HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2000_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 30
REGULAR
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
cQ ` vv
DECEMBER 11, 2000
7:00 P.M.
(3-6) 1) Julie Senska Requests to be Heard RE: Installation of Traffic Signals
on 11t' Avenue SE
(7-8) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
(9-10)
2)
Council Consent of Property Transfer from Evanston Heights, Inc. to
Evanston Heights, LLC
(11-18)
3)
Disorderly Use Property Violations at 1570 - 50"' Street NW (#7) and
310 - 31' Street NE (#205)
(19-22)
4)
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
(23-24)
5)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
(25-26)
6)
On -Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor License for Dos Amigos, Inc.
(27-28)
7)
Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor forAndy's Marketplace Liquor, Inc.
(29-30)
8)
Approval of Accounts Payable
(31-32)
9)
Request Approval to Accept Bids for Anhydrous Ferric Chloride and
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
(33-34)
10)
Mileage Allowance
(35-36)
11)
RFD Preplan Assistant
(37-40)
12)
Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department
(41-42)
13)
Annexation by Ordinance Petition/City Council Initiated to Annex
Properties within Cascade Township that are 100% Surrounded by
the City of Rochester
(43-46)
14)
Roadway Name Change/Raechel Place NE to Viola Heights Drive NE
(47-48)
15)
Acceptance of Real Estate
(49-50)
16)
Development Agreement/Century Hills Development/Amendment
(51-52)
17)
Development Agreement/Wedgewood Hills 4"' Subdivision
(53-54)
18)
Revocable Permit for Quest Communications
Council Agenda
December 11, 2000
Page 2
(55-56)
19)
Contribution Agreement for Improvements to Substandard Streets (7`h
Street NW)/Western Walls, Inc.
(57-58)
20)
Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Lot 5, Block 2, Circle
Drive Business Center (Knowledge Beginnings Day Care)
(59-60)
21)
Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve the Riverside Central
Elementary School
(61-62)
22)
Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Amold Bomgaars Property
(63-64)
23)
Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Ruth H. Schultz and Dolly F. Churchill
Property
(65-66)
24)
Pedestrian Facility AgreementANayne & Marion Diekrager Property
(67-68)
25)
Pedestrian Facility Agreement/R & S Investments Property
(69-70)
26)
Stormwater Management Agreements
(71-78)
27)
Feasibility Report for Basic Construction to Serve Vacant Land in the
Sunnydale Subdivision
(79-84)
28)
Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Curb, Gutter and Overlay
on 22nd St. NE from 7t' Ave. to 10t' Ave., and 7d' - 10t" Avenues NE
from N. Heights Drive to 22nd Street NE and 21 sc Street
(85-86)
29)
Recommendation for a Hearing/Increase in ZIPS Fares
(87-88)
30)
CY 2001 ZIPS Funding Contracts
(89-96)
31)
Award of Bids/ZIPS Dial -A -Ride for 2001 and 2002 Operations
(97-98)
32)
Agreement for Park & Ride Lot/Northwest Plaza THE Realty
(99-100)
33)
Sublease of Rochester Airport Agricultural Land
E) HEARINGS
(101-102) 1)
Continued Hearing/Vacation Petition to Vacate 20' Wide Utility and
Drainage Easement Located Along South Line of Lots 3, 4, and 5 Bel
Air Eighth Subdivision
(103-104) 2)
Continued Hearing/Type III, Phase 11, Restrictive Development
Preliminary Plan by Waste Management to Permit Construction of
7,140 Square Foot Transfer Station
(105-106) 3)
Truth -in -Taxation Hearing for the Proposed 2001 Budget & Tax Levy
(107-148) 4)
Type 111, Phase 11, Incentive Development Preliminary Plan by
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. to Permit Construction of 5-Story, 132-
Unit Hotel Along North Side of West Center Street and Along West
Side of 4t' Avenue NW Between 4t' and 5"' Avenue NW
(149-168) 5)
Land Use Plan Amendment by Quinstar, LLP to Amend Rochester
Urban Service Land Use Plan to Change Designation of 12.10 Acres
from "Low Density Residential" to "Commercial"/North of Highway 52,
East of 11 rn Avenue SE (County Road 1)
Council Agenda
December 11, 2000
Page 3
(169-182) 6) Amendment to General Development Plan by Quinstar, LLP to Modify
Approved GDP to Reflect Commercial Uses on the 12.10 Acres in the
Southwest Corner of the GDP
(183-208) 7) Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) by
Payne Company to be Known as Century Hills Fifth Subdivision
(209-240) 8) Type III, Phase II, Amendment to Planned Unit Development (Barclay
Square) to Allow Construction of Convenience Store with Fuel Pumps
(241-246) 9) Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Elmcroft Subdivision Area
(247-252) 10) Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve Forest Hills Sub. Area
(253-258) 11) Project Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 40 Avenue NW from
Zumbro Drive to 31 st Street NW
(259-260) 12) Assessment Hearin?/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 4�' Avenue NW from
Zumbro Drive to 315.
1 s Street NW
(261-268) 13) Project Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 19"' Avenue NW from 19tt'
Street NW to Valley High Drive
(269-270) 14) Assessment Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 19"' Avenue NW from
19th Street NW to Valley High Drive
(271-276) 15) Project Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 151 Street SE from 13t"
Avenue SE to 15tt' Avenue SE
(277-278) 16) Assessment Hearing/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1st Street SE from
13tt' Avenue SE to 15th Avenue SE
(279-284) 17) Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Business Subsidy for MDC
Rochester, LLC/Airborne Freight Corporation Project
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(285-286) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETJNG
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
PREPARED BY:
S.KVENVOLD
This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of
their choice. The following guidelines apply:
• This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has
already been held as a public hearing.
• This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes.
• Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting.
• Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month.
• Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum.
• Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing.
VCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING `% /
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
LETTERS AND PETITIONS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
I! -!
I DESCRIPTION: JULIE SENSKA REQUESTS TO BE HEARD RE: INSTALLATION
PREPARED BY:
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON 1ITH AVENUE SE
S. KVENVOLD
Julie Senska, 5260 Timberidge Court SE, has requested an opportunity to be heard to request the installation of
traffic signals on I Vh Avenue SE.
The attached memo from Dave Rossman indicates that two traffic lights are scheduled for installation on I Vh
Avenue SE. Traffic signals are scheduled for installation on I Vh Avenue SE and Willow Creek Middle School
in 2001 and at the intersection of I I'h Avenue SE and 20`h Street SE in 2003.
I NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
TRAF F IC DIVISION
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 7, 2000
TO: Steve Kvenvold, City Administrator
FROM: David M. Rossman, Transportation Engineer
RE: Traffic Study for Willow Creek Middle School
Staff has completed a study of I I' Avenue SE from 20" Street to 24'" Street for the
purpose of determining locations for future traffic signals. Attached is a copy of that
study. It has been reviewed and approved by the County Engineer. This is the study that
PTSA representatives have requested to meet & discuss with the City Council on the First
Monday in December. There has been a project entered into the CIP for I I" Avenue for
this signal.
This study concludes that the first of two traffic signals should be at I I" Avenue & 24"
Street SE; which is the front of the school, and that it should be installed in 2001. The
second signal would be at I It' Avenue & AhStreet SE, and would be installed in 2003 in
conjunction with the pavement replacement The next steps are:
1. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been sent to the firm S.E.H. This will be on the
placed on the City Council agenda as son as it is returned.
2. A meeting is being arranged with the ISD 535 staff, the two school principals and the
PTSA representatives to review and discuss the study.
October 29, 2000
Steve Kvenvold
City of Rochester
201 4 St SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Dear Mr. Kvenvold:
A group of concerned citizens including PTSA representatives, students and
neighbors from the area of Willow Creek Middle School and Pinewood
Elementary are requesting time on the city council agenda to address traffic
concerns.
We would like to be included on the agenda the first Monday in December. We
will be presenting signed petitions and requesting immediate action by the city to
install traffic signal lights on 11"' Avenue SE. We understand you have many
pressing issues, but we can think of none greater than the safety of our children
and citizens.
Please confirm the time and date for our appearance before city council. We will
also be attending a county board meeting, as we know 11t' Ave is a county and
city road.
Sincerely,
Julie Senska
287-6003
5260 Timberidge Ct. SE
Rochester, MN 55904
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /
DATE: 12/ 11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D-1-33
DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVAL
OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
G. NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve
all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers
an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent
agenda
approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
D-1.
Approval of Minutes
D-2.
Council Consent of Property Transfer from Evanston Heights, Inc. to Evanston Heights, LLC
D-3.
Disorderly Use Property Violations at 1570 - 50th Street NW (0) and 310 - 3 1 " Street NE (#205)
` D-4.
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
D-5.
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-6.
On -Sale Intoxicating & Sunday Liquor License for Dos Amigos, Inc.
D-7.
Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor for Andy's Marketplace Liquor, Inc.
D-8.
Approval of Accounts Payable
D-9.
Request Approval to Accept Bids for Anhydrous Ferric Chloride and Liquid Aluminum Sulfate
D-10.
Mileage Allowance
D-11.
RFD Preplan Assistant
D-12.
Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department
D-13.
Annexation by Ordinance Petition/City Council Initiated to Annex Properties within Cascade Township
that are 100% Surrounded by the City of Rochester
D-14.
Roadway Name Change/Raechel Place NE to Viola Heights Drive NE
D-15.
Acceptance of Real Estate
D-16.
Development Agreement/Century Hills Development/Amendment
D-17.
Development Agreement/Wedgewood Hills 4 h Subdivision
D-18.
Revocable Permit for Quest Communications
D-19.
Contribution Agreement for Improvements to Substandard Streets (7`h Street NW)/Westem Walls, Inc.
D-20.
Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Lot 5, Block 2, Circle Drive Business Center
(Knowledge Beginnings Day Care)
D-21.
Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve the Riverside Central Elementary School
D-22.
Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Amold Bomgaars Property
D-23.
Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Ruth H. Schultz and Dolly F. Churchill Property
D-24.
Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Wayne & Marion Diekrager Property
D-25.
Pedestrian Facility Agreement/R & S Investments Property
NCIL ACTION: motor by: second by: to:
Request for Council Action
Approval of Consent Agenda Items
December 11, 2000
Page 2
D-26. Stormwater Management Agreements
D-27. Feasibility Report for Basic Construction to Serve Vacant Land in the Sunnydale Subdivision
D-28. Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Curb, Gutter and Overlay on 22"d St. NE from 7`h Ave. to 10`h
Ave., and 7ch - 10`h Avenues NE from N. Heights Drive to 22"d Street NE and 2151 Street
D-29. Recommendation for a Hearing/Increase in ZIPS Fares
D-30. CY 2001 ZIPS Funding Contracts
D-31. Award of Bids/ZIPS Dial -A -Ride for 2001 and 2002 Operations
D-32. Agreement for Park & Ride Lot/Northwest Plaza THE Realty
D-33. Sublease of Rochester Airport Agricultural Land
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12/ 11 /0
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Administration
D-a,
I DESCRIPTION Council consent of property transfer from Evanston Heights, Inc. to
PREPARED IB
Evanston Heights, LLC
T. Spaeth
At the present time, Evanston Heights, Inc. owns and operates the student housing complex known as Evanston
Heights that is located at the intersection of 8 Yz Street SE and 21" Avenue SE. Initially, the State deeded the land,
through the City, to Evanston Heights, Inc. for no compensation provided that the property continued to be used for
student housing.
At this time, Evanston Heights, Inc. is proposing to sell the property to Evanston Heights, LLC (owned primarily by
Joel Bigelow). The transfer has been approved by the State of Minnesota, and the new lender has asked that the City
consent to the transfer of the property also.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council approval of proposed property transfer from Evanston Heights,Inc. to Evanston Heights, LLC
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
jF DEC-�6-2L00 ii�:'1
h. .
�hsvlI�ad (1920-1990)
`'Sab®a �ossrci
jariies W. McNei&y Jr.
1-Aura 7. Seatbn
,, ; -FFowar3 f: �Egiaah
;�.,,�vS�epltai{a4f Rrigge
'fiAi Nfi %Anne Kircher
Heid1,I17J. Szatmary
'� Jestirldetein
a'
lkwska d & AmoeeWtAps
Atterurys at Law
December 6 )000
David Goslec, Attorney at I.aw
City Attorneys Office
'City of Rochester
Rochester, MN 55901
RE: Evanston Heights, inc.
Dear Mr. Goslec
Main Office
King on I)th Suite 134
Yt 1 Nix 4ti6
I a Gross, W I i4ne Sh
WR 'R.'-14WO
i A 60R 'w qh'
Branch Office
103 S Water St
1parta. Wl i465r,
60h 26U-507n
FAX n08 2ny in T7
VIA FACSIMILF. 507 287-797v
As we discussed, I represent Evanston Heights, Inc which owns and operate: the >tudent
housing complex adjoining the Rochester ('ummlmily College As I informed you, the titan, ,)I
Minnesota deeded land, through the City, to Evanston Heights, Inc titr no compensaunn <,,
long as the property continued to be used for student housing If It ceases to he ;u used
Evanston Heights, Inc. has to piuchase the real estate at fair market value it the land revcrt> u
the State of Minnesota. (See enclosed .[Line 19. 1987 Agreement )
As we discussed, various mortgage holders have entered into Repurchase Agreements ;.Op,-.
attached) whereby the mortgage holders have the right to purchase- the properr. :I I van:t,,n
Heights, Inc. does not.
At this time, Evanston Heights- Inc is selling the project to Fvanstun heights. [.I.(' a limited
liability company owned primarily by Joel Bigelow I'lhr transfir has been approve,i by the
State of Minnesota. The new tender has asked for Assignments of the Banks' interest u, Iht
Repurchase Agreements and believe that the City, as an onginal signatory shuuld ;onsenT ru
the Assignments. Copies of the Assignments are enclosed
Please review these documents and advise as soon as possible as to whether the ( itv of
Rochester will consent to the Assignments I understand that the Council will have le, apprtivc
of the Consent and will riot meet lentil DCL'Cmher 71. 2000 The closing on the sale is �chcdulrel
for this Friday, December S. Peel free to contact one with any questions Thank You.
.: Sincerely yours,
`i..,DOSSHARD & ASSOCIATES
JWNf ilk
McNeilly, Jr.
t.i pages ro jo(fo w
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING l 1 /
DATE: 1 2/ 11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
f_
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D _ 3
I DESCRIPTION: DISORDERLY USE PROPERTY VIOLATIONS AT 1570 50 ST.
NW (#7) AND 310 31IT. NE (#205)
PREPARED BY:
T. SPAETH
On November 27, 2000, the Rental Housing Complaint Board held public hearings relating to the properties located at
the above mentioned addresses, in which there have been 3 disorderly use violations cited within the past year. After
taking testimony from City staff, property managers and their representatives, the Rental Housing Complaint Board
made the finding that the property managers were doing everything under their control to comply with the City's
disorderly use provisions. The Board recommended not scheduling these items for a public hearing in front of the
Council.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
No Council action needed at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Rental Housing Complaint Board minutes from 11/27/00.
C ICIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
Io-�
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 28, 2000
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Terry A. Spaeth
SUBJECT: Rental Review Board Meeting Minutes from 11127/00 meeting to review disorderly
use property located at 310 315' St. NE (#205).
Members Present: John Hunziker, Dave Senjem
Others Present: Terry Spaeth, City Administration, Ron Boose & Susan LeGare Gulden, City
Building Safety, David Goslee, City Attorney, Officers Darrell Hildebrandt & Steve Franks, City Police
Dept., Ms. Mary Williams, property manager, Mr. Carl Anderson, attorney
On 11/27/00 the Rental Review Board held a public hearing on the disorderly use property located at
310 315` St. NE (#205) in Rochester. The property is owned by Rochester Square Ltd. Partnership and
is managed by Weis Management (Ms. Mary Williams, property manager).
The following is a synopsis of the testimony received by the Board
Prior to any testimony being presented, Mr. Spaeth indicated that he had a conversation with Mr.
Adkins (City Attorney) and Judge Joseph Chase related to the unlawful detainer hearing held before
Judge Chase on November 9, 2000. Mr. Spaeth explained that Judge Chase had found insufficient
evidence presented to evict the tenant (Mr. Storius Wilson). Judge Chase was to provide a letter to
Rental Housing Complaint Board (it was received this morning and will be attached to these
minutes).
Carl Anderson: Mr. Anderson indicated that he represents Rochester Square. His office had sent a
letter to Mr. Wilson (tenant) indicating that any further violations of his lease would lead to the
reinstitution of eviction proceedings. Mr. Anderson also indicated that the tenant has not received
any citations for violations up to this point.
Susan LeGare - Gulden: Ms. Gulden indicated that the property has a valid rental certificate, and
that the property managers have been very cooperative with the Building Safety Department.
Darrell Hildebrandt: Mr. Hildebrandt indicated that he had received a copy of the letter sent to the
tenant by Mr. Anderson.
Mary Williams: Ms. Williams explained that they do extensive background and criminal checks.
They also have leases in accordance with the Crime Free Multi Family Housing guidelines.
John Hunziker: Mr. Hunziker indicated that he feels this situation could be dealt with by the
submittal of a written action plan, and that this matter need not proceed to the City Council as a
public hearing.
David Goslee: Mr. Goslee explained the types of things that should be included in the written action
13"
plan.
Dave Senjem: Mr. Senjem made a motion to not proceed with this matter as a public hearing,
provided a written action plan is submitted to the City by December 6, 2000. Mr. Hunziker seconded
the motion. The motion carried 2.0.
14
33istrid Crourt jaf finnrsotca
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JOSEPH F. CHASE
JUDGE OE OISTR.cT COURT
November 22, 2000
Terry Spaeth
City of Rochester —Administration
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Rochester Square Apartments/Storus Wilson eviction matter
Dear Terry:
a ov EaNUENr cEN-=
OIJRTN 5TREET S01j rIS�
RO CN ES TER, MI NNESOTA 55904 3712
TELEPHONE 15G71 285.6154
Rochester Square Apartments initiated an unlawful detainer action and attempted to evict Mr. Wilson
because of noise complaints. I heard that matter on November 9, 2000. 1 heard evidence presented both by
Rochester Square Apartments and by Mr. Wilson, and ultimately decided that 1 had too little first-hand
information to evict Mr. Wilson. The downstairs neighbor who apparently was the most frequent complainant
regarding noise at Mr. Wilson's apartment was not present. The manager, who was present and testified,
had not heard the noise herself. I found the record insufficient for eviction.
It was at that point that the Rochester Square Apartments manager asked me what she should do if
the city took action on her rental certificate based on Mr. Wilson not being evicted. I advised her that, in my
view, she has done all she could do, in initiating and proceeding with the eviction action; that having fulfilled
that obligation I didn't see any basis for an adverse action on the rental certificate; and I told her that I would
make that clear to the city if some action were taken.
Today I received a telephone message that this issue had arisen. Hence, this letter.
I am enclosing a copy of the eviction summons and the order I signed (today) denying the eviction, to
evidence Rochester Square Apartments' actions regarding Mr. Wilson. Please contact me if I can be of any
further assistance
By the way, when I didn't immediately get you on the telephone today, and when I was unable to
reach Dave Goslee about this, I gave Terry Adkins a call to explain the situation. You may be getting a call
from him as well.
Very Truly Yqur�
seph F.-Chase
e of District Court
JFC:21k
cc City Attorney Terry Adkins
Mary Williams; mgr., Rochester Square Apartments
enclosure
STEVEN E. ROLSCH
C.ARL F .ANDERSON. JR.
MARK.l OSTR£M
DEBRA A. OROEHLER
.�.nti 111 %Ir IIA.VSON
November 16, 2000
Storus Wilson Jr.
310 3 I" Street NE Unit 205
Rochester, Mi 1 55906
ROLSCH & ANDERSON
LAW OFFICES
REPLY TO:
POST OFFICE BOX 199
423 THIRD AVENUE SOUTHEAST
ROCHESTER. MINN ESOTA 55903
TELEPHONE: (507) 290-1943
F.AX: (507) 2X0-42X3
Re: Rochester Square Apartments lease
Dear Mr. Wilson:
15� /
OFFICE LOCATION
KASSON, MINNESOTA 555
LAKE CITY, MINNESOTA 55U
ROCHESTER. MINNESOTA 539
,�uu rule. h:mdauA. non ,
As you know, my office represents Rochester Square. This time, we have received three disorderly
use notices from the city of Rochester. That was stating these notices, did not require you to vacate
the premises as we requested. More or less, terms we released still apply to you.
If there are further violations of your lease, Rochester Square will reinstitute an eviction proceeding
to have you immediately removed.
It is my understanding that your niece and her child have been staying at your apartment for some time
now. These individuals are not on your lease. Under paragraph 23 of your lease, permitting an
unauthorized persons to live in your unit constitutes material noncompliance. This is a basis for
eviction. These individuals need to leave your unit immediately. If they do not vacate, we will
reinstitute the eviction proceeding for this violation.
Let me reiterate that Rochester Square takes the right of all tenants to quiet use and enjoyment of their
apartments very seriously. Your actions in the past have violated other tenants rights. Further, your
actions in allowing other individuals to live in your lease, in violation of your lease terms, is not
acceptable.
Very truly yours,
ROLSCH & ANDERSON LAW OFFICES
Carl F. Anderson
Attorney at Law
CFA:tls
Enclosure
Cc: Rochester Square Apartments
R3A)j\-,Dar rel �Ai\debco-(\�
X
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 28, 2000
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Terry A. Spaeth
SUBJECT: Rental Review Board Meeting Minutes from 11127100 meeting to review disorderly
use property located at 1570 50'h Street NW (#7)
Members Present: John Hunziker, Dave Senjem, Mayor Canfield
Others Present: Terry Spaeth, City Administration, Ron Boose & Susan LeGare Gulden, City
Building Safety, David Goslee, City Attorney, Officer Darrell Hildebrandt, City Police Dept., Ms.
Bonnie Nelson, property manager, Ms. Kera McGee, resident manager
On 11127100 the Rental Review Board held a public hearing on the disorderly use property located at
1570 50'h St. NW(#7) in Rochester. The property is owned by Innsbruck Ltd. and is managed by
PEMBCO Management. (Ms. Nelson, property manager)
The following is a synopsis of the testimony received by the Board:
Prior to any testimony being presented, Mr. Spaeth indicated that he had a conversation with Mr.
Ron Sellnow (PEMBCO President) who indicated he would be unable to attend this meeting due to
jury duty. He indicated that their agency does extensive criminal and background checks, and that in
fact, they have a number of vacant units at the present time because they feel they do not have
qualified persons to rent those units to at this time.
Bonnie Nelson: Ms. Nelson indicated that the tenant who received the first two disorderly use
notices was removed from the unit on April 30, 2000. She indicated that the unit remained vacant
until September 18, 2000 when Ms. Stacy Googins moved into the unit, Ms. Nelson indicated that a
disorderly use notice was issued on October 9, 2000 and another on October 20, 2000. They did not
receive these notices until October 23, 2000. She expressed a concern over the timing of receiving
the 2 notices. Ms. Nelson also indicated the tenant (Ms. Googins) has rpvided notice to leave the
unit on November 30, 2000. Ms. Nelson went on to explain that the tenant lives next door to a person
who has a medical condition and that person is sensitive to noise. Ms. Nelson indicated that they try
to deal with this, but is somewhat difficult to do because if you move the person with the medical
condition to a different unit, you are only moving the potential problem. She also indicated that their
firm does extensive background and criminal checks on prospective tenants.
Susan LeGare - Gulden: Ms. Gulden indicated that the property has a valid rental certificate, and
that the property managers have cooperative with the Building Safety Department.
John Hunziker: Mr. Hunziker indicated that he feels this situation could be dealt with by the
submittal of a written action plan, and that this matter need not proceed to the City Council as a
public hearing. He indicated that it is his opinion that the property manger has done everything
possible to ensure that the property remains compliant with the City's disorderly use provisions.
1117
Dave Seniem: Mr. Senjem made a motion to not proceed with this matter as a public hearing,
provided a written action plan is submitted to the City by December 6, 2000. Mr. Hunziker seconded
the motion. The motion carried 2-0.
Meeting
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 12/11/0
AGENDA SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO
CONSENT AGENDA
D
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
Consideration of Public Utility Board Action
Kathy Wilson
The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on November 28, 2000 and requests
the Common Council's favorable consideration:
to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Northern States Power
Company (d/b/a/ Feel Energy) and the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power
Agency (SMMPA), subject to agreement by all parties, for Supplemental Settlement
Agreement for the 161kV Upgrade of Transmission Line Q1, and that the Common
Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement. The
amount of the contract agreement is estimated to be not less than $750,000.00, with
the total sum representing the expected reasonable direct costs of the upgrade
project.
to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Alstom USA,
Inc., for outdoor circuit breakers. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be
S 164,670.00 and Alstom USA, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder.
GENERAL MANAGER:
✓
' OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agenda Item # Meeting Date: 11/28/00
SUBJECT:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Supplemental Settlement Agreement
161kV Upgrade ofTransmi sion Line Q1
Greg Woodworth
Engineering Manager
When Northern States Power Company announced their intent to merge with New Centuries Energy and
form Xcel Energy, hearings were held before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
SMMPA intervened in the merger proceedings. As part of SMMPA's settlement agreement with NSP,
NSP agreed to upgrade RPU's QI transmission line from Silver Lake to Chester Substations in order to
mitigate market power that may exist after the merger.
The FERC reviews mergers to assure that the merged entity cannot unfairly manipulate the electric power
system to their benefit. The studies submitted with the merger documents showed that our Q1 line would
be likely to be overloaded and limit the free usage of the electric power system. To eliminate this potential
overload, FERC has ordered NSP to eliminate certain constraints on the electric power system. To that
end this agreement calls for the current conductor to be replaced with larger conductor raising the line
capacity from 186 MVA to 277 MVA. The larger conductor will require that the existing line be
completely demolished and rebuilt.
NSP must complete and execute the attached agreement with RPU and SMMPA and disburse the funds to
RPU by December 11, 2000. In order for the agreement to be fully executed this calendar year, it must be
approved by the RPU Board at this time so that the City Council can approve the agreement no later than
it's December 18i° meeting. The final amount will be clarified as soon as possible.
The planning estimate given to NSP in July 1999 was 1.2 million dollars. The final engineer's estimate of
the cost of the upgrade project is being determined at this time by Bums and McDonnell Engineering is
and RPU staff. When the final engineer's estimate is completed, NSP Transmission Engineering will
review the estimate for reasonableness. At that time, the total sum blank of the attached contract will be
filled in and the contract fully executed.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED•
It is recommended that the Board request the Common Council to approve the Supplemental Settlement
Agreement with NSP and SMMPA subject to agreement by all parties for a total sum of not less than
$750,000, with the total sum representing the expected reasonable direct costs of the upgrade project.
136teral Manager Date
FOR BOARD ACTION
Agendaltem# 3.a. Meeting Date: 11/28/00
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF BIDS
OUTDOOR CIRCUIT BREAKERS
I PREPARED BY: Neil Stiller ',J S
Senior Electrical Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Bids were opened on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 for furnishing three outdoor power circuit breakers.
These breakers will be used for the Cascade Creek Substation 161kV conversion project. Five bids were
received and all met the specifications.
Alstom USA, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder. In addition, RPU purchased six of these breakers for
previous projects and therefore additional spare parts are not necessary.
UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that the Utility Board request Common Council approval of a purchase order agreement
with Alstom USA, Inc. for $164,670.
l evtewed, t t-t-(-00 WM-T,
neral Manager ate
N ' 1
I
I NI
I
ul
»
a
ei
i
Y
n
'
II
I
i;
I
� I
Ali
N
'gi
NI
/I
n
I
L i
i w,
$1
A
CFi
yy
»
Ll1
N
1
A
I
C
A
1
.G
Y
O
O
O
ct.
IGI
M
»
m
Y
I
m
'
€
I
WI
f0
Iq
G '
W
a'
s
�
m
m
ill
1YJ�1
yQ)l I
U
B
O
Y.IW
I�
ipl
LL �:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING R3
DATE: 12/ 11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
D _ S
1 DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
PREPARED BY:
DONNAJSCHOTT
The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or
disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding
debts with the City of Rochester.
GAMBLING — TEMPORARY
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
438 Sandy Lane
Red Wing Mn 55066
Raffle 2/3/01 AT
Radisson Plaza Hotel
150 S/ Bdwy
Rochester Mn 55904
(PLEASE WAIVE 30 DAY WAITING PERIOD)
OFF SALE 3.2 BEER LICENSE
Nguyen's Oriental Food Stare
1014 N Bdwy
Rochester, Mn 55906
MISCELLANEOUS STREET USE
NAACP
Martin Luther King March 1/15/01 12:00 PM to I :00 PM
Start at Government Center to Mayo Civic Center
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above license and miscellaneous activities.
VCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
i
MEETING Q?SS
DATE: 12/1 1 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
I CITY CLERK
ITEM NO.
D - tP
I DESCRIPTION: ON SALE INTOXICATING & SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE
PREPARED BY:
FOR DOS AMIGOS INC.
DONNA J scxoTT
Application for an Intoxicating Liquor and Sunday License has been received from Pantalco'n Mata. The name
of the business is Dos Amigos, Inc. DBA Dos Amigos Mexican Restaurant located at 1726 37d' St. NW. The
restaurant will open on or around January 1, 2001.
Issuance of the license is pending all departmental approvals, insurance certificates and all required fees.
Completion of a confidential investigative report on the applicant has come back satisfactorily.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve an intoxicating and Sunday liquor license for Dos Amigos Mexican Restaurant.
4CILACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 0
DATE: 1 Z/11/00�
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY CLERK
ITEM NO.
D _ n
I DESCRIPTION: OFF SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR FOR ANDY'S
PREPARED BY:
MARKETPLACE LIQUOR, INC.
DONNA J SCHOTT
Application for an Off -Sale Intoxicating Liquor has been received from Cheryl Ann LeToumeau DBA
Andy's Marketplace Liquor, Inc. The location of the Liquor Store will be at 41" St NW Lot 3, Block I of
Rochester Marketplace.
