body has the power or duty to make under these
chapters.
60.730 DESIGNATION OF APPEAL BODY:
The provisions of this section designate the appropriate bodies to hear the various
categories of appeals.
60.731 Appeals Heard by the Board of Appeals: Appeals of the following actions shall be
heard by the Board of Appeals:
1) Any interpretation, made under the provisions of Section 60.160, may be appealed
to the Board except for those falling under the provisions of paragraph 60.732 (3) or
60.733(4).
2) Decisions relating to the approval or denial of any zoning certificate, housing
certificate or sign permit, may be appealed to the Board.
3) Any decision on a Type I or II design modification may be appealed to the Board by
an affected party.
60.732 Appeals Heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission: Appeals of the following
actions shall be heard by the Planning and Zoning commission:
1) Decisions on Land Use Plan conformance may be appealed to the Commission.
2) Decisions on any Type I land subdivision permit made by the zoning administrator
may be appealed by an affected party.
3) Interpretations which may result in the need to amend the ordinance may be
appealed to the Commission.
4) Decisions rendered by staff under 61.148.
60.733 Appeals Heard by the City Council: Appeals of the following decisions shall be heard
by the City Council:
1) Decisions on any Conditional Use maybe appealed by any affected party.
2) Any decision by the Board of Appeals maybe appealed by an affected party.
3) Any decision of the Commission on a Type II application.
4) Interpretations to any of the provisions of Article 62.800, Flood Districts.
60.734 Appeal to District Court: After all administrative remedies and local appeals have
been exhausted, any person or persons jointly or severely aggrieved by a decision, may
present to the District Court of Olmsted County, a petition setting forth that such a
decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such
petition shall be presented to the District Court within thirty (30) days after the zoning
administrator has served a copy of the written decision upon the applicant.
60,740 PROCEDURE:
All appeals shalt be handled through the Type III review procedure, with a Phase I
hearing process utilized.
60.741 Notification: At least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, the zoning administrator, acting
on behalf of the Appeal body, shall by certified or registered mail, return receipt
requested, or by personal service, give notice of the time and place of the hearing to the
appellant and/or the official whose decision is being appealed; and by inter -office
delivery to the following where they are not already an interested party:
1) the City Attorney.
2) other affected officers and agencies of the City government.
60.742 If the appeal is likely to result in the issuance of a permit, the zoning administrator shall
also within the same period of time by first class mail give notice to an owner of record
for tax purposes or an occupant of each separately owned adjoining property. Such
notices shall advise that an appeal from an administrative officer is pending and direct
further inquiry to the zoning administrator.
60.743 Notices required under this article are for the convenience of adjoining property owners
and any defect or omission therein shall not impair the validity of the public hearing with
respect to any appeal.
Igo
60.750 BOARD OF APPEALS DECISIONS:
No appeal may be disposed of under this article, unless the Board of Appeals, in its
minutes with respect to the specific appeal, makes a decision based on findings of fact
and conclusions of law together with the reasons thereof, and based upon substantial
evidence or testimony which is competent, relevant, and material. Findings as to the
existence or nonexistence of crucial facts shall be based upon evidence or testimony
unless the party or parties before the Board of Appeals stipulate the facts or waive
these requirements. Every decision of the Board shall also include the vote, abstention
from voting, or absence of each member. The burden of producing substantial
evidence or testimony is upon the party who files the appeal, and if he fails to do so, the
Board of Appeals shall deny the appeal. The Board of Appeals may reverse or affirm,
in whole or in part, or may modify the order, requirement, decision, or determination
appealed from and shall make any order, requirement, decision or determination that in
its opinion ought to be made under the circumstances. To this end, the Board of
Appeals has all of the powers of the official from whom the appeal is taken.
60.751 Findings Board of Appeals: In rendering a decision with respect to an appeal from
any order, decision or determination, the Board of Appeals shall strictly interpret the
language of the ordinance and shall find that the zoning administrator was correct in his
decision or in error. However, the Board shall not render any decision which confers
rights or privileges on the appellant than are otherwise permissible under the strict
interpretation of the language of this ordinance.
60.760 PROCEDURE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AND CITY COUNCIL:
The zoning administrator, upon receiving the application, shall transmit to the
appropriate body a copy of the application along with all documents constituting the
record on which the decision appealed from was taken within twenty-five (25) days.
60.761 The reviewing body shall issue an order at the meeting at which the application for
appeal was received stating the scope of review on appeal to be one of the following:
4) restricted to the record made on the decision being appealed;
5) limited to such issues as the reviewing body determines necessary for a proper
resolution of the matter;
6) a de novo hearing on the merits.
60.762 Review on the Record:
1) Unless otherwise provided for by the reviewing body, review of the decision on appeal
shall be confined to the record of the proceeding as specified in this section. The record
shall include:
a) A factual report prepared by the zoning administrator;
b) all exhibits, materials, pleadings, memoranda, stipulations and motions submitted by
any party and received or considered in reaching the decision under review;
c) the transcript of the hearing below, if previously prepared; otherwise, a detailed
summary of the evidence, but the details need not be set forth verbatim.