Issuance of the license is pending all departmental approvals. insurance certificates and all required fees owing
the City of Rochester. Completion of a confidential investigative report on the applicant has come back
satisfactorily.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for Andy's Marketplace Liquor, Inc.
VCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING �g
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
t>„ 8
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 $3,518,723.65.
Less: Any exceptions
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 3I
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
D- I
0 DESCRIPTION: REQUEST APPROVAL TO ACCEPT BIDS FOR ANHYDROUS
PREPARED BY:
FERRIC CHLORIDE AND LIQUID ALUMINUM SULFATE
Jennifer King
The Water Reclamation Plant requests approval to accept the lowest Bid from the following vendors for
one years supply as listed in the specifications:
LIQUID ALUMINUM SULFATE — approximately 540 tons
GENERAL CHEMICAL, 90 East Halsey Rd, Parsippany, NJ $87,480.00
EAGLE BROOK, INC. Matteson, IL NO BID
HAWKINS CHEMICAL, 3100 E Hennipen Ave., Mpls., MN $ 91,800.00
Accept the Bid of General Chemical as LOW BID.
ANHYDROUS FERRIC CHLORIDE — approximately 500 tons
EAGLE BROOK, INC., Matteson, IL $175,000.00
HAWKINS CHEMICAL, INC 141,500.00
GENERAL CHEMICAL NO BID
Accept the bid of HAWKINS CHEMICAL as LOW BID.
COUNCIL ACTION
Water Reclamation Plant requests the acceptance of the General Chemical as low bidder for the amount of
$87,480.00 for one years supply of LIQUID ALUMINUM SULFATE and the bid of Hawkins Chemical
for the amount of $141,500.00 for one years supply of ANHYDROUS FERRIC CHLORIDE.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 33
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Human Resources
D - tO
DESCRIPTION: Mileage Allowance
PREPARED BY:
Linda Gilsru
The IRS has increased the allowable deduction for reimbursable mileage effective 1/1/01.
In order to provide a competitive mileage allowance rate to City employees who drive their own vehicles for
work -related purposes, we recommend an increase in the City's mileage reimbursement rate from S.32/mile to
$.34/mile effective 1/1/01.
Council Action Requested:
Resolution authorizing an increase in the mileage reimbursement rate from $.32/mile to $.34/mile effective
1/l/01
C XIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING v3 5-
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Human Resources
D - U
7 DESCRIPTION: RFD Preplan Assistant
PREPARED BY:
Linda Gils
A position titled Preplanning Assistant is available to accommodate Kenneth Bee who is unable to perform the duties
of a firefighter because of an injury.
The Fire Department is proposing that the position of Preplan Assistant be authorized for Kenneth Bee. He is
physically able and qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, Preplan Assistant.
The Preplan Assistant position is authorized for Mr. Bee only. Reauthorization would have to occur if Mr. Bee no
longer holds the position.
Council Action Requested:
Resolution authorizing the position of Preplan Assistant in the Rochester Fire Department for Kenneth Bee
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 3 /
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent
Human Resources
b _ I;L-
I DESCRIPTION: Appointments - Police Officer - Police Department
PREPARED BY:
L GILSR
The City of Rochester Police Department received approval through the
Universal Hiring Grant, therefore five (5) new positions for Police Officer
have been created upon approval of this grant.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Section 9.0 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter states that the Mayor appoints all members of the
Rochester Police Department. Pursuant to that authority, the mayor has appointed JEFFREY,
SOBCZAK, SYLVIA QUIRK, JASON TIMM, JOSHUA THOMPSON AND ANGELA KREYE
to the position of Police Officer in the Rochester Police Department effective December 18, 2000.
This information is given to the Council, so that Council members are aware of the appointments.
NCIL ACTION: Mown by: second by: to:
3�
howd ROCHESTER
i
POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BOB MOORE JOY FOGARTY MICHELLE LEAK
December 1, 2000
Honorable Mayor Canfield
City Hall
Rochester. Minnesota 55904
Dear Mayor Canfield,
.tip \11�'1FA. 1111.
The Rochester Police Department received approval through the Universal Hiring Grant to
hire an additional eight (8) new additional police officers. Three (3) appointments were
made in July, 2000. The remaining five (5) appointments are requested for December,
2000.
We respectfully request that you make five (5) appointments to the position of Police
Officer from the following list of candidates who stand highest on the Police Officer
Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates:
1. Jeffrey S. Sobczak
2. Sylvia J. Quirk
3. Jason M. Timm
4. Joshua G. Thompson
5. Angela M. Kreye
Police Chief Roger Peterson requests that these appointments be effective December 18,
2000.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joy Fogarty
Secretary
Police Civil Service Commission
An Equa(Oppartunity Empfcyer
CoPS un�verscd
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Offer of the Dirretar
100 Vemonf Ave. IVW
Waehingron. DC 20530
May 12, 2000
Chief Roger Peterson
Rochester, City of
101 SE 4th Street
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Grant for: MN05501 Rochester, City of 95CCwX0232
Dear Chief Peterson:
7s with great pleasure that I write to inform you that your Department will
receive a COPS Universal Hiring Program grant award for 8 new, additional full-time
officer(s) and 0 part-time officer(s) at an estimated cost of $600,000.00. This is an
estimated amount of federal funds to be awarded to your jurisdiction for a three-year
period. The grant award start date is May 1, 2000 which means that you can be
reimbursed for salaries and expenses of additional officer(s) hired after this date.
If you have not previously received a COPS Universal Hiring award, your
Universal Hiring Program budget information currently is being reviewed. Upon budget
approval, we will forward to you your Universal Hiring Program Award, budget
clearance memorandum and Grant Owner's Manual. The memorandum will provide the
actual award amount and will identify any disallowed costs such as uniforms or
overtime. Some departments also will receive COPS assistance in developing
community -policing strategies. If this condition applies, a special notice pertaining to
technical assistance will be enclosed. You must sign and return it to the COPS Office
along with your grant award. To accept your grant, please sign the award document and
special condition, if applicable, and return it to the COPS Office within 90 days.
C
�O NE f05501
Rochester, City of
May 12, 2000
Page 2
If you have previously received a COPS FAST, AHEAD, or Universal Hiring
Program, this grant award will.supplement your previous award. Upon budget approval
for the additional officers, you will receive a supplemental grant award which will
provide your actual award amount for this announcement. To accept your grant, please
sign the award document and return it to the COPS Office within 90 days. Failure to
submit the signed award document in this 90 day period could result in COPS
withdrawing you from the grant program and de -obligating your agency from the grant
.�
If you requested a waiver of the 25% local match, such requests are currently
under review. You will be notified whether a waiver has been granted at the time your
Universal Hiring Program Award and budget clearance memorandum is sent to you.
We are pleased that your Department has elected to participate in the Universal
Hiring Program and look forward to working with you in a productive partnership to
further your community policing efforts. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact the COPS Office at 1-800-421-6770. Your grant advisor will be happy
to provide you with assistance.
�Sincerely,
Thomas Frazier
Director
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �/ '
DATE: 12-11-00
�Qllu„ ace, r wrv: 1 ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING ABY
'--M DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #00-11 City Council Initiated to PREPAREex properties within Cascade Township that are 100% surrounded by the City of Theresa Frcv�hester. The annexation includes properties within Sections 8, 9, 15, 21, 28, 29, and 32, Plann
Cascade Township. The annexation is proposed to become effective January 1, 2002.
December 5, 2000
Amend Ordinance #3354, correcting an error in the legal description as follows:
All of 55" STREET ESTATES FIRST SUBDIVISION, except for Lot 2, Block 5, according to the plat thereof
on file at the County Recorder's Office, Olmsted County, Minnesota.
Council Action Needed:
If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance amending Ordinance No. 3354 by correcting an error in the legal description
and transmit to the MN Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Amended Legal Description
Planning Department File
Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 11, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the
Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING �3
DATE: 12-1 1-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
D _ f
N DESCRIPTION: Roadway name change: Raechel Place N.E. to Viola Heights Drive N.E.
PREPARED BY:
Janice K. Chezick,
GIS Supervisor
The plat for Northern Heights North First contains a roadway designated as Raechel Place N.E., which is a
continuation of Viola Heights Drive N.E. located in Northern Heights North Townhomes First, Northern Heights
North Townhomes Second, and Northern Heights North Townhomes Third. The AddressinglGIS Staff of the
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department would recommend that this short segment of Raechel Place N.E. be
changed to match the existing roadway name of Viola Heights Drive N.E.
There are four lots that abut this short segment of Raechel Place N.E.; Lot 1, Block 4 (Subdivided as of 12-21-99
as Parcel "A" and Parcel "B") and Lot 2, Block 3 (Subdivided as of 12-21-99 as Parcel "A" and Parcel 'B") of
Northern Heights North First Subdivision. These lots have been pre -assigned addresses designated as Viola
Heights Drive N.E. in preparation of the future development.
A new roadway sign of Viola Heights Drive N.E. will need to be erected at the intersection of this segment of
roadway and Rocky Creek Drive N.E.
Recommendations of street identification changes are covered by Rochester Code of Ordinances, Chapter 31.32.
Street name changes are covered by Rochester Code of Ordinances, Chapter 75.01.
ouncil Action Requested:
1. Adopt an Ordinance to change Raechel Place N.E., platted in Northern Heights North First, to Viola Heights
Drive N.E.
2. Direct the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the Ordinance with County Recorder.
3. Request motion to approve and include 1" and 2"d Reading on December 11, 2000. This request is based on
the immediate need to install new roadway signage, as soon as possible, to avoid confusion or delay to
emergency responders and the general public. In addition, new structures are in the process of being built
on the above properties that reflect Viola Heights Drive N.E. addresses.
Attachments:
1. Copies of two plats that identify location of roadways are attached. (Northern Heights North First and
Northern Heights North Townhomes Third.)
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
— JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
44 1
/
1
r s1n.
4
e.
x.
yi•
3i
! t
Qyp
5�
^•Y�B� �4� Ate+ lllY
C 4 1
1
w: o
l + I n =
OOT61 S9.80AZI
LS'Ki
b$ o31LN7dNn
1` M
N
R G
q
k7 A r
\�VV�Vh��/// R A
q
1ExF
0'Ra
EF^
.4
:
AE
deaf
-
f
r
'
ab
E
•rEe.
E
FPr
aEor.
P,
;ar
•
888PA88
88888
88888
8888
8
88
�PA
of
l
1P[i Elfa11 gasi ftll; y y';;
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q%
DATE: 12111 /00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Public Works
D—(t^j
M DESCRIPTION: Real Estate —Acceptance of Real Estate.
PREPARED BY:
M. Nigbur
The City and Roger Payne have had discussions relating to unused property which he owns
along 33r0 Street NW, Mr. Payne has agreed to donate a yet undetermined sized parcel of land
to the City at no cost. Staff has determined that this parcel could have several different public
uses and would suggest the City Council accept the donation of this parcel. The parcel donated
to the City would be conveyed to the City at a future date once the City staff has determined the
amount needed.
TH 52
r3srNw
Q �ABfR
Property
Dmthe C'
a� rw wv
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution accepting the property from Mr. Payne and authorizing the City Staff to complete the
land transfer at a future date.
UNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D—((v
I DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Century Hills Development —
PREPARED BY:
AMENDMENT
} M. Nigbur
The Owners of the Century Hills Development and the City Staff have had discussions relating to
amending the existing Development Agreement. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the timing
of the construction of the secondary access required for the development and to outline details
providing City services in exchange for donated real estate.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement Amendment. The developers
have executed the agreement.
WI GE CT NE
O
CE E F r
a.
1
2 E
W
Century HilIs Develop Tent E er NE
Induded w th this agreement
X�N
qP 2m
1P
E
Secondary
Rcedway s
Cent ry Hills D lopment
Inducted with a FutUeAgrPgeement
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement Amendment for the
Century Hills Development
1 NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �f
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
a — (07
A DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Wedgewood Hills 4" Subdivision
P PARED BY:
M. Nigbur
The Owners of the Wedgewood Hills 4" Subdivision area, located along 50rd Avenue NW, and City Staff
have had discussions relating to impacts of the project on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the
discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been
created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following:
• Pedestrian facilities within and abutting the development.
• Dedication of right of way along 501" Avenue NW.
• Parkland dedication
• Payment of development/connection related charges including SAC, WAC, and
Substandard Street/TID.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developer has executed the
agreement.
L N-4
NM
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Wedgewood Hills
41" Subdivision area.
I NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 53
DATE: 12111 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
D_l8
0 DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit for Quest Communications
P7PARED BY:
M. Nigbur
Quest Communications have asked the City of Rochester for a Revocable Permit to place an
underground telephone utility line within City of Rochester Property (NW RPU Substation). The utility
will be located approximately 60 feet from the Centerline of 50" Avenue NW & 551h Street NW. The
Owner also understands the possibility of requiring removal of the utility at some future date at their
cost.
Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. In
addition to the standard conditions the permit should also state the following:
• Coordination and timing of construction with RPU is required.
• Restoration of disturbed areas.
• The Owner agrees to pay the City of Rochester $62.25 for document preparation and recording.
u
55th Street
RPU Substation
Quest Communication
Underground Utility
EIDY
SOth Avenue 7
w
x 1tE0.E
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the revocable permit.
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
5150
12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D-19
M DESCRIPTION: Contribution Agreement for Improvements to Substandard
PIRTEEPARED BY: ism
Streets (7` St NW) —Western Walls, Inc.
M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Contribution Agreement for consideration by the Council:
• Western Walls, Inc. is the Owner of Lots 1 through 6, Block 1 Diamond Ridge Fourteen; Lot 13,
Block 2, Diamond Ridge Seventeen; and Lots 1 through 4, Block 3, Diamond Ridge Seventeen.
• The Owner has requested that a Contribution Agreement be approved to address the Owner's
obligations with regard to charges for the improvements to 7" St NW, abutting the Owner's
property.
Glen Ln
7t�StNW
a <
rn
b
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Contribution Agreement with
Western Walls, Inc., for the above noted property.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
5i
12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
L) -a0
I DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Lot 5, Block 2, Circle
PREPARED BY:
Drive Business Center [Knowledge Beginnings Day Care] (J9762)
M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Knowledge Beginnings, Inc. (Owner) & The Excavators of Rochester, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a
City / Owner Contract J9762 consisting of "Watermain & Hydrants to Serve Lot 5, Block 2, Circle Drive
Business Center (Knowledge Beginnings Day Care)".
i
CD
fi
Q-
(D
G
J9762
KnoWedge Begiredngs
Property
W
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9762
"Watermain & Hydrants to Serve Lot 5, Block 2, Circle Drive Business Center (Knowledge Beginnings
Day Care)".