2) the reviewing body shall make its decision based upon the record after first granting the
right of argument but not the introduction of additional evidence to any party who has filed
a notice of appeal.
r
60.763 Review consisting of Additional Evidence or De Novo Review:
1) The reviewing body may hear the entire matter de nova; or it may admit additional
testimony and other evidence without holding a de novo hearing if it is satisfied that the
additional testimony or other evidence could not reasonably have been presented at the
prior hearing. The reviewing body shall consider all of the following in making such a
decision:
a) Prejudice to the parties.
b) Convenience or availability of evidence at the time of the initial hearing.
c) Surprise to opposing parties.
d) The competency, relevancy and materiality of the proposed testimony or other
evidence.
2) "De novo hearing" shall mean a hearing by the review body as if the action had not been
previously heard and as if no decision had been rendered, except that all testimony,
evidence and other material from the record of the previous consideration shall be
included in the record of the review. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to all property
owners entitled to receive notice under the requirements applicable to the original permit
application.
60.764 Review Body Decision: Upon review, the review body may by order affirm, reverse or
modify in whole or part a determination, requirement, or decision that is under review.
When the review body modifies or renders a decision that reverses a decision of the
zoning administrator or hearing body, the review body, in its order, shall set forth its
finding and state its reasons for taking the action encompassed in the order. When the
review body elects to remand the order back to the hearing body for such further
consideration as it deems necessary, it shall include a statement explaining the error
found to have materially affected the outcome of the original decision and the action
necessary to rectify such.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
City of Rochester, Minnesota
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
DENIAL
Variance Request #00-32 (Franklin P. Kottschade)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed on behalf of the owners of a parcel of land
LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF 40' STREET SW, EAST OF 11.. AVENUE SW
(Co. Rd. 147 and west of TH 63), legally described as follows:
A part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West,
Olmsted County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 26
minutes 47 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the north line of said Northwest Quarter
a distance of 2445.71 feet; thence South 45 degrees 13 minutes 11 seconds West, 322.88
feet; thence South 64 degrees 18 minutes 15 seconds West, 237.58 feet; thence North 84
degrees 55 minutes 13 seconds West 818.52 feet; thence South 89 degrees 26 minutes 47
seconds West, 609.95 feet; thence South 84 degrees 49 minutes 18 seconds West, 390.02
feet; thence South 67 degrees 31 minutes 17 seconds West, 194.73 feet to the west line of
said Northwest Quarter; thence North 01 degree 25 minutes 40 seconds West, 350.00 feet
to the point of beginning.
Together with:
A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 106 North, Range 14 West,
Olmsted County, Minnesota described as follows:
Beginning at the northeast comer of said Northeast Quarter; thence South 01 degree 25
minutes 40 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Northeast Quarter a
distance of 350.00 feet; thence South 43 degrees 53 minutes 10 seconds West, 210.97
feet; thence South 88 degrees 34 minutes 20 seconds West, 50.00 feet; thence North 01
degree 25 minutes 40 seconds West, 500.00 feet to the north line of said Northeast
Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 02 minutes 33 seconds East, 200.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
Containing in all, 16.44 acres more or less;
WHEREAS, the application asked the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rochester
to grant a variance to the nine conditions placed by the City Council on General Development
Plan (GDP) #151, and to waive the nine conditions; and
WHEREAS, the matter of such variance has been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator
who has submitted a report to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Council / Board Chambers,
151 4`h Street SE, Rochester, MN at 7:00 p.m. on October 4, 2000, at which hearing all interested
persons were given the opportunity to be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of
Rochester as follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
The parcel of land is located along the south side of 40`h Street SW, east of 11`h Avenue SW (Co.
Rd. 147 and west of TH 63), and legally described as set forth above. All except the portion in
Section 27 is located in the R-i (Mixed Single Family) Zoning District. The portion in Section
27 is in Ohnsted County, and zoned A4.
Rochester Code of Ordinances, Sec. 60.400 authorizes the Zoning Board of Appeals to "vary the
literal provisions of the ordinance" in accordance with Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357, Subd. 6. That
state law contains identical language referring to varying "the literal provisions of the
ordinance". General Development Plan #151 is not an ordinance.
Rochester Code of Ordinances, Sec. 60.700 allows appeals to "a higher administrative body".
The Zoning Board of Appeals is not a higher administrative body than the City Council.
Mr. Bagniefski made a motion to deny Variance Request #00-32 by Franklin P. Kottschade, with
the following findings. Mr. Haeussinger seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-0.
FINDINGS:
Regardless of the jurisdiction of the Board, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to
support reversal of any of the nine distinct conditions that the City Council placed on General
Development Plan # 151.
Some of the evidence presented did not relate to the above -described parcel of land, but rather to
other, adjacent parcels of land owned by the applicant.
The applicant did not address the required variance findings in relation to the nine conditions that
the City Council placed on General Development Plan # 151.
The burden is on the applicant to present sufficient evidence to justify a variance. The applicant
presented insufficient reasons to question, vary, or relax any of the nine conditions.
A variance requires findings relating to exceptional circumstances, reasonable use, and absence
of detriment. Specifically, the Board must find that
a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical
conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands
within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and
b) that the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property
involved;
c) that the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation
of the Comprehensive Plan; and
d) that the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property.
The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result
of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property.
In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in
question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the
same ownership in such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic
use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of the ordinance.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board could not make these findings.
CONCLUSION:
The conditions on General Development Plan # 151 are hereby not varied.
Denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, on this
4th day of October, 2000. 12J,
said Zoning Board of Appeals
Subscribed and sworn to before me this J day of KZuj mIner 2000.
Page 12
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
Mr. Langanki agreed t where was not enough information to make a decision.
Mr. Haeussinger made a mo qto table applicants' request pending more information.
He stated that the applicant shodl$consider working, with the Planning staff and design
professional.
_A
Mr. Bagniefski seconded the motion. 144
Mr. Staver asked Ms. Baker for clarification o oUS
�:�:
Ms. Baker stated if the Board4bled to a speck d#
Ms. Baker stated that the.fifst meeting in December
if the request was tabled.
they would not need to re -notify.
nuld be December 6' 2000.
Street SW east of 111 Avenue SW (County Road 147) and west of T.H. 63.
Ms. Baker presented the staff report dated September 28, 2000. The staff report is on
file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Staver asked if there were any questions for staff.
Mr. Haeussinger asked how many total public hearing were there to get to the point of
Counsel making a decision on general development Plan 151. 1 thought it was
presented at least three times.
Mr. Baker replied it might have been at the city planning commission twice.
Mr. Haeussinger asked at least two.
Ms. Baker replied two meetings minimum for all General Development Plans.
q5r
(�6Page 13
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
Mr. Slaver stated it was delayed at least once.
Mr. Kottschade of 4719 Norwick Lane NW, Mr. John Arnold of Dunlap, Segar Law
Office, Mr. Jeff Browburg and Mr. Andy Masterpole of McGhie & Betts. Mr. Kottschade
addressed the Board. Mr. Kottschade gave a description of his past developments and
a description of the parcel of land with the conditions placed on it and the surrounding
area. Mr. Kottschade showed several overheads and describing each one. Mr.
Kottschade described the past meetings and the decisions made during those
meetings. Mr. Kottschade stated that it was appropriate for him to address this Board to
appeal theses nine conditions and sited several Minnesota Statues. Mr. Kottschade
stated he faced undue hardship in tying to develop this piece of land, due to the amount
of time that had past, and the conditions that had been placed on this property with
each hearing. Mr. Kottschade described the flood zone area of the land and described
how he intended to develop the property. Mr. Kottschade stated that he applied for a
General Development Plan 151 and he applied for a Zone change for an R-2, with the
intent of having six units per acre for a total of 104 units. When the nine conditions
where attached it made the project impossible to build, bring down the number of units
for the entire parcel to 26 units. Mr. Kottschade stated that the cost per unit becomes
extremely high and uneconomical. Mr. Kottschade stated that he had been working on
this project for the past eight years. That he had to applied for 3 Conditional Use
Permits, 3 General Land Developments, 4 Zone changes, three driveway permits, 4
Land Use Changes, and 6 Wetland Applications. Mr. Kottschade stated that he had
worked with the Rochester Township as far as a mining permit the Department of
Natural resources for creek crossing permits, 2 grading permits, 3 burning pit permits,
and 3 Metes and Bound subdivisions. That is 37 permits. Mr. Kottschade stated that in
eight years he has paid all these permits and cannot develop the property. He has
appealed the Minnesota Resources on wetland delineation and had to go to Minnesota
Appeals Court regarding a wetland decision and the Olmsted County District Court due
to a permit that was delayed over 60 days. Mr. Kottschade stated that this is the history
of this project and that was why he was addressing the Board and asking for a variance
of the nine conditions that make this project unfeasible. Mr. Kottschade stated that he
had been making requests of the City as to what type of fees would be attached to this
project. Mr. Kottschade presented a draft of the Development Agreement. Mr.
Kottschade described the fees that would be attached to the project. Mr. Kottschade
stated that the development costs for the site would be the same whether he develops
104 units or 26 units. Mr. Kottschade stated that the conditions imposed an economic
and undue hardship.
f5taff requested that the below portion of this request be per verbatim.)
Mr. Haeussinger: You keep referring to the number of delays and I read threw some of
the minutes of the Planning and Zoning, and if they are true and in fact accurate, you
the applicant, or your representative applicant, asked for delays and extensions of
some of that process. So in fact you where a co -contributor in part to the extension out
of this activity. And some of the permits that you eluded to in your presentation of
thirty-five, thirty-seven, whatever it is, some of those permits have nothing to do with
Page 14
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
this property in question, along Fortieth Street, but more to do with the property along
Highway 63, immediately south of Fortieth Street. So, you're asking us to make a
reaction to these nine conditions that the City Council placed on it, your saying you had
to apply for thirty-five, thirty-seven, thirty-eight permits whatever it is, but in that mix of
your total you are including permits that have nothing to do with this question of this 14
or 16 acres immediately south of Fortieth Street and immediately East of Eleventh
Avenue. That's. I'm have problems reconciling that data.