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
sq
12/11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract - Basic Construction to Serve the Riverside
PREPARED BY:
Central Elementary School' (J9754)
I Pi M. Baker "�
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Rochester Independent School District *535 (Owner) & Market & Johnson, Inc. (Contractor) are
requesting a City / Owner Contract J9754 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve the Riverside
Central Elementary School".
qth StgE — -- - -- -
9th St SE "���
Bennerrtay S&cd Site
J9754
�I
ITTF
¢
----- _
---_ —__ 9hStSEPT
n
I
I
I E�� I
Li
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9754
'Basic Construction to Serve the Riverside Central Elementary School'.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works7
VI DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facility Agreement —Arnold Bomgaars Property
PREPARED BY:
M. Baker w
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
• Arnold Bomgaars is the Owner of Lot 4, Block 4, Northern Heights North Second Subdivision. The
Owner has requested that a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement be approved to address the Owner's
obligations with regard to providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage
of the property abutting Glendale Hills Dr NE.
d-
R)Cky ceek a NE
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement
with Arnold Bomgaars for Lot 4, Block 4, Northern Heights North Second.
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING �3
DATE: 12/11 /00
AGENDA ECTION: NGCONSENTAGENDA I ORIGINAPublicDWorks ITEMto ,
M DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facility Agreement — Ruth H. Schultz and Dolly F. PREPARED BYA
Churchill Property �( I I) M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
Ruth H. Schultz & Doily F. Churchill are the Owners of the north 220 feet of the east''/2 of vacated
4" Ave SW, adjacent to Block 2, Golden Hill Addition, and the west 87 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Golden
Hill Addition. 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 property abutting 16" St SW.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement
with Ruth H. Schultz & Dolly F. Churchill for the north 220 feet of the east '/ of vacated 4" Ave SW,
adjacent to Block 2, Golden Hill Addition, and the west 87 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, Golden Hill Addition.
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
�s
12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
p—;'q
IA DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facility Agreement — Wayne & Marion Diekrager
PREPARED BY:
Property
M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
• Wayne & Marion Diekrager are the Owners of Lot 3, Block 2, Peck's Hills Third 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 property abutting 19" St NE.
—Northern-Heights-I`'
19th St N
2
s
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement
with Wayne & Marion Diekrager for Lot 3, Block 2, Peck's Hills Third Subdivision.
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6*?
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA Public V I D—a s
d DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facility Agreement — R & S Investments Property PREPARED BY:
I Baker
Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council:
• R & S Investments is the Owner of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Eastgate Commercial Park First
Subdivision. The Owner has requested that a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement be approved to
address the Owner's obligations with regard to providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the entire frontage of Eastgate Or SE, and a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the
entire frontage of the property abutting the South Frontage Road of T.H. 14.
EasWe Cm dal P�
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement
with R & S Investments for Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Eastgate Commercial Park First Subdivision.
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
0
12/11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
D-;tf
M DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS
BY:
2PRPARED
M. Baker
The Department of Public Works has received requests on three (3) different properties, to
voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. This department
has reviewed the information for these properties and has determined that there is support for
participation. Owners of the following properties have requested voluntary participation in the
City's Plan, with the applicable participation fee as follows:
• Wendy's International (SDP#00-46)
(Lot 3, Block 1, Menards North Subdivision) $ 5,209.27
• R & S Investments (SDP#00-87)
(Lot 2, Block 1, Eastgate Commercial Park 1st) $ 4,748.16
• Adler Sports (SDP#00-93)
(Lot 2, Block 1, J L Replat) $ 1,721.34
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.
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENTAGENDA
M DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING It
DATE: 12/-8/00
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works D-P-1
the Sunnydale Subdivision
Construction to Serve Vacant
,RED BY:
Wellner
This feasibility report is for the construction of water main and sanitary sewer to serve vacant land
currently inside the City's Corporate Urban Service Area in Sunnydale Subdivision and vacant land
abutting the Sunnydale Subdivision. The residences of the Sunnydale Subdivision have petitioned for
sewer and water service as part of the Water Quality Protection Program, which is scheduled for
construction in 2003. This project will provide sewer and water links between the existing sewer and
water systems and the future systems the serve the Water Quality Protection Program participants.
The land owned by the Thompson Estate and the parcels on which the First Pentecostal Church of
Rochester will build are platted. The Louise Thompson parcel will be platted for residential
construction. Petitions have been received for each of these three parcels. A petition was filed by the
Pentecostal Church with the City and referred to the Department of Public Works by the Council on
September 18, 2000. A petition was filed by representatives of the Thompson Estate with the City and
referred to the Department of Public Works by the Council on November 6, 2000. Representatives for
the Louise Thompson parcel made verbal petition to Public Works on November 21, 2000. This report
is the report to the City Council on the feasibility of the requested sanitary sewer, subdrain and water
main extension. In addition, the appropriate street restoration and curb and gutter and sidewalk
improvements are included in the project.
The estimated costs of the project, J-9760 are as follows
Sanitary Sewer
$200,980
Water Main
$168,090
Service Connections
$17,940
Subdrain
$30,420
Curb & Gutter/Street
$54,275
Concrete Sidewalk
$10,322
Bituminous Path
$14,365
Total Project Cost
$496,392
This project is not in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Program, but the WQPP portion of the
project is indicated in the 2003 CIP. The costs will be collected through special assessments and
connection charges plus city share as follows:
Water Quality Protection Program
$257,262.37
Pentecostal Church
$64,605.61
Victory Baptist Church
$53,825.42
Thompson Property
$92,035.80
City Share for Trunk Line Oversize
$3,990.00
City Share for Corner Lot Credit
$24,672.80
TOTAL
$496,392.00
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution establishing a Project Hearing for February 5, 2001.
3. Adopt a resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the Project.
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to
W--
►,
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE
WATER MAIN & SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
TO SERVE VACANT LAND IN SUNNYDALE.
December 7, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing the following project:
Extension of Water Main and Sanitary Sewer to serve vacant land currently inside the
City's Corporate Urban Service Area in Sunnydale Subdivision owned by First
Pentecostal Church of Rochester and by Robert Thompson Estate and vacant land
abutting the Sunnydale Subdivision owned by Louise Thompson. The residences of the
Sunnydale Subdivision have petitioned for sewer and water service as part of the Water
Quality Protection Program, which is scheduled for construction in 2003. This project
will provide sewer and water links between the existing sewer and water systems and the
future systems the serve the Water Quality Program participants The land owned by the
Thompson Estate and the parcels on which the First Pentecostal Church of Rochester will
build are platted. The Louise Thompson parcel will be platted for residential
construction. Petitions have been received for each of the three parcels. A petition was
filed by the Pentecostal Church with the City and referred to the Department of Public
Works by the Council on September 18, 2000. A petition was filed by representatives of
the Thompson Estate with the City and referred to the Department of Public Works by the
Council on November 6, 2000. Representatives for the Louise Thompson parcel made
verbal petition to Public Works on November 21, 2000 for additional area to be served.
This is a report to the City Council on the feasibility of the requested sanitary sewer,
subdrain and water main extension.
Feasibility Report
We report that this project is feasible. The location of this project is within the City's
Urban Service Area. The Pentecostal Church petitioner proposes to construct a church on
their site early in 2001 (April). The Thompson parcels petitions proposed to begin
construction of homes in early 2001. The proposed utility extension project would allow
the properties to develop with public sewer and water main.
This project has not been budgeted for in the City's 2000 or 2001 Capital Improvement
Program. The costs of this project should be paid from special assessments/connection
charges collected from the benefiting properties and city share totaling $28,662.80.
Currently, sanitary sewer and water main are located within County Road 109 SE
approximately 400 feet south of Sheffield Lane SE and also at the intersection of
Strathmore Lane SE and the eastern segment of Sheffield Lane SE.
13 i
- 2 - DECEMBER 7, 2000
The proposed sanitary sewer for this project consists of the installation of an 8-inch
sanitary sewer line within the County Road 109 SE right of way from the existing sewer
northerly approximately 700 feet to the northerly line of the Pentecostal Church parcel.
Sanitary sewer is also proposed both northerly and easterly of the Strathmore Lane SE
and Sheffield Lane SE intersection. The northerly sanitary sewer extension will be
approximately 600 feet along Strathmore Lane. The easterly extension will be
approximately 500 feet to Sunnydale Lane SE. In addition, a 100-foot long extension
will be constructed near the northeast corner of the Pentecostal Church parcel. This 100-
foot segment will be connected to the Water Quality Protection Program work when
constructed. In the interim, the street construction in this area can be completed and
minimum future disturbance of the street will be required for the Water Quality
Protection Program work.
The proposed water main for this project consists of the installation of 8-inch water main
from the existing 12-inch water main northerly along County Road 109 SE to the
northern property line of the Pentecostal Church parcel. An 8-inch water main along
Sheffield Lane SE is required from County Road 109 to Strathmore Lane SE and a 12-
inch water main from Strathmore Lane SE to Sunnydale Lane SE for fire protection and
service for the remaining portions of the Sunnydale Subdivision and the Thompson parcel
Louise Thompson parcel. In addition, an 8-inch water main is required along Strathmore
Lane SE from the existing water main at Sheffield Lane SE to the northerly line on the
Pentecostal Church parcel. The total length of the water main extension project is
approximately 570 feet of 12-inch and 2,200 feet of 8-inch water main.
A subdrain will be constructed parallel to the proposed sanitary sewer in Strathmore Lane
SE. Subdrain is not proposed in the other segments of the project.
Concrete curb and gutter will be constructed in Sheffield Lane SE and Strathmore Lane
SE abutting the Pentecostal Church, Victory Baptist Church and the Thompson parcels.
No concrete curb will be installed along the easterly side of Strathmore Lane SE or along
the segment of Sheffield Lane SE east of Strathmore Lane SE. This is consistent with the
Water Quality Protection Program allowing the rural roadway characteristics to continue
in areas adjoining the project. Because the utility construction will necessitate the
excavation of the street pavement, the street aggregate base and bituminous surfacing will
be restored using the current street construction standards of 8 inches of aggregate base
with 4 inches of bituminous pavement.
This segment of Strathmore Lane SE drains southerly toward the segment reconstructed
approximately 5 years ago. This recent construction included the construction of curb
and gutter and storm sewer along the southerly and westerly sides of Strathmore Lane SE.
Therefore, no storm sewer is required for the proposed segment of Strathmore Lane SE.
The se-ment of Sheffield Lane SE included in this project is at the top of the slope.
Therefore no storm sewer is needed for this segment of roadway.
�q
-3-
DECEMBER 7, 2000
A portion of Sunnydale Lane SE drains westerly along the segment of Strathmore Lane
SE in which this project is proposed. Curb and gutter will be installed by the developer
of the Louise Thompson parcel along the easterly side of Sunnydale Lane SE. One
alternative to outlet the surface water collected in this curb is to construct storm sewer
from Sunnydale Lane SE westerly along Sheffield Lane SE to Strathmore Lane SE.
However, it appears to be more cost effective for the developer to route the storm sewer
easterly from the intersection of Sunnydale Lane and Sheffield lane SE. Therefore, storm
sewer is not proposed in this project.
Additionally, pedestrian facilities are proposed along County Road 109 and those
segments of Sheffield Lane and Strathmore Lane SE abutting the Pentecostal Church,
Victory Baptist Church and the Thompson parcels. The pedestrian facility along County
Road 109 will be 10-foot wide bituminous path and the pedestrian facilities along
Sheffield Lane and Strathmore Lane will be 5-foot concrete sidewalk. The bituminous
path along County Road 109 and the sidewalk along the Victory Baptist Church parcel
and included in the proposed project. The sidewalk along Pentecostal Church and
Thompson parcels will be constructed as part of the building construction projects.
The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as
follows:
Sanitary Sewer
$200,980
Water Main
$168,090
Service Connections
$17,940
Subdrain
$30,420
Curb & Gutter/Street
$54,275
Concrete Sidewalk
$10,322
Bituminous Path
$14,365
Total Project Cost
$496,392
The costs of this project will be paid with the following charges and revenue sources:
1. The Water Quality Protection Program will pay $257,262 for water and sewer and
6 service connections and trunk mains to serve the existing residents in Sunnydale
Subdivision.
2. The Pentecostal Church will pay $64,605.61 based on $73.13/foot for sewer and
water along County Road 109 and Strathmore Lane, plus $37.13/foot for water
main along Sheffield Lane SE, plus I service connection, plus $15.45/foot for
curb & gutter Sheffield Lane SE, plus $30.90/foot for curb & gutter and street
reconstruction along Strathmore Lane, plus $22.62/foot for bituminous path along
County Road 109.
3. Victory Baptist Church will pay $53,825.42 based on $73.13/foot for sewer and
water along County Road 109, plus $37.13/foot for water main along Sheffield
Lane SE, plus $15.45/foot for curb & gutter along Sheffield Lane, plus
-4-
DECEMBER 7, 2000
S33.30/foot for concrete sidewalk along Sheffield Lane, plus $22.62/foot for
bituminous path along County Road 109.
4. The Thompson parcel will pay $92,035.80 based on $73.13/foot for sewer and
sewer along Strathmore Lane, plus $37.13/foot for water main along Sheffield
Lane SE, plus 5 service connections, plus $15.45/foot for curb & gutter along
Sheffield Lane, plus $30.90/foot for curb & gutter and street reconstruction along
Strathmore Lane, plus the full cost of the subdrain work.
5. The city share will be $3,990 for trunk water main oversizing costs plus
$24,672.80 for corner lot credits and intersection costs.
The petitioners will pay $156,641.41 or 32% of the total project cost. Approximately 1 %
will be paid by water main oversizing contributions plus 5% for comer lot credits and
intersection costs. The Water Quality Program will pay an additional 51%. Victory
Baptist will pay 11% of the project costs. At the time Victory Baptist Church was built,
they were permitted to delay these construction items with the understanding that the
construction would occur in the future and that their obligation to pay for the construction
would be required at that time.
Staff would recommend that this project is feasible if petitioners, First Pentecostal
Church of Rochester and Thompson Estate plus the Victory Baptist Church enter into
Contribution Agreements to pay the frontage charges and the availability charges
consistent with City policy and as outline in this report.
Revenue Sources
Water Quality Protection Program $257,262.37
Pentecostal Church $64,605.61
Victory Baptist Church $53,825.42
Thompson Property $92,035.80
City Share for Trunk Line Oversize $3,990.00
City Share for Comer Lot Credit & Intersections $24,672.80
TOTAL $496,392.00
Submitted our cons' ation:
ohn H. Wellner, PE
Infrastructure Manager
-;el1,J ,
chard W. Freese, PE
City Engineer
q(0
- 5 - DECEMBER 7, 2000
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: Date December 7, 2000
J No: 9760
Description: Extension of Sanitary Sewer to serve vacant lands inside the City's Urban
Service Area in Sunnydale Subdivision and northeast of Sunnydale Subdivision.
Project Cost Summary
Sanitary Sewer
$200,980.00
Water Main
$168,090.00
Service Connections
$17,940.00
Subdrain
$30,420.00
Curb & Gutter/Street
$54,275.00
Concrete Sidewalk
$10,122.00
Bituminous Path
$14.365.00
Total Project Cost
S496,392.00
Revenue Sources
Water Quality Protection Program
$257,262.37
Pentecostal Church
$64,605.61
Victory Baptist Church
$53,825.42
Thompson Property
$92,035.80
City Share for Trunk Line Oversize
$3,990.00
City Share for Comer Lot Credit & Intersections
$24,672.80
TOTAL
$496,392.00
The assessment rates are consistent with current City policy.