Mr. Kottschade: Mr. Chairman with your permission I would like to answer that. The
reason I went threw the history of the property is to share the hardship that I've been
threw as far as the property itself is concerned. So that the argument cannot be made
well you've got a large track of land, you don't have to worry about this little 16 acres
track land because, you can get your reasonable rate of return elsewhere. And I'm
telling you that right now, I've got a track of land that I can't move on. That's the history
of it, and that the reason why I went into that. You are absolutely correct, the thirty-
seven permits did not apply to this tract of land, but I had to bring that into context,
about the whole property, because staff brought it in, well he can get a reasonable
return on this other, on his investment else where, so this gos back to a technical area,
and I apologize if I didn't make that clear. The delays that you talk about, and I'm not
talking about, when I talk about delays over the eight years, I'm not talking about the
ones on PBP-151. That are in your packet, except I am talking about in your packet,
where I entered into the record the 1995 zone change denial because that related to
this local street issue. The other ones where part of a planning commission process
that your chair can explain, because obviously he was on that, on the commission they
where initiated, they where within the 120 days within the legal limits, I have no beef
with that. And that's not my issue and I apologize again to you if that was how you
interpreted, but that is the reason I have, as far as history is concerned to go into the
whole this because of legal requirements of undue hardship.
Mr. Staver: Mitzi.
Ms. Baker: I would simply like to ask the applicant if you are willing to leave any of
those documents for us to enter into the public record, that where presented this
evening.
Mr. Kottschade: I will be happy to I don't necessarily have copies with me tonight, but I
will get them to you.
Ms. Baker. Okay, Thank you.
Mr. Slaver: It strikes me that there is a fundamental question here. Clearly in your
presentation, you feel as though you are aggrieved by the process, the conditions that
have been placed in the decision making process, and section 60.700 of the Land
Development Manual clearly lays out the process. In this case that the decisions that
where made by the administration of the ordinance can be appealed to a higher
administrative body in this case District Court. So I think that is the fundamental
199
1� V Page 15
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
question first, is whether this process belongs before us at this point. Why do you feel
that this is an appropriate avenue as opposed to the avenues laid out in section 60.700.
Mr. Kottschade: That is a great question, maybe my Attorney Mr. Arnold could answer
that.
Mr. Staver: Sure.
Mr. Arnold: My name is John Arnold, I'm an Attorney practicing law in the City of
Rochester with the firm of Dunlap and Seeger. That is a good question. The City threw
Planning Staff has taken the position that this is an improper procedure. I think that this
Board with all due respect, must understand that District Court is not an administrative
body, it is a court body. That is a different word. It's a term of art. The court is not an
administrative body you as a Board of Appeals is an administrative body, the City
Counsel acts as an administrative body, the Planning and Zoning Commission acts as
an administrative body. The court is a separate judicial body. In the statue, I wish to
point out, in 600.7 and specifically 60.734 says with regards to appeals to district court,
that after all administrative remedies and local appeals have been exhausted. In that is
what we are doing, we are exhausting all administrative remedies by coming to you.
That same code section in section 60.700 threw 60.734 speaking about the appeals
procedure and going to district court, does not say, that appeals to district court are the
exclusive remedy, the only way you can buy or go. What it does say, in the section that
I have sited, 60.734 after all administrative remedies have been exhausted. So that is
what we are doing here today, I further wish to point out that we are bring this variance
request under 60.410 the variance section of the Rochester Zoning Code. That code
specifically endorses Minnesota Statues 462.357(6), which says that the administrative
bodies of a local government unit may vary the literal enforcement of the code or the
terms of that code. It essentially adopts, in very similar language that is found in the
zoning code the same language. Economic or undue hardship unique to the property.
I'm not going to go threw that Mr. Kottschade has giving you an overview with the
overlays he has presented to you. However, I want to point out Planning Staff said well
this isn't a request to variance of the code. Well that is the farthest thing from reality.
This whole conditional use permit is based on the code. Conditional use permits
themselves are endorsed under the code in section 61.140, says that there will be
conditional use permits where we can put conditions on. We are asking for a variance
from that. It speaks to the very conditions we are talking about. Parkland dedication
64.227, dedication for storm water is found in the zoning code. Dedication for, I should
say the pedestrian parkways is 64.227, the park land is 64.400 the GDP requirements
which are found in the general conditions of the condition use permit we are asking
from a variance are very specifically provided for in 61.210. We can go down the line.
The road conditions, the traffic impact reports, the street designs which are now
requiring the extra wide street widths are found in 64.220 and 64.230. Those are all
things that take their life in your zoning code. They don't exist out there somewhere in
another world, they are not something the Planning staff has thought up, that
conditional use permit comes directly from zoning code, and that's what we are asking
for a variance from. If you have any questions I will be glad to try and address them.
J
Page 16
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
Mr. Staver: I guess two things, one a comment, one a clarification question. Broadly
interpreted, what you are saying, is that anything that relates to zoning that is typically
not sought by the Board of Appeals initially, and is reacted on by the city counsel,
technically could come back, come to this board, for a grievance of that.
Mr. Arnold: That is the way we are reading it, because it is not an exclusive remedy
under this zoning code.
Mr. Staver: Then it would have to be an interpretation of that, and that is what the intent
of the zoning ordinance was initially.
Mr. Arnold: Intend doesn't, I'm not going to argue the legal ramifications of a lawsuit on
it. I'm, intend generally doesn't play a role at this stage of interpretation, if a code or a
statue is black and white you don't get into the legislative intent.
Mr. Haeussinger: Also, if my understanding is correct that you and your clients
testimony is that the nine provisions adopted by the Council where unfairly applied to
your property as opposed to other particular projects of similar nature in the city.
Mr. Amold: No, we're not dealing with other projects in the city whether they have been
applied unfairly applied to them or not, those conditions may be unfair as to other
projects, whether those developers wish to go along with them is their choice. We're
saying in this particular instance because of the particular layout the nature of this
property they way it lays out, with the river or in this case Willow Creek, with the
availability of land because of the flood prone district, with the requirements of the city,
as they specifically applied to this project, make this unique, and because of the cost
imposed by the development agreement which is also endorsed by the zoning code, we
find ourselves in an untenable position.
Mr. Langanki: Current code also says that we can't overturn the city counsels' decision.
In other words we are below the City Council, like small claims court, City Council would
be a higher court to us.
Mr. Arnold: If we're wrong the City is free to appeal the same as we are.
Mr. Langanki: But you came to us first. If you don't like our decision you appeal the City
Council.
Mr. Arnold: Correct.
Mr. Langanki: You don't go to City Council, then come to us to appeal.
Mr. Arnold: That's correct.
Mr. Langanki: Then what are you do-
JgoPage 17
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
Mr. Arnold: But first I have to have you make a decision one way or the other.
Mr. Langanki: The City Council made the decision, we can't reverse City Counsels'
decision.
Mr. Arnold: No, I disagree, the variance provision says in 64 or I should say 60.410, ah,
the opportunity to very the little provision the ordinance is provided for is required as
required in Minnesota Statues, which set out those conditions that Mr. Kottschade
presented to you. This Zoning Code gives you that authority to grant a variance.
Whether the City Council decided or not, are you telling me that if the City Council
pasted this Zoning Code, which it did, that you never could very it because they pasted
the Zoning Code and that's there will. No. You're allowed to make a discretionary
decision in certain instances to vary the City Counsels decision. And if the City Counsel
doesn't agree with you, on appeal by the city, they can overturn your decision the same
as if we don't agree with you we can go to the City Counsel and ask to overturn your
decision.
Mr. Langanki: So you are saying if, you know, if we deny it, you know, your going to
appeal it to City Council. Who is going to say their decision was right in the beginning
or wrong.
Mr. Arnold: That may or may not be the case, you first have to make the decision. That
is the way this ordinance is set up, we have to come to you first.
Mr. Staver: Again though, if I look at the specific languages
Mr. Langanki: Wait a second though, but you're saying then, I always have to go to the
City Counsel before the Variance Board.
Mr. Arnold: No.
Mr. Langanki: But you just said that you had to come to us first.
Mr. Arnold: For a variance we do.
Mr. Langanki: yes. We cannot over turn the City Counsels stipulations on that.
Mr. Amold: The City Councils stipulations are based on the code, we're asking for a
variance of those code provisions, that is provided for in this zoning code. Otherwise
your position here is nothing and you could never grant a variance, if you couldn't
overturn their decision. Their decision was to pass the zoning code, we are saying that
it shouldn't be applied to us in this instance. If they want to disagree with you, if you
would overturn it, that is there purgative and it would be our choice to go on at that time,
to decide if we wish to appeal to a higher court.
r
Page 18 I �1
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
Mr. Staver: And I think that that is the specific language that I am looking at, when I look
at section 60.700. It says in part that it may be appealed to a higher administrative
body. And you mentioned that once all of those are exhausted then your recourse is
the judicial. We are not a high administrative body than the City Council. There is no
higher administrative body than the City Council. It would seem to me to be apparent
that your only recourse is judicial.
Mr. Arnold: Section 60.734 after all administrative remedies, and is this not an
administrative remedy, have been exhausted, then we can appeal to District Court
Mr. Stever: And I'm looking at the section 60.700 which
Mr. Arnold: Then how do you explain section 60.410, the opportunity to vary the literal
provisions of the ordinance, which is the variance section that we are talking about. Is
provided for.
Mr. Langanki: This is condition that was put on your agreement, not the ordinance.
Mr. Arnold: Each of those conditions, park and dedication, storm water management
agreement, development agreements, the development agreement incorporates all
those conditions we have talked about, and provides there economic impact, are
specifically provided for in the code. Each has a relevant section within the code.
Pedestrian parkways 64.227 park land dedication I believe is 64.400.
Mr. Stever: Okay, Thank you
Mr. Arnold: Thank you.
Mr. Staver: Any other questions for the applicant or applicants representatives. Okay.