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE
15
12/11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
EM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J9725)
Curb, Gutter, and Overlay on 22nd St NE from 7th Ave to 10th Ave, and
7th - 10th Ave's NE from N. Heights Dr to 22nd St NE and 21st Street
This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6222-1-00 (J9725)
Project Name
ITEM NO.
D -aa
EPARED BY:
R. Kelm Y
Curb, Gutter, and Overlay on 22nd St NE from 7th Ave to 10th Ave, and 7th - 10th Ave's NE from N. Heights Dr to
22nd St NE and 21 st Street
Project Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1962-68.
At the request of the property owners informational meetings were held on October 18, and November 26, 2000.
Their support for a rehabilitation project resulted in this request for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report.
Estimated Project Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading 8 Paving,Curb & Guner.
$488 D00.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$24 000.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$17 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
nita Sewer
$0.00
SSaub Total
$529,000.00
Engineering,Interest. Contingencies 30%
$158,700.00
TOTAL
$687,700.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Fronts a
$95653.22
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$20X42.al
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
Ci Street Share
S572 004.47
TOTAL
$687,700.00
Recommendation
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.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution receiving the Feasibility Report.
2. Adopt a resolution ordering a Project Hearing to be held for January 17, 2001.
3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll.
4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for January 17, 2001.
Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, petition
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
-7-
DECEMBER 7, 2000
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones ............. $15.45 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones ...........$23.18 per assessable foot
Residential corner 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
2001
feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.45
4,375.59
$67,602.87
1$95,653.22
Commercial Zones
$23.18
1,210.11
$28,050.35
Subtotal
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).................................................$5.15 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$5.92 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.70 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) .............. $7.21 per square foot
6" Cone. Drive Approach (residential)...........................$30.90 per square yard
Residential corner lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2001
sq. ft
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk (residential)
$5,15
2,313.22
$11,913.08
5" Sidewalk (commercial)
$5,92
1.488.48
$8,811.80
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches)
$6.70
261.17
$1,749.84
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$7.21
Subtotal
$22,474.72
credit for long side
($2,432.41)
Subtotal
$20,042.31
Proiect Distribution:
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$95,653.22
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$20,042.31
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
10ty Street Share
1 $572,004.47
TOTAL
$687,700.00
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
� \4-,z ��
Douglas Nelson, PE
:It)IF( I PR,)I .i-�% U<-J�c`U,c F. rIk. F ' _,�
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED 31
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
PROJECT NO. 6222-1-00 J9725
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAYON
22ND ST NE FROM 7TH AVE TO LOTH AVE AND
7TH - 10TH AVE'S NE FROM N. HEIGHTS DR TO
22ND ST NE AND 2 1 S T STREET
December 4, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb, Gutter, and Overlay on 22nd St NE from 7th .Ave to loth Ave, and 7th - 10th Ave's
NE from N. Heights Dr to 22nd St NE and 21" Street, was referred to the Public Works
Department on April 28. 2000 and November 10, 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 1962-68,
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 35-45, 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:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving,Curb & Gutter
$488,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$24,000,00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$17,000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$529,000.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$158,700.00
TOTAL
$687,700.00
Fi '
►J
- 3 - DECEMBER 4, 2000
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
22ND ST NE FROM 7TH AVE TO IOTH AVE AND
7TH - IOTH AVE'S NE FROM N. HEIGHTS DR TO 22ND ST NE and 21st STREET
Pfa+RQ�I[CCS\�-PRI/�\�9i_$\Uui�,+i',1:1u,�.\fi;dii:iGn Reporr.U11C
?3
— 4 — DECEMBER 4, 2000
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No:
6222-1-00 Date:1 December4,2000
J No:
9725
Description:
Curb, Gutter, and Overlay on 22nd St NE from 7th Ave to 10th Ave,
and 7th - 10th Ave's NE from N. Heights Dr to 22nd St NE and 21s1 St
Project
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving,Curb & Gutter
$488,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$24,000.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$17 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$529,000.00
Engineering, Interest, Contin encies 30%
$158,700,00
TOTAL
$687,700.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$95,653.22
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$20,042.31
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanita Sewer Utilit Funds
$0.00
Cit Street Share
$572,004.47
TOTAL
$687,700.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
I'- 1 3V )I ISCI'S-, I I Rt )f ...197") )C
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 12-11-00 i
DATE: 6 Gl
AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS
.I'M RECOMMENDATION FOR A HEARING/ INCREASE IN ZIPS
PREPARED BY:
FARES
A KNAUER
Based on projected costs for ZIPS Dial -A -Ride in 2001 it is proposed to increase fares for the
urban zone from $1.25 to $2.00. The last fare increase was in January, 1996. Staff is
recommending a public hearing be held on January 3, 2001.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt prepared resolution establishing a hearing on January 3, 2001 to consider a fare
increase for ZIPS Dial -A -Ride.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ],29-11-00
DATE: V- 1
AGENDA
CONSENTAGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
V �
ITEM NO.
p-3O
" M CY 2001 ZIPS FUNDING CONTRACTS
PREPARED BY:
A KNAUER
This is a request for the approval of various contracts for operation of ZIPS Dial -A -Ride in
2001.
Olmsted County- The county provides a portion of the local share for ZIPS operations. The
County's share for 2001 is estimated to be $93,959.
Community Education (ISD 535) — The Community Education division of the school district
provides partial sponsorship of night service on ZIPS Dial -A -Ride based on the hourly cost less
revenues. The sponsorship covers Monday and Wednesday evenings and additional service
required on other nights due toCommunity Education programs. Riders must still be eligible for
ZIPS. The sponsorship is approximately $7,500 annually.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolutions approving the following contracts:
1. A contract with Olmsted County for the local share in support of ZIPS Dial -A -Ride
operations in 2001.
2. A contract with ISD 535 Community Education for sponsorship of evening service on ZIPS
in 2001,
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 12-11-00
DATF : Q A
AGENDA SE IIQN6
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC WORKS
D-31
T^t AWARD OF BIDS/ ZIPS DIAL -A -RIDE FOR 2001 AND 2002
PREPARED BY:
OPERATIONS
A KNAUER
Bids were opened on November 28, 2000 for operations of ZIPS Dial -A -Ride. The bid calls for
separate bid prices for 2001 and 2002 based on a per vehicle hour rate. The specifications also
provide for 3 annual extensions for a total contract period of 5 years.
Original bids were opened on October 31, 2000 with only one response. Due to the amount and
the sole bid situation the service was rebid. Twelve bid packages with some revisions to the
specifications were sent out to potential bidders. Again only one bid was received which was from
the current operator Rochester Transportation Systems (RTS). The RTS bid is summarized below.
The hourly rate was bid with or without vehicle insurance with separate rates for 2001 and 2002.
Period Hourly Rate Estimated Annual
2001 with insurance $33.00 $414,282
without insurance $32.00 $401,728
2002 with insurance $34.00 $426,836
without insurance $33.00 $414,282
In order to award this bid the City has to establish that the bid is reasonable and that there were
no restrictive or unreasonable requirements in the specifications. Staff attempted to contact all
specification holders after the first bid to solicit comments. Seven out of 12 responded. None of
potential bidders identified unreasonable requirements as the reason they did not bid. The
predominant concern was other contract commitments, shortage of employees and facilities. In
regards to reasonableness a survey of hourly rates in southeastern Minnesota was conducted
using MnDOT's statistical reports. The hourly rates ranged from $19.22 to $45.74 with an average
of $30.30. The total hourly cost with the new bid rate and other city expenses added in comes to
$34.08. Based on this comparison the rate could be considered reasonable.
The bid rate was $88,757over the original budget estimate. In addition the State share has been
reduced from the original request by $5,202 for a total shortfall in funding of $93,959. Three
proposed sources for funding this shortfall as follows:
City of Rochester $21,347
Fare increase $37,840 (Subject to public hearing process)
Olmsted County $34,772
Total $93,959
COUNCIL A motion y: Second by: to:
A memo has been sent to Olmsted County requesting these additional funds. (A copy of
the memo to Olmsted County is attached.) The Citizens Advisory has approved a motion
recommending the additional funding noting the importance of the service to members of
the community. (it is a mandated service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).)
Under the proposed fare increase the fare would be increased from $1.25 in the urban
zone to $2.00. The suburban zone would remain at $2.00. (Under federal law the fare
cannot exceed twice the base fare on regular route service which is currently $1.00.)
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution awarding the contractto Rochester Transportation Systems
for 2001 and 2002 at the hourly rates that included vehicle insurance.
Note: The specifications state that the contract may be terminated if funding is not secured.
had4p
Cfi ESTER ...../..
ROCHESTER
d
=
=
K
November 29,
2000
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TO: RICHARD DEVLIN, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 201 4th Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
FROM: TONY KNAUER, TRANSPORTATION DIVISION FAXX (5 767.7800
07) 281-6216
RE: ZIPS/ OLMSTED COUNTY SHARE FOR CY 2001
Reference is made to our recent discussion regarding the County funding of ZIPS
services. In July, 2000 we submitted a request in the amount of $59,037 for support of
2001 ZIPS operations. This compared to $46,624 in 2000. This request was subject to
bids for operation of the service being opened in October. Consequently bids were
opened with only one response. (Bids were advertised locally and nationally. Twelve bid
packages were requested. Time was built into the .process to allow outside firms to
explore the feasibility and mobilize if they were successful.) The service was rebid with
new bids opened on November 28, 2000. Again only one bid was received.
The rebid rate is the same rate as the first bid which is substantially higher than the
original budget request. The bid rate was $88,757over the original budget estimate. In
addition the State share was reduced from the original request by $5,202 for a total
shortfall in funding of $93,959.
We are requesting the County's consideration of the following proposal to meet this
shortfall.
City of Rochester
$21,347
Fare increase
$37,840 (Subject to public hearing process)
Olmsted County
$34,772
Total
$91,959
The $34,772 from Olmsted County is in addition to the original request of $59,037 for a
total of $93,809. Attachment "A" provides a summary of funding sources under the
original budget request and a revised one based on this proposal.
A number of factors influenced the bid rate including fuel costs which have risen 58% in
the last 12 months, increased insurance rates based on new vehicle values and increased
labor costs in a very tight labor market. For your information I have attached a summary
of hourly operating costs for similar services in our region. Also attached is a summary of
ZIPS hourly rates since its establishment and a history of fare changes.
An EgmtOpp mnay Z-Fjo3-
q �'
The ZIPS Dial .A -Ride program is one leg of the community support network. A number
of the riders receive services from public and private social service agencies. The service
area includes the City and four surrounding townships. The service will provide
approximately 45,000 rides in 2000. To be able to use the system a person must have a
disability (physical or mental) which prohibits them from using regular city bus services.
Currently there are 845 persons registered for service. Approximately 25% of the
ridership use wheelchairs. Forty percent of those registered have sensory or cognitive
disabilities. Many clients have multiple disabilities. A 2000 survey of clients indicated
that 67% had annual incomes of $10,000 or less. The City provides administration and
equipment for the ZIPS service.
We intend to review the current operating structure in 2001 to see if there is any more
efficient way to deliver service. We will also look at funding sources. County social
services should participate in this review. Please advise if I can provide any additional
information.
C: S Kvenvold, City Adm.
R Freese, Public Works
Jean Meyer, MnDOT
q3
Q
m
X
LU
ul
W
U
O
W
C9
_Z
Z
LL
W
V)
O
a
O
a
O
N
N
Li
.J
m
f-
J
Q
m
Un
F-
W
U Un
° a
[D N
J Z
_Z O
W
C7 �n
K W
O LY
Z U
O _Z
° W
W cr
Q
to Q
U U J
R C Q Z
F
O Ouj
°
w w — Q
a a U m
NO tD N O O O COO
A m CJ A to O N
(A � m N m tLr'J � m rA]
JQ M O N F9 fA r m
O fA W
W O A W O 0 0
° w M v o 0 o m
_ N M W N p m
0' Ln Z M A O A
C
N J W
a Q
0 o v o
m N O O
Q U] tO A O M
OJ m
� in ro O M a u"i
W m w N
C) :DLl w
W 0 »
} 2 U
f Z O W x z Q
° Q} 7 U 2 0
W F-
F=OOF-Zw O
W a)U UE Game F-
O
(O
M
O
m
w
Q
0
U
H
U
w
m
7
z
w
W
�
O
F-
O
y
N
z
O
a
w
°
>
Z W
F
N
0
O
w Q
O
w
CD
(D O
n
wa
m N
} o Q z
N
J
} N 9
J O LL
J O
Z to J W
w
Q
Z U
O M W x
W
> 7
O LL
N
F
W
W W
U W' Cr
U o N
W
Q
F-
lL N>
LL O Z W
W m < 0
0
° N Q
N Cl) J
w
�
m
-
_ m W
U) Q ?
1-
Z
W
O=
LL
d
'D W
O bN9
7
Z W
KULU
IfW co H
Z
UY
= W z
0 W J Z
DIAL -A -RIDE COSTS / SOUTHERN MINNESOTA
As of 2000 Most Recent Estimates Available
The number of months reported
varies.
PER VEHICLE
SYSTEM HOUR
PER PASSENGER
MOWER COUNTY $ 44.48
$
7.69
THREE RIVERS $ 27.64
$
11.44
FAIRIBAULT $ 31.22
$
4.46
LACRESENT $ 45.74
$
11.23
NORTHFIELD $ 26.60
$
3.84
RED WING $ 34.29
$
5.53
SEMCAC $ 26.24
$
4.40
STEEL COUNTY $ 26.83
$
4.43
STEWARTVILLE $ 24.39
$
5.13
WINONA $ 19.22
$
2.24
ROCHESTER $ 26.65
$
7.23
DATA PROVIDED BY MNDOT.
NOTE: COST PER PASSENGER IS EFFECTED BY POPULATION DENSITY,
DISTANCE BETWEEN REQUESTS,
ETC.