Are there others that wish to be hear on this matter. i would specifically ask the City
Attorneys Office representative if there are any further comments, as to, I think we are
getting a little hung up on some of the language hear and whether this is even an
appropriate process. That is what I am thinking, that it shouldn't be here, and I'm
looking for some interpretation.
City Attorney Office Representative: Members of the board, The variance provisions in
the city code and in the state law are very clear that you do have the authority to vary
provisions of an ordnance, what has been granted to Mr. Kottschade is not an
ordnance, it is a general development permit, with conditions, although all the
conditions are based on an ordinances, none of them are ordinances, and you do not
have the authority to overturn the City Council on there issuance of such a permit. You
have the authority to issue a variance to a particular ordinance, but that is not what is in
front of you here.
Mr. Staver: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to be heard on this
issue.
Mage 19
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
Mr. Brad Nelson of 1105 40t' Street SW addressed the Board. Mr. Nelson stated he
was reluctant to speak on the issue. Mr. Nelson stated that he was very much opposed
to the city using Frank's pond as a dumping ground for the recent developments. The
storm sewer lines above him have been combined. Mr. Nelson stated that the City told
him they calculated how much water would have come onto his property, and then
allowed the developer to used storm sewers to somehow come up with the same
number or gallons water. All that water runs into a culvert and then dumps out onto his
property. It created a hydro -line, which eroded his property. Mr. Nelson stated a lot of
silt containing Chemlawn chemicals flows down onto his property. These ponds are
going to have a layer of silt in the bottom of these ponds, and it will destroy the ponds.
Mr. Nelson stated that the City said they would send someone out to look at the
problem, but know one has. The culvert that the water is suppose to shed off into is
plugged with dirt. Mr. Nelson stated that Frank was upset because his property was
being used as watershed for 1000 acres. Mr. Nelson stated that he was very
concerned with the water issues.
With no one else wishing to be heard Mr. Randy Staver closed the public hearing.
Mr. Stever: It seems to me the simple question I suppose, is that as staff has stated that
the applicant has not submitted a request to vary or modify any regulation or provision
of the ordinance. Based on the City Attorney, or staff Attorneys' comments that what
we're deciding here, is not an ordinance, it's really, we are questioning a Zoning permit
that has been issued along with a number of conditions. Furthermore, I think a second
part to that question is whether this is even the right process. I'm still not convinced
that in the aggrievement that this is the appropriate path that in fact it should go to the
District Court Level.
Mr. Langanki: I have to agree with you Randy. That was the point that I was getting at
during the hearing, this isn't for us to hear.
Mr. Bagniefski: I haven't been involved in this process for very long obviously. Frankly,
I'm not all that, all that concerned with the jurisdictional questions as much as I am, the
substantive issues that are raised by the nine conditions, I haven't really seen anything
tonight that suggests to me why those conditions are unfounded. Why the City, again I,
and again, other members of the Board are certainly more aware the ahh, the history of
this development, and certainly Mr. Kottschade has dedicated a lot of his time and
energy to this, and I understand that he's in a difficult situation here. But, I really
haven't heard or seen anything that tonight that would give me any reason to really
question what were apparently well founded conditions that the City Council placed on
this development plan. So I'm not all that concerned to much about even, the city
telling us what we can and can't do, maybe that's the easy way out of this thing. But it
seems to me that I'm more concerned about the substantive questions that remain
unanswered, why, even the other property owner that spoke, I guess 1 am very
concerned about what he had to say. And about his property being affected, I'm very
curious about all of that. But it seems to me that storm water management is a
Page 20
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
condition it is imperative for the same reasons that individual was concerned. I guess
the bottom line, concern I have, I mean, if we go ahead and grant the variance or we
vary the nine conditions that the city placed on this development, well I guess we'll find
out in a hurry whether that was appropriate or whether we had the authority or
jurisdiction to do that. The courts may get involved. The city may follow the councils
recommendations tonight and issue the appropriate mandamus or other writs that may
be applicable under the circumstances, but even beyond that, I haven't heard anything
that suggest to me why those nine conditions are, 1 understand that they are a
hardship, but I don't understand why they are, with respect to the overall development
plan, inappropriate or should be varied.
Mr. Haeussinger: I think I would concur with Jeff, I didn't hear any evidence tonight to
present a dispute. The merits of each of those nine provision hear and absent the
question of whether or not we do or don't have authority to even consider this matter.
Which is probably beyond our jurisdiction, or certainly our capacity, it's a legal question,
In fact some of the testimony was given tonight, the applicants' own admission, wasn't
relative to this particular piece of parcel in question. General Development Plan 151
and these nine provision, but that's what we are suppose to decide on not all this stuff
to the East, not all the other acreage. The particular piece of parcel is 14, 16 acres,
whatever it is immediately south of Fortieth and East of Eleventh Avenue Southwest,
General Development Plan 151. That's the identifier and these are the nine conditions
that the council put on, the applicant, the burden is upon the applicant to present
sufficient evidence of which, for me to consider whether any of those conditions are
unduly hard on this process, I guess I can only speak for myself, I found a total
insufficient amount of information in which to affirm any of those , relaxation of any of
those provisions. Certainly when it comes to entering into a contract agreement with
the city of Rochester, you talk about S.A.C. and W.A.0 charges, that opens up a whole
can of worms, every development project that comes along, can say hey I don't want to
pay W.A.C. and S.A.C. charges for my project. Well whose going to pay for the new
water tower and expansion to the wastewater treatment plant. Somebody is going to
have to pay for that. We have to think on those things very carefully. We can argue
whether the amount is appropriate or under appropriate, but that is not for us to decide.
So I, my feeling is that I don't have sufficient evidence to reaffirm, to affirm the variance
request on any of these nine provisions as presented. Absent to discussion of whether
we do or don't have the authority or non authority to act in this variance request at all. I
think we have an applied obligation to either affirm or deny the request, and it's
probably not within our germane jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether we do or
don't jurisdiction on a particular point.
Mr. Staver: Okay, is there additional discussion or perhaps a motion.
H3
l
HPage 21
City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals
Hearing Date: October 4, 2000
Mr. Bagnie%kl I guess 1 would make a motion at this point to deny, the relief
sought by the applicant in this instance, without addressing or pretendiAg to definitively
answer the question,of the extent of our lurisdiction to1. do so, It seems to me that the
applicant may:0i3 in a position where.they need,,he needs some kind of response from
this body, For the reasons that,',i have recited, relating to;the substance, of questions, I
don't know if we fiave much of a choice but to deny, the motion, and allow_ hire to seek
his remeoles vybere ever hQ feela they are most appropnate, aqd 1 would mpve
awl-1R9 "Sa„ema,�y'
( M {v 4 Jy
Mr. Stayer l�A faav$
sa s-q
J i+ ati v kwa� r} WNE&INN,
Mt
Haeusstneai
Mr StWE;
�'arra a a. a tt r =e!e„R �Isans`(>�uestt�
'kC��.'�as"."T.+ W 4� F rw}r r i+. ,fi'. ' old '�5'
�,
ry+fr
'�r�{"�4'kv�F`E�br3f
+"^'�tC �'�L 'r"•S^�e;fay .vS.`� .a � i n a � - '��z+!"++' {+ S`*"" k; x� } e ` tin a3
l'•R X A'Yw - i.. m=� Js ty� � �t.+5� ��i��`i -irr .��r�. 'w r � '* Y ,
Mr Sta1! !g t+aribce CM
Cier js,der ied��'k�g , t
Ms. B er: Mr. Chair?
Mr. Stav Yes
Ms. Baker: Fot staff clarification, would the board simply clarify what the finding would
be for that.
Mr. Bagniefski: Simply,in�q
distinct conditions that the
Mr. Slaver: Is that sufficier
h'
Ms. Baker. Yes-,�'
r
'once to support reversal of any of the nine
has placed on General Development 151.
Mr. Staveo'Okay, thank you.
Attorney John Arnold: Just to clean up the record, also, we will provide you with copies
of Mr. Kottschades' letters and financial figures that would be presented as an exhibit to
the Planning staff.
Ms. Baker: Thank you
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING / r J
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Reports and Recommendations
Building Safety
F"-
1 DESCRIPTION: Reconsideration of the Abatement Order for the Property at 509 9`
PREPARED BY:
Avenue NW
D. Goslee
Following a public hearing on November 6, 2000, the council directed the city attorney's office to prepare the Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order relative to the abatement of the hazardous conditions at 509 9"' Avenue NW in
the City of Rochester. Included in that action was a requirement that the property owner raze and remove the structure
within 30 days.
The Court of Appeals recently considered an abatement order containing provisions similar to those you approved at
the last council meeting. The court decided, however, that an abatement order must provide the property owner an
option other than the demolition of the structures. In order to comply with the decision, the City's order'should recite
the precise steps that the property owner can take to make the property non -hazardous. This is somewhat problematic
in this case because the property has lost its non -conforming use and the failure to monitor the property is one of the
main concerns.
I discussed this matter with the Building Safety Department and amended the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order to include a renovation option containing those items that must be completed so that the property can be
considered non -hazardous. The renovation option requires the property owner to submit a renovation plan and
monitoring contract to Building Safety within 30 days of service of the Order. The renovation plan must include permit
applications and executed contracts with contractors licensed to perform the designated repairs.
NCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
A motion to reconsider can be made by one of the six council -members who voted in favor of the original findings.
The council should then approve the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order and direct the City
Attorney to proceed with this matter.
i
( ICIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
jq(
BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
In Re: Abatement Proceedings Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law,
for 509 90 Avenue N.W., and Order
City of Rochester, Minnesota.
On November 6, 2000, a public hearing was conducted, following publication and notice
to the owner of the property, before the Common Council of the City of Rochester, on the
question of whether the property located at 509 9i' Avenue NW in the City of Rochester
(hereinafter "the Property") should be considered a "hazardous building or hazardous property"
as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.15, Subd. 3 (1998).