W
F-
d'
0
Q
x
W
a
0
LL
0
0
F-
(n
x
`w
0
J
Q
j
ArAcuNtavT "c
q5o,�,
Un
m xr ro Dio
It o W m m m N
U > Z Z Z Z
w m ❑ tom m Cl)
❑ W O� x W W W W
❑ x > O > > > >
x wo aLL0000
O w� X�
LL xof
J In O x w 0 0 0 0
m m a w w O O w w w w o
m rn w (DQ Q¢ Q Q Q Q o
wwUNW n w ZNooO W W W WQ gwO :D Q U
O 0
w zw g ?:
3: ?: 3� S 0 p
W W j O 2 p U p p W W
U J J Z W>>
w w M z x¢ z z z z w w
❑ ❑ p ❑ H p p p
��
0 w U) U)w w�wwwwww
a a J a a Q a
m m m m W W m W ui w w m m
W W
Z Z W W z z W z Z z z Z z
J O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O
a 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r o O 0 0 0 0 0
rn Oi rn rn rn m rn Qi rn rn rn rn (A N N04
N N N N N N N
U V) V) V3 V) V) d) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V} V) V) V) 0 d) a
J (t� (A N m to N 1n m LO t0 N O N rn rn
m N m V -q V' (D (D 0 w (D O O
F- r r r N N N N (N N N N Cl) M
¢ V) V) V) V) VJ V) V) V) fA Vj tPr V) V) V) V) V) V) Vi V) V) 64 V3
a mm V)Unm rnmU mmmCID m (n(n(A Un cc00 UnUU)
U U0 F F-F F-F U)Cl) WUnm F F F F F F F F F-
!r m x Cr x= x x= m Cr x x x x D_ x Of x x x m [Y fY
❑ p ❑ 0 0 p a
W W W W W W ww www Q
F- < < F- ❑ ❑ < ❑ ❑ ❑ F- F- F- F- F- F-
a as oo000Q ¢a aaa LLm
ZZF- ZZZF- F-f" F-F-F- zx
O O 00 w w 0 w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a
w ww w w ww dw ❑ X x w ❑X X x w 0 w ❑❑ >-
z m Z m z z w w z m w w w z m z z m z z z m m 0 0
�] rn O r N M IT t(] m 1- CO rn O 7 (() m rn O N (n
m m m m m m rn
rn o rn rn rn rn rn 01 01 (A rn rn rn rn r) T 0) O o o 0
r rr rrr rrr rrrrr rn°�Oi rn
UP o 000
N N N
IN rn m O
rn rn O
N
Av'AcRht£vT 'c)"
ZIPS DIAL -A -RIDE) FARE HISTORY
DATE CHANGE
JULY, 1976 ESTABLISHED FARE OF $.50 FOR SINGLE RIDE
FEBRUARY, 1979 INCREASED FARE 10 RIDES FOR $5.50
OCTOBER, 1979 ESTABLISHED EVENING AND SATURDAY PASS
5 RIDES FOR $5.00
JANUARY, 1983 INCREASED FARE 10 RIDES $6.00
SEPTEMBER, 1986 INCREASED FARE 10 RIDES FOR $7.00
DECEMBER, 1991 ESTABLISHED NEW FARE ZONES:
URBAN ZONE 10 RIDES $10.00
SUBURBAN ZONE 8 RIDES $10.00
JANUARY, 1996 INCREASED FARES ZONES:
URBAN ZONE 8 RIDES $10,00
SUBURBAN ZONE 5 RIDES $10.00
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 12-11-00
DATE: a --)
AGENDA SECTIO
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC WORKS
ITEM NO. '
D - 3a
AGREEMENT FOR PARK & RIDE LOT/ NORTHWEST PLAZA
PREPARED BY:
THE REALTY
A KNAUER
This is a recommendation to approve a license agreement with THE Realty owners of Northwest
Plaza to use a portion of their parking lot for the period 1/1/2001 through 12/31/2003 for park and
ride services.
It should be noted that this park and ride program has been operating at this location for some
time. However, the owners have requested a license agreement to answer concerns about liability
and property damage related to the users of the service. The service is open to the public and part
of the regular bus schedule. Mayo Clinic provides sponsorship. The shopping center benefits from
the potential business of users.
Under this agreement THE Realty allows the City transit program to use parking spaces as
designated by the owner for persons to park and ride the City bus into the downtown. The spaces
are available Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. The City agrees to hold harmless
and indemnify THE from any liability or property damage resulting from the use of the ridership.
The agreement can be terminated by either party with 30 days notice.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving a license agreement with THE Realty to establish a
park and ride facility from 1/01/2001through 12/31/2003 at Northwest Plaza.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING / g
DATE : 12/11/2000
AGENDA SECTION:
` --isent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
WATER RECLAMATION PLANT
ITEM NO:
a 3 3
!M DESCRIPTION: Sublease of the Rochester Airport Agricultural
PREPARED BY:
Land
Lyle J. Zimmerman
The City of Rochester leases land at the Rochester Airport for the Water Reclamation Plant's land
application of biosolids program. Approximately 930 acres of tillable land will be available in 2001 and
approximately 1000 acres in 2002 and 2003. This land is subleased to a farmer for cropping.
Bryce and Brenda DeCook have been subleasing this land for approximately ten years and wish to
extend the lease for another three years. It is proposed that the sublease amount be for $74,400 in 2001
and $80,000 per year in 2002 and 2003. If amount of land available for farming changes the lease
amount will be prorated accordingly.
It is recommended that the agricultural land at the Rochester Airport be subleased to Bryce and Brenda
DeCook for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 for the amounts shown above.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval of a sublease of the Rochester Airport land to Bryce and Brenda DeCook.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING l 0 1
DATE: 12-11-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
.
Coth-106b PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
----A DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00-14 to vacate the 20' wide utility and drainage
TPREPARED
BY:tment
located along the south line of Lots 3, 4, and 5 Bel Air Eighth Subdivision. The
Fogarty,property
is located along the south of 37'" Street NW and east of 11'" Avenue NW
nner
December 4, 2000
The applicant has withdrawn easement vacation request #00-14.
Council Action Needed:
1. No action is necessary.
Distribution:
City Administrator
c. 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,
December 11, 2000, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151
4th Street SE.
6. Robert Suk, Attorney
I NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
(Ord
ROBERT G. SUK LAW OFFICES, P.A.
Robert G. Suk
Attorney at Law
Theresa Fogarty
Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive S.E.
Rochester, MN 55904
Merchant Exchange Building
1S Third Street S.W. - Suite 200
Rochester, MN 55902
December 1, 2000
(507) 289-8051
(507) 280-4010 fax
s uklaw@ infonet.isl.ne t
Re: Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or Utility Easement
Bel Air Eighth Subdivision, Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Fogarty:
In accordance with our numerous conferences and telephone conferences please be
advised that the Petition to Vacate a portion of the Utility Easement along the south side of Bel
Air Eighth is hereby withdrawn with the express understanding that the landscaping green -space
area in the utility easements will be allowed in accordance with the drawings and memos provided
by your office together with the Revocable Permit that has been generated by Mike Nigbur of
Public Works. The actual wording of the Revocable Permit is acceptable to all parties but the
buyer of the southeasterly lot was working with Mr. Curt Axen with respect to landscaping. I
believe by the first of next week, the Revocable Permit language will be worked out.
Thank you for your cooperation and courtesies extended with respect to this matter.
RGS:jls
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
rivttvuN atL. t tuN: ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS — Continued Hearing PLANNING
MEETING 103
DATE: 12-11-00
ITEM NO.
E-a
DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development #00-29 Preliminary Plan by PREPARED BY:
e 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
11th Avenue SW and south of loth Avenue SW.
December 7, 2000 f —� 0� �u
tine /7, Zau/ /YlGGIs✓ .
A draft Development Agreement was presented to Waste M agement for their review and execution over a month ago. At
this time, no comments regarding the Development Agreement have been received by Waste Management. The Restrictive
Development is a two step process (preliminary plan and final plan), with the Council having the power to waive subsequent
review phasing in a multi -phase review process. Since there are a number of issues that need to be resolved, staff would
recommend that the Final Plan process not be waived.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on October 25, 2000 to consider this restricted development
preliminary plan.
The applicant submitted a revised plan prior to the CPZC meeting addressing some of issues raised in the staff report. Staff
recommended approved of the plan subject to the conditions listed in a memo dated 10/25/00.
Dan Berndt, Dunlap and Seeger, addressed the Commission. Mr. Berndt stated that the applicant is agreeable to the staff -
recommended conditions, with some minor modifications, listed in the memo dated October 25, 2000 by Brent Svenby with
the exception of 58, 5C and 9B.
'fanning Commission reviewed this request according to the -applicable criteria and standards in the LDM. The
fission found that this request is consistent with those criteria, subject to the following modifications or conditions:
1. Execution of a Development Agreement is required prior to the approval of the Restricted Development Final
Plan.
2. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to the installation of public utilities to serve the site which shall
include dedicating a 20' utility easement. Construction plans and specifications must be prepared by the
Owner's engineer and shall be in conformance with City standards and subject to City approval. The site plan
shall be revised to indicate the located of the utility easement.
3. Stormwater quantity and quality management must be provided on the site. The City will not permit the direct
discharge of site runoff to the City storm sewer system. Approval of a Grading and Drainage Plan is required
prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. Execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required to address Owner's future obligation for pedestrian
facilities along loth and 11tn Avenues SW. Owner agrees to dedicate a 10.00 wide pedestrian facility easement
along entire 11111 Avenue frontage of the property.
5. In order to address the inadequacies of the public facilities as described above, the Public Works and Planning
staff recommends the following conditions:
5a. Owner shall be required to pay a Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge
C1 ied on next page
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
12'08 00 10:31 F.iX a07 2S7 22-a RnI it (J01 III i\\Iv OfI11 ..I I)111'. y 11 2
DEC-Oe-2200 10u 15 rn i,:E�c �o.-r.' np �.;a•.. ._r.,,_ _
(Dq
RONAL.D L. SUOKA
MiLToN A RDSE-\'B AD
PALL A FINsETTS
DA.NIEL E. BERNDT
JOLLY B. ARNOLD
PETER C. 9ANDBERO
TI NA L. MOHR
IXNN= R, MOE.N
WUJA AM J. RYAN
PAUL W. BUCHn
DOUGLAS A. BOESE
THOMA.9 W. JACOBSON
December 8, 2000
VIA FAX 287-2275
Original to follow by mail
LAw uFeICES
DUNL,A.P & SEEGER, P.A.
2C9 soUW AROADWAY, SUM SAS
MAIN VETTE BAME BC7LDINO
PO BOX "S
ROCHESTER, MMESOTA M904M
TELLPHOn; '5071 2M.9111
FAX (407) M&042
FAX (907) 28&0822
B03M A DUN AP
'1915.19►i)
ROCHESTERMOLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: BRENTSVENBY
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE
ROCHESTER VLN155904
XMI.LLN F
XARKk ��aSE
KEN D SOHI..TLLJ'
3R&GCFY J. GF=H.-.
MICIinEL 9. DIETZ
SHARON C MOR
E.W 9-ONELA .HO?K NI,
of :.0 l
FRAl nRi MICHAII
A..M '5/-\'Dr I E=
RE: Type III, Phase II Restrictivc Development 900-29 Prehnnnary Plan by .Fast-
Management to permit the construction of a 140 square foot transfer st iuor,
Dear Mr. Svenby:
Pursuant to our phone conversations, the Applicant. Waste Management, is reyuesn_id a,
additional continuance of the hearing before the Rochester City Council ccno!trvr,g tit: abo, -
referenced matter. The matter is currently scheduled fur the December t l . 7-000 City Cocr.: :
meeting. We are requesting that the matter be continued unti; the Iaruary 1'' 290 r'.r.
Council hearing. As indicated, the Applicant and Oimsted Cornty hacc ocutirL-cc. n t II: a7C
a resolution of the contract issues which..f resolved, may result III the dpplica%on heing
withdrawn by Waste Management Their :ur-ent schedule maicaies that it .s possible that
those issues could be resolved by the end or December However to al nw enougat I•R`e 'A^
are requesting an extension to the mid -January meeting
We are cognizant of the 120 time iimitation on this matter It is our intention :hat If lie Inaccr
is not resolved between the County and Waste Managemcnr by the trod-fw,t a:Lr% heanng, 1.,
that negotiations are still ongoing, that we µouid "wive the 120 da-, ':me f.rr.i:a' (IT,
If there are any questions, please call me
Very ru yours
ldo
I,NLQDUN PLAW.com
JBA Ick
cc Troy Healy, via fax 282-8961
Dan Rigazio, via fax (608) 784-4464
Glenn E. Metz, via fax 2S8-5' 13
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /OS
DATE: l 2/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMMSTRATOR
ITEM NO.
S - 3
1 DESCRIPTION: TRUTH-W-TAXATION HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED 2001
PREPARED BY:
BUDGET AND TAX LEVY
S. KVENVOLD
i
This is a hearing for the purpose of receiving public input on the proposed 2001 budget and property tax levy for
the City of Rochester.
The proposed 2001 budget programs expenditures of $115,640,727 and would require a property tax levy of
$18,885,726.
Additional material pertaining to the proposed 2001 budget will be available to citizens as they enter the
Council/Board Chambers.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
The only action needed by the City Council is to close the hearing. The adoption of the 2001 budget is
scheduled for 12/18/00.
iU 0
I NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING (d
DATE: 12-11-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
S -1
I DESCRIPTION: Type 111, Phase 11 Incentive Development #00-30 Preliminary Plan by
PREPARED BY:
buiiatone Hotel Investors, Inc., to permit the construction of a 5 story, 132 unit hotel upon
Brent Svenby,
the property located along the north side of West Center Street and along the west side of
Planner
4`h Avenue NW between 4'h and 5th Avenue NW. The property is legally described as Lots
1-6, Block 41 Original Plat of the City of Rochester and Lots 4-6, Block 3 William
McCullough's Addition.
December 6, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2000, to consider this Incentive
Development. The applicant also requested a variance to the parking requirements. The variance was granted by the
Commission. The proposal is to construct a 5 story, 132 unit hotel with 67 parking spaces provided on site.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request according to the applicable criteria and standards in the LDM. The
Commission found that this request is consistent with those criteria, subject to the following modifications or conditions:
1. The applicant shall execute a development agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the
j obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, traffic
improvements, pedestrian facilities, contributions for public infrastructure, abandonment of utilities,
passenger loadingldrop areas, loading zones, re-routing of utilities for the subway connection and
those items specified by the City Council.
i secific grading, drainage and construction plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
ly on -site construction activities. The applicant must also address storm water management for the
project.
3. Any needed repairs or panel replacement to the existing sidewalks and concrete curbs which front
the property shall be done at the owner's expense concurrent with this project. The Public Works
Department will inspect the condition of the sidewalk and curb at the time of development to
determine if repair or replace is needed.
4. The applicant will need to obtain a revocable permit from the City for the subway connection
proposed in West Center Street.
5. Prior to development, a detailed lighting plan, including illumination levels at the property lines be
submitted to the Planning Department for review. The lighting must meet standard "D" in Section
63.210 of the Land Development Manual.
6. A complete set of plan sheets be submitted to be Planning Department which reflect the revision to
the access to 5th Avenue NW.
Ms. McGowan moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase li Incentive Development #00-30 Preliminary Plan by
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. with staff -suggested conditions and findings. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. _
The motion carried 7-0.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mohan by: second by: to:
Page 2 f o
RCA
December 6, 2000
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this request. If the Council wishes to proceed with the
proposed amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the changes to the approved
plan. The resolution should also specify any conditions of approval that the Council places on this amendment.
2. The applicant has requested the Council waive the need for a Final Plan phase for this project as allowed in Section
60.532, 6 which is attached. Staff recommends approval to waive the Final Plan phase since the request will meet the
criteria included in Section 60.532, 6.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated November 2, 2000
2. Minutes of the November 8, 2000 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 11, 2000 in the Council/Board
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
5. HGA
r07
ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINACE
AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPT
60.532 Phase II Hearing Process: The Phase II Procedure shall be as set forth
below:
(1} The Council shall have the power to waive subsequent review phases in a
multi -phase review process if requested by the applicant upon findings that:
a) The information considered during the Phase II Hearing Process is sufficient in
nature to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements set forth in this
ordinance.
b) That waiver of the subsequent review phases will not interfere with the purposes
and intent of this ordinance.
c) That the applicant has provided assurance that all conditions or modifications
attached to approval of the project will be met. This assurance shall include, but
shall not be limited to, the filing of revised plans, the provision of necessary
bonds or other surety to cover the completion of projects, or the filing of
necessary legal documents.
1
I a �' .il ►; �
I j '�I']y�i � it
L
4
1
mta��eMIN
ee
�Mrrl.
e �
mom
P
gogon
on n as
'i. ■0 n n u •.'
onon■■ on
on n n n
on // �■ on
"!"
• i'- tt u n u
am so so
n n n n
n ` ■■
n n n nounnr
{ ■■ n t■ t■ Itt
■■ I.t :it inl ■ ■■ n ■t tt In
n .
O e it■ tt Ion
"'a�mmnxee�mnnninmi®� .. ..
@IIIWII®IIIIIII• OI�■. �� �� ��III � 1��
' IIIIIIII IIIIIII IIII
n n n ■■
01p so'.. s so
an! an
on
'■/ U. ■ ,. _ logo mime I\In
IIIIII IIIIIIII ■■an
■oon 01
.III.:.. ■■
"
1/t
��n�l.■ ■■ .. Illlll....
�,I � 1�
an �mq ins
tt // // /. 11..
r�. ■■ ■/ U
' � O
fill!! f oo i k d t
� �en� �� i IIIIj 6` •,� � � f
WNj t 0.p
Uvv
M.Ad X m sad
0 /15� 11
mzm
pa
z k
Ig m /j0
z065S NW '-*1sa47oa
uoweW Aq uul aDuapi
7 —H I S3lli13dO'dd 1310H 3N0IS
J
❑
Q
=
O
�
O
� C
m-
OZ
>-w-
�
Q n
�w
Lij
MN
IzI
w
N Z W
W
Ln
ate?
omo
> Q J
Q = D
O m
PI
Qom
�Om
z
o01�
�D-cf
Qua
F-
cn
B
• White leac:s For use on medi-
um or darker color buildings.
Burgundy far lighter color
buildings.
-Gatohouse/Lobby Building only.
IYIM 1 L�lln��
' Leuter cut .500 plate alu-
to be stud mounted
Bush to brick exterior wall.
F
c
rihili:� m pros^de ehrtight„
fixture and me e(am power m
exrernally illuminate these tamers
on the gaeehaurr. We rugear the f l I
arrnirerr recommend the proper
hghting,
NON -ILLUMINATED
TOTAL ACTUAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE:
RI-1DBL 10.91 sq. fL
HI-128L 15.71 sq, ft.
RI-188L, 35.35 sq. ft.
JE
0
0
E
F
6
4' 2 7/16"
1'7 1/4"
511/16"
1' 113/16-
3 5/8"
WC
5' 1/2"
i'll 1/8"
613/16"
2' 313/16"
45/16"
7' 6 3/4"
2' 10 11/16"
10 1/4"
3' 5 3/4"
6 1/2"
1/2"
H
Side Vim
11
COLORS
• These letters are mounted on
the Sanderling gay cement
board siding of the hotel
buildings.
• Lerrer Faces: Residence Inn let-
ters are burgundy by day and
white when illuminated.
• Trimap and Rerums:
Sandeding gray.
• Marriott cloud sign: Burgundy
graphics. Sanderling gray har-
der and returns.
• Raceways a required):
Sandeding gray to march siding
color.
CO-7
MATERIALS
-*rs: White polycarbonam
coated with opaque
Residence Inn burgundy. Face
is then scored to reveal cranslu-
cent white lines to achieve
whim illuminated letters.
• 15mm white neon for
Residena Inn letters.
• Marrior cloud sign: Graphics
are executed like the letters
described above; opaque bur-
gundy scored to illuminate at
night Gray background is
opaqued.
• Underscores in Residence Inn
letters ate non -illuminated.
C
ELECTRICAL
• 15mm white aeftuminimd.
• R1-24 IBL 1201W. 14.45
amps. 2-20 amp circuits.
• RI-30 IBL: 120 volt,12.9 amps,
1-20 amp circuits
RI-36 IBL: 120 volt, 16.3 amps,
2-20 amp circuits.
R1 48 IBL: 120 volt. 24.55
amps, 2-20 amp circuits.
Non: Lerwn may be =may
mounrrd only whm abrolureh
necessary[
NEON -ILLUMINATED
TOTAL ACTUAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE:
RI-24 IBL: 65.07 sq. ft.
RI-30 IBL:102.4 sq. ft.
RI-36 IBL: 141.8 sq, IL
RI-48 IBL: 26023 sq. ft.
A
B
C
D
E
F
24"
6' 5 7/16"
10' 1"
3' 101/4"
2' 211/16"
5' Z 1/2"
t 30"
36"
48"
8' 7/8"
12' 81/2"
4' 9 13/16"
2' 61/2"
5' 11 7/18"
9' 4 1 /2"
15' 1 1/2"
5 9 5/16"
3' 7 3/16'
1' 1 3/4"
12' 1013l16"
20' 2 1/16"
7' 8 7/16"
4' 5 3/8"
10' 5"
r
1
7
•
•
i
BEST WESTERN SIGNAGE
re.�uee. r. I •••�u.riq I .Lulq
eun.i. om u• A•n•mun, 4.. rN
m l.e au.u. ar cao• aoe TCN
I. us• suu-on• Y. NO.
20-00
L J
PLOT SCALE:
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 2, 2000
�OCI.ESTER.,y/�
•Of
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSINGlHRA
5071285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELLISEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
RE: Incentive Development #00-30 and Variance 300-36 by Sunstone
Hotel Investors, Inc. The Incentive Development is to allow the
development of hotel that exceeds the permitted floor area ratio.
The Variance request is to permit some of the required off-street
parking for a hotel more than 600 feet away.
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.
903 Calle Amenecer
San Clamente, CA 92673
Consultant: HGA
Attn: Mark Jasmin
202 15' Avenue SW, Suite 200
Rochester, MN 55902-3129
Referral Comments: Public Works
RPU — Water Division
RPU —Operations Division
MnDOT
Rochester Fire Department
Planning Department - Transportation Dept.
Planning Department — Wetlands
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Project Narrative
3. Site Plan
4. Referral Comments (41-etters)
5. Letters addressing the parking
Development Review:
Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of West
Center Street and along the west side of 4t° Avenue
NW.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMA71VE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
Zoning:
Proposed Development:
The property is zoned CDC (Central Development
Core) — Medical on the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 5 story, 132 room hotel on the property. The project is
being proposed through the Incentive Development Conditional Use Permit process because the
development exceeds the permitted floor area ratio for the CDC -Medical zoning district. Transient
accommodations in the CDC -Medical zoning district are a Type I (staff approval) use if they meet
the floor area ratio of 1.50; the proposed hotel has a floor ratio of 2.0. The applicant is proposing
five levels above grade with the first level being the enclosed parking and the lobby/pool area.
The site is currently occupied by the surface parking for Mayo and employee parking for the
Kahler Corporation. These parking spaces will be displaced. Some of the parking will be
relocated to the Kahler Grand ramp, while Mayo has a long range plan, which will likely handle
their parking situation. The site is approximately 51,107-sq. ft. in size. Under a Type I (staff
approval) development the permitted floor area ratio would be 76,660 sq. ft. The applicant is
requesting approval of a hotel with a total floor area of 101,120 sq. ft, which is approximately a
floor area ratio of 2.0, thus requiring the proposal to go through the Incentive Development
process.
The building elevations indicate that the building will be 68.58' in height from the peak to the
ground level. The height as measured according to the ordinance is slightly less than 61'. The
building is constructed of composition board siding and face brick. The face brick covers the
garage level. The siding on the 2nd through 51" floors will be hardboard siding. The main floor will
also include a pool/spa area as well as an exercise room. Of 132 rooms, 16 of them will be
studios; 92 are 1-bedrooms and 24 are 2-bedrooms.
In addition to the building, a subway connect is proposed which would connect into Mayo's
subway system. The applicant has executed underground tunnel easements with Mayo for the
purpose of allowing Mayo to construct the underground tunnel to the site. A revocable permit will
be needed from the City for the construction of the subway system in the public right-of-way.
Landscaping will be provided along all four sides of the proposed building and within the right-of-
way. Landscape materials will include sod as well as trees and shrubs. The landscaping
requirement is 8% of the site. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 15% landscape
area.
In the CDC — Medical Area District, transient accommodations require 1 parking space per unit.
Since the hotel has 132 rooms, 132 spaces are required. The applicant is proposing to provide 67
parking spaces on the site. The remaining parking spaces are proposed to be in the Kehler
Grand parking ramp. Section 63.434 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual allows the required parking spaces to be located within 600 feet of the principal building
served for customer parking. The Kahler parking ramp is located approximately 825 feet to the
east. The applicant has filed a variance to vary the distance standard.
Incentive Development:
The Incentive Development provisions of the Land Development Manual allow for a higher
intensity development when certain actions are taken by the landowner to make the development
more attractive and publicly acceptable. These actions may include additional open space
amenities, traffic and pedestrian amenities and/or design features. The Incentive Development
`t24 /
Page3 0 0
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
approval procedure is a two step process consisting of a preliminary plan and a final development
plan. The preliminary plan is reviewed under a Type III, Phase II, procedure with a public hearing
before the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Council. The final plan is
reviewed under the Type III, Phase III, procedures. The Council does have the authority to waive
the final plan. The applicant has requested that this plan be considered the final plan with
no further review after the CPZC and City Council hearings.
The criteria to be considered when reviewing an Incentive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.630 (1), which is attached for your review. This section looks at both the suitability of the area
and the site design. The preliminary plan may be approved if it is found that the development has
addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest can be incorporated into the design.
The CPZC should recommend to the City Council any features (i.e. signs, landscaping, building
materials) which can not be changed without further review.
The development is proposing an increase in density of floor area. The allowed floor area ratio
within the Central Development Core - Medical District is 1.50 for a Type I (staff approval) permit.
This site would allow for a 76,660.5 sq. ft. building as a Type I development. The applicant is
proposing a 101,120-sq. ft. building, which is a F.A.R. of approximately2.0. Sections 62.656 and
62.658 (see attached) list the criteria that may be considered for granting bonus density. The
criteria that apply in this case are:
Section 62.656
#1, "Architectural Treatment" — The applicant is integrating architectural treatments that are
harmonious with the existing development in that it begins to "step down" the massing of the
more dense urban development and the design of the building reflects a more residential
image.
#3 "Protection to Pedestrian Traffic" - The applicant is proposing to construct a subway that
will connect into Mayo's subway system. The applicant has executed underground tunnel
easements with Mayo for the purpose of allowing Mayo to construct the underground tunnel
to the site. The subway will reduce the pedestrian traffic at the street level, providing for
increased safety to pedestrians and motorists and will protect the pedestrian from adverse
climatic conditions.
and #6 "Streetscape Improvements" — Incorporated into the site plan are architectural accent
lighting and plaza spaces along fourth Avenue NW that will create a feeling of openness at
street level.
Section 62.658
#7 "Increase in Landscape Area Ratio" — The amount of landscape area provided is 15% of
the total site area. The Central Business District/Medical Development Core has an 8%
minimum landscape area requirement, so the applicant is providing 7% (nearly twice the
amount required) more landscaping than what is required.
#8 "Minimizes Access Points" — Currently the site is developed as three parking lots, with a
total of 4 access points on West Center Street (Collector Roadway). The proposed
development would eliminate three of the access points.
Variance:
The applicant has requested a variance to the required standards of off-street parking being
located within 600 feet of the principal building. Section 63,434 of the Rochester Zoning
Page 4 • • I a3
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
Ordinance and Land Development allows for the required off-street parking to be located within
600 feet of the principal building served for customer parking. The proposed development
requires 132 parking spaces. The site plan indicates that 66 parking spaces would be provide on
the site with the remainder of the required parking spaces being provided in the Kahler Grand
parking ramp. This parking ramp is located on the southwest corner West Center Street and 1s'
Avenue NW. This ramp is located approximately 825 feet west of the proposed development.
The variance has been request to the required off-street parking distance. The applicant has
submitted some information regarding occupancy rates and percentages of guests that require
parking facilities.
Section 60.417 (attached) establishes the guidelines for a variance. In this case the staff
suggests the following findings:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: There would appear not to be extraordinary circumstance
or conditions that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other
properties in the area. The applicant could redesign the site plan to accommodate the
required parking spaces on the site. The applicant has submitted information regarding the
typical occupancy rates of other hotels they own that shows that approximately 50% of the
hotel guest require parking facilities and the average occupancy is roughly 65 — 75%.
REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance is not necessary to permit the reasonable
use of the property. The applicant could redesign the site to accommodate the required
parking spaces based on the proposed use of the site.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENTAL: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other property in the area. If the applicant's
information is accurate regarding what the occupancy rate and parking needs for other hotels,
the proposed number of parking spaces provided on the site would be adequate.
MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the
alleged hardship would be a variance to allow off-street parking to be located approximately
825 feet from the principal building instead of 600 feet. This finding would not pertain in the
case of denial.
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the above findings, the Planning staff recommends approval of this incentive
development, with the following conditions:
f. The applicant shall execute a development agreement with the City of Rochester that
outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater
management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, contributions for public
infrastructure, abandonment of utilities, passenger loading/drop areas, loading zones,
re-routing of utilities for the subway connection and those items specified by the City
Council
2. Specific grading, drainage and construction plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the City prior to any on -site construction activities. The applicant must also address
storm water management for the project.
3. Any needed repairs or panel replacement to the existing sidewalks and concrete curbs
which front the property shall be done at the owner's expense concurrent with this
project. The Public Works Department will inspect the condition of the sidewalk and
curb at the time of development to determine if repair or replace is needed.
Page 5 • •
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
4. The applicant will need to obtain a revocable permit from the City for the subway
connection proposed in West Center Street.
5. Prior to development, a detailed lighting plan, including illumination levels at the
property lines be submitted to the Planning Department for review. The lighting must
meet standard "D" in Section 63.210 of the Land Development Manual.
6. A complete set of plan sheets be submitted to be Planning Department which reflect
the revision to the access to 5h Avenue NW.
7. If the variance is denied, the site will need to be redesigned to accommodate the
required parking on site.
Page •
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
62.620 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT
PLAN:
The Council shall approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the
development has addressed and satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph
62.630 (1) or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be
incorporated into the final development plans.
62.621 Standards for Approval, Final Development Plan: The Council shall
approve or approve with conditions a final development plan if it finds that the
development has satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.630(2).
62.630 CRITERIA FOR INCENTIVE DEVELOPMENTS:
In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following
criteria:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Suitability of the Area: The Commission and Council shall find that
the proposed site is suitable as the location for an Incentive
Development based on consideration of the following factors:
1) The proposed use is compatible with the existing land uses in the
area or the pattern of zoning within 1,000 feet of the property
boundaries.
2) The natural characteristics of the site under consideration, including
topography and soil characteristics, necessitate increased density
to allow for economic development of the site.
b) Site Design Criteria: The Commission and Council shall find that the
preliminary development plan design is consistent with the following
guidelines:
1) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned
utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed
development.
2) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic
hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., has
been identified and the development of these areas has been taken
into account or will be addressed in the final development plan.
3) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction,
the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to
Ja "' Page 7 • •
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2. 2000
the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing
desirable vegetation of the site.
4) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the
development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be
exceeded, and conceptual improvements or the need for
improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic
flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed.
5) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the
heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with
the surrounding development in the following manner:
a) The structures will not deny adequate sunlight to surrounding
properties;
b) The siting of the structures will not destroy views from the
primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings;
6) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed
setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner
consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying
zoning district.
7) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new
construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building
separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open
spaces, street frontages or other focal points.
8) Screening and Buffering; The conceptual screening and
bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of
residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from
the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility
areas such as refuse storage, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access,
or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent
land uses.
9) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes
adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in
the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to
meet ordinance requirements.
2) Final Development Plan Criteria;
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities
meet the requirements and specifications which the applicable utility
has adopted.
Page 8
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
• 129
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic
hazard have been incorporated into the development plan or such
areas have been set aside from development.
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and
located so as to address concerns identified in Phase I regarding the
operation of access points, and plans for private improvements or
evidence of planned public improvements which will alleviate the
problems have been provided.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that
pedestrians can move safely both within the site and across the site
between properties and activities within the neighborhood area, and,
where appropriate, accommodations for transit access are provided.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has
been prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent with
the landscape character of the surrounding area.
f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future
maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common
areas, the completion of any platting activities, and the provision of
adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of required public
improvements, screening and landscaping.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard
design contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which are
adequate to satisfy the needs identified in preliminary development plan
for the project.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the
principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height
Impact, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design.
Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading
areas and circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance
requirements in terms of design.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent
with the requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in
regards to signage and other appearance controls, and with general
standards such as traffic visibility and emergency access.
62.640 BONUS DENSITY OR FLOOR AREA:
The amount of bonus density will be negotiated with the Commission and
Council during the Type III review process. Density bonuses are granted in
exchange for the incorporation of features determined to be of public benefit.
(99 Page 0 •
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
The features to be considered are listed in Paragraphs 62.651 through 62.659.
The features to be used can be chosen at the option of the applicant.
62.656 Central Development Core: The criteria listed in this paragraph will be
considered in granting bonus floor area in the Central Development Core
(CDC) District.
1) Architectural treatment that involves the restoration or enhancement of
significant historical, architectural or cultural features of existing buildings,
or new construction which is harmonious with existing development in that:
a) it avoids abrupt changes in scale, or b) it incorporates increased
setbacks at floors above the second story.
2) Buildings adjacent to or across the street from public open spaces located
to the north are designed in such a manner so as to allow sunlight to enter
such spaces over sixty (60%) percent of the daylight hours for up to nine
months of the year.
3) The design of the development incorporates features which provide
protection to pedestrian traffic from adverse climatic conditions. Such
features include:
a) Skyway or subway connections to adjacent buildings across right-of-
way;
b) Canopies or other exterior coverings over sidewalks;
c) Heated sidewalks;
d) Enclosed connections to public parking ramps, and
e) Provision of off-street or protected passenger loading zones.
4) Provision of streetscape improvements which enhance the visual
appearance and create a feeling of openness on the site as perceived at
street level. Such amenities shall include boulevard plantings, street
lighting, sitting areas equipped with benches, or other open space such as
plazas or vest-pocket parks.
5) Making available space for small retail or business uses that have been
displaced as a result of redevelopment occurring within the Central
Development Core district.
6) When the development does not abut an alley, the provision of other
means for off-street loading and deliveries.
62.658 All Development: The criteria in this paragraph may be considered for
granting bonus density in all developments:
Page 10 • • ra y
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2. 2000
1) Storm Water Management: The developer provides on -site or off -site
improvements to stormwater facilities that will minimize existing flooding,
erosion or siltation problems resulting from obsolete or non -existing
stormwater facilities up or downstream from the tract in question; or the
developer provides improvements such as over -sized retention basins,
channel improvements, or recharge facilities which reduce or eliminate
existing flooding, erosion or siltation caused by urban development either
up or downstream. The City Council shall determine that the existing
problems are sufficient to grant the bonus, based upon the
recommendation of the City Engineer.
2) The development proposes to integrate the reuse of an existing structure
which has been vacant for 24 consecutive months.
3) Easements consistent with the flood control project are provided, or other
bank treatment or river beautification which will result in increased usage of
the area along existing streams for walking, sitting, or other means of
passive recreation are developed.
4) Street improvements normally provided by the City of Rochester are
constructed, dedicated or paid for by the developer. Examples include the
provision of right-of-way for arterial streets beyond that normally required to
be dedicated, or the construction or payment for turn lanes, signal lights,
increased pavement depths, etc.
5) Utility Service: The development of the site will lead to increased
efficiency in the existing public utility delivery system or the more efficient
use of already existing utilities. This means, a) that the necessary utilities
already exist on the property to be served, or b) the development of the
property will provide a necessary link or connection to complete the system
or improve service.
6) Integrated Planning: The proposed development involves the integrated
development of a site which is a minimum of one acre in size and located in
an established district.
7) Each four (4) percent increase in the landscape area ratio above the
minimum required shall be considered as meeting the criteria for bonus
density/floor area or an increase in plant materials so as to exceed
minimum requirements.
8) The proposed development minimizes access points by utilizing shared
access points with adjacent developments, resulting in a reduction in the
number of driveway openings on a collector or higher level street.
9) Parking lot landscaping for the purpose of screening residential areas
and/or right-of-way areas from concentration of vehicles.
(3a Page 11 • •
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval
authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following
guidelines:
1) The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it
finds that:
a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity,
narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical
conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands
within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and
b) the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved;
and
c) the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially
injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose
and intent of this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan; and
d) the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable
economic use of the property.
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 this ordinance.
2) The Board may grant a variance to the literal provisions of this ordinance if it finds
that:
a) there has been substantial and detrimental reliance in good faith by an applicant
who has received a permit or certificate issued in error by the administrative
official charged with enforcement of this ordinance, and
b) the mistaken issuance of the certificate or permit is not the result of an action on
the part of the applicant, the property owner, or any other person or party who
has had control of the property, to provide misleading or incorrect information, or
to knowingly withhold information necessary for the administrative official to
accurately review the permit or certificate request.
3) The Board shall under no circumstances grant a variance that will allow a use
otherwise not permitted within the zoning district or any variance of the elevation or
levels for flood protection.
Page 12 0
Sunstone Incentive Development
November 2, 2000
0 (3r
4) In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such
reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to
accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the
regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to reduce or
minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties, the
character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the
community. A variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part
of the terms under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant
and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any violation of a
variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and
punishable as such.
we pledge, we dMver
October 9, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Incentive Development, Preliminary Plan #00-30 by Sunstone
Hotel Investors, Inc. to permit the construction of a 5 story, 132 unit hotel along the west side of 41h
Ave. NW north of West Center St. NW.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced Incentive Development Request is complete and our comments follow:
1. All existing unused water services that may be stubbed to this property must be abandoned
properly at the main in the street per our requirements.
2. The portion of the existing 6" public water main in West Center St. from 41h Ave. NW to the west
will need to be relocated by the developer to make room for the new subway connection. This new
water main should be sized as an 8" and be installed as follows:
• The owner is required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the
installation of the public water main. Contact the Land Development Manager (507-281-6198)
at the Public Works Department for details.
• Final water main construction plans will need to be prepared by a civil engineer and conform to
standard City of Rochester requirements.
3. If the north %: of the West Center St. pavement is to be replaced as a part of this project, then the
remaining portion of the existing 6" public water main adjacent to this property will also need to be
replaced with new 8". This portion of the water main replacement must be incorporated into this
project and the developer will be reimbursed for the construction cost by us. We will work with the
applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout for this area.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
064A R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
HGA
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
hod • •
GCM ROCHESTER
vz
✓�raz2e�o�a
DATE: October 20, 2000
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
STER:,,,,,1_33
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507) 285-8256
SUBJECT: Type III, Phase II Incentive Dev. #00-30, Preliminary Plan, Residence Inn
by Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc., to construct a 5 story 132 unit hotel on the north side
of West Center Street, west of 4th Avenue NW and east of 5v' Avenue NW.
This project is adding a 5 story, 132 residential structure to the city's fire protection area.
With that regard the fire code has the following requirements:
1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Existing hydrants will provide adequate fire protection for this project.
Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance
with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual. Fire department access roadways shown on the plan are acceptable and
shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction.
All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when
located on the building.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. 903 Calle Amenecer, San Clamente, Ca. 92673
HGA, 202 First Ave. SW Suite 200, Rochester, Mn. 55902
IN
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
11/1/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4`" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the REVISED application for Incentive
Development #00-30 Preliminary Plan,on the Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.(Residence Inn)
property. The following are Public Works comments on the REVISED proposal:
1. Public Works concurs with the access alignment change onto 5 ° Ave NW.
2. Public Works has no other new comments related to the current revised plan.
C:%TEMPUncentiveDev #00-30 Sunstone Hotel Revised 10-OO.doc
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
10/12/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester. MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
r3s'
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Incentive Development #00-30
Preliminary Plan,on the Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.(Residence Inn) property. The following
are Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. A grading and drainage plan must be provided and approved for this development,
and Storm Water Management must be provided.
2. Pedestrian facilities are required along the entire frontages of all public roads
abutting this property. The condition of existing pedestrian facilities, and concrete
curb will be reviewed by Public Works staff, and any needed panel repair and/or
replacement work of sidewalk or curbing shall be done concurrent with this project.
3. If additional on -site hydrant(s) are required, a City / Owner Contract must be
executed prior to watermain & hydrant placement to serve this project.
4. TKcess 'gnyefR in ed�rthe pj�rfto Seje�ve I n �jwbtr�yitad��--
t it i erp tcul with RO tc et Ci Stan rds.
More information is needed to show how this development will meet the parking
requirements, and need for curbside loading zones.
6. Public Works is currently reviewing the need for right-of-way dedication, and will
make a determination prior to Council Action on the Final Plan.
The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property
•: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1653,67 per acre x 1.33 acres (as surveyed) _
$2,199.38.
Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per acre x 1.33 acres (as surveyed) _
$2,199.38.
Stormwater Management Fee = TBD.
C:ITEMPUnaentiveDev #00-30 Sunstone Hotel.doc
I �
ROATER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
1
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E.
ROCHESTER, MN 55904-7996
PHONE 507-285-8232 FAX 507-287-2275
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 10, 2000
TO: Pre Development file on Sunstone Marriot proposal @ 41" Ave W and Center St
FROM: Charlie Reiter
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
RE: Requirement for Traffic Study
Richard Freese and I met to discuss this proposal for a 132 unit hotel/suite west of Clinic View
Inn. Traffic generation in range of 650 to 750 per day would be expected, with approximately
50-55 peak hour directional trips (100-110 total). Site plan as presented at 7/5 pre -development
was also reviewed, showing three access points across three frontages of property. Based on
this review we have determined that a Traffic Impact Study would not be required for the
development. Any requests for on -street loading zones will need to be processed through
Public Works Department, as will request for modifications to curb cuts consistent with the site
plan. If final site plan results in proposed curb cuts nearer to any of the street intersections than
indicated on the site plan that site plan approval process will be used as the vehicle for
reviewing the appropriateness of these locations.
A r ch i l e c l u re I Engineering 1 Planning
September 27, 2000
Members of the Zoning Commission and City Council
Re: Proposed Sunstone-Marriott Residence Inn
Incentive Development Application
HGA Commission Number 1920-009-00
Dear Madams and Sus:
\CRrrER'S DIRECT DL1L (307) 281-8632
J he materials contained within support our application for an Incentive Development. The
reason for the Incentive Development is the floor -area -ratio provided with the proposed hotel
(2.00) exceeds the allowable 150 FAR as set forth by the Ordinance. Below are our findings based
on the criteria outlined in the Ordinance for approval of the Incentive Development. We
respectfully request a waiver for the Final Development Plan review and hearing.
Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
1.a. Suitability of the Area:
l.a.l. The proposed hotel use is allowed for the Central Development Core by right. The
adjoining properties are compatible with this use as well.
1.a.2. A greater floor -area -ratio is necessary- to economically develop the site for a hotel use.
This will allow for the overall room demands, and the proper unit size mix.
l.b.l. Capacity of Public Facilities: Existing facilities are available along or under both West
Center Street and Fourth Avenue NW. Preliminary designs indicate that most utilities will be
extended from Fourth Avenue.
1.b.2. Geologic Hazards: The current survey of the site indicates a general slope from 1006.0'
in the northwest corner of the site to 1002.0' in the southeast comer. The site is not located
within a flood plain. The current geotechnical report indicates 6 to 8 feet of compacted fill
overlaying coarse alluvial sand and limestone.
1.b.3. Natural Features: The existing site is predominantly paved as a surface parking lot. The
current planting plan indicates several existing street front trees that will be preserve along with an
18" hackberry near the center of the site.
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. 202 1st Avenue SW - Suite 200 • Rochester, Minnesota USA 55902-3129
Telephone 507.281.8600 Facsimile 507.281.8688
Visit our Website: www.hga.com
Members of the Zoning Co' ssion and City Council
September 27, 2000
Page 2
1.b.4. Traffic Generation Impact: The existing site contains five points of access to separate
parking lots; the proposed development would reduce the number of access points to three.
According to Charlie Rieder of Consolidated Planning, the proposed hotel use would have a
similar impact to the capacity- of the adjacent streets, thereby not requiring additional study or
improvements.
1.b.5. Height Impact:
1.b.5.a. The proposed 5-story hotel is compatible with the existing 4-story hotel across the street
to the north of the site.
1.b.5.b. There are no adjacent residential dwellings. The residential nature of the proposed
elevations will enhance the views of the site.
11.6. Setbacks: There are no required setbacks in the Central Development Core — Medical
Area. The building has been situated with no setbacks along West Center Street, allowing for a
20'-0" setback north of the west wing and a green area to the north of the north Nving.
1.6.7. Internal Site Design: The positioning of the building on the site places the mass of the
building on the southeast comer, toward the denser urban center. This allows for adequate
setbacks and green space toward the more residential area.
11.8. Screening and Buffering: "There are no residential areas immediately adjacent to the site.
However, a buffer has been provided between the site and the remainder of the block currently
occupied by another hotel use. A hedgerow will be provided to help screen the west side of the
parking lot.
1.b.9. Ordinance Requirements: Approximately half of the required parking is provided on -
site. There is an agreement to provide the remaining parking in the Kahler parking ramp
approximately 600 feet to the east. The landscape area provided is 15% which is over the
ordinance requirement of 8%.
2. Final Development Plan Criteria:
2.a. Public Facility Design: All public facilities are existing along the site perimeter and will
be extended according to the requirements and specifications of each utility