Evidence, including a location map and photographs of the property, was presented by
Susan Legare-Gulden, Housing Inspector, who commented on the deteriorated condition of the
building and the garage. Ms. Legare-Gulden also provided proposed findings in the RCA
document. Sgt. Mike Vik of the Rochester Police Department provided information concerning
break-ins at the Property and apparent uninvited occupation. Deputy Chief Lyle Felsch,
Rochester Fire Department, provided general information on the impact vacant buildings have
on the department and gave his opinion that this property constitutes a fire hazard to neighboring
buildings and is unsafe for firefighters who would have to enter the building to check on
occupants. Sylvia Quirk, representing the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association, commented
1
on the danger this property poses to the neighborhood, particularly if it is occupied by uninvited
_.itrants. Jack Prow stated that he knows the owners and has maintained the property for
several years in hopes of acquiring it. He indicated that he is no longer maintaining the property;
that no one else is maintaining or monitoring the property; that the utilities are disconnected; that
the estate of the last occupants may not have ever been probated; and that the land is more
valuable without the 725 square foot building on it. No appearance was made by the owner or
anyone representing the owner.
Upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Common Council hereby makes the
following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Property located at 509 9ch Avenue NW, Rochester, Minnesota is owned by
s. Ronald Klee of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who has failed to respond to letters from the Building
Safety Department and City Attorneys office concerning the status and condition of the property.
2. The Property is the site of a 725 square foot single family residential structure that
has been vacant for approximately four years.
3. Until this year, the Property was maintained and monitored by Jack Prow who was
attempting to purchase it from the owner.
4. The Property has not been maintained or monitored since Jack Prow abandoned
efforts to purchase it; all utilities have been disconnected; and property taxes have not been paid
for 1999 or 2000.
2
lit
5. The Property is located in a relatively dense commercial/industrial neighborhood
and, as a result of non-use, has lost its non -conforming use status as a residential building.
6. The home and garage on the Property are in poor condition with damaged siding;
peeling paint; failing roof; rotted fascia and soffits; broken windows; red -tagged furnace; and the
porch is physically pulling away from the main portion of the home.
7. There is evidence of numerous uninvited occupancies in the home and garage,
with clothing, empty liquor and food containers, and other garbage littering the structures, even
after the City took action to secure the buildings.
8. The Property in its current state of disrepair is a hazard to fire department
personnel who may need to respond to a fire emergency and enter the structures.
9. The Property, as a result of the owner's failure to maintain and monitor its
condition and use, requires constant monitoring by law enforcement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, it is hereby
determined by the Common Council of the City of Rochester that the structures and Property
located at 509 9"' Avenue NW, Rochester, Minnesota, as a result of inadequate maintenance,
dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or abandonment, constitute a fire hazard or
a hazard to public safety or health in violation of Minnesota Statutes §463.15(3),
3
i9q
In particular, the council concludes that the Property is a fire hazard as it is occupied by
.scant buildings that are an attractive nuisance to uninvited occupants who may start fires; a fire
in this property is likely to result in damages to neighboring structures; and the property
constitutes a substantial risk to emergency fire response personnel.
In particular, the council concludes that the property is a safety hazard as it provides a
meeting place for uninvited entrants and is a hazard to anyone in or near the structure as
windows are broken; the roof is failing; the siding is damaged on both buildings; the porch is
physically separating from the main portion of the home; and portions of the home are rotting.
ORDER
Having determined that the structures and Property located at 509 9t' Avenue are
zardous, the Common Council of the City of Rochester hereby orders the record owner of the
above hazardous structures and Property, or its representative, to either raze and remove such
buildings within 30 days of service of this order (presumed to be December 26, 2000); or provide
a contract executed by a company or individual that provides for at least weekly inspection and
monitoring of the property and complete the following repairs:
1. Replace or repair deficient siding;
2. Repaint all structures on the property;
1 Replace or repair the failing roof,
4. Replace all rotting facia and soffits;
5. Replace all broken windows;
6. Replace red -tagged furnace; and
7. Repair and reattach porch.
If Owner elects to proceed under the second option (renovation), a plan that includes permit
0
applications for the intended work and executed contracts with licensed contractors to perform
the work must be submitted to the Building Safety Department along with the monitoring
agreement within 30 days of service of this Order (presumed to be by December 26, 2000).
The Council further orders that all personal property or fixtures that may unreasonably
interfere with the razing and removal of the building shall be removed by the owner. In the
absence of this removal, the City of Rochester may remove and sell such personal property or
fixtures at public auction in accordance with law.
The Council further orders that unless such corrective action is taken or an answer is
served upon the City of Rochester and is filed in the office of the Clerk of District Court of
Olmsted County, Minnesota, within twenty (20) days from the date of the service of this order, a
motion for summary enforcement of the order will be made to the District Court of Olmsted
County.
Dated 2000
be\abate\509.amd.fof
John Hunziker, President of the
Rochester City Council
5
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING &
DATE: 11 /20/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G
A DESCRIPTION: I PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ADKINS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
,�„t� ,mom^..«;- �•- r a 3 �n
1?% ' a) An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Section 66.101 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances,
Relating to the Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Regulating the Placement of Telecommunications
Facilities in Residential Zoning Districts within the City. �/
G.4. MISCELLANEOUS 33� .�"�1
W�
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to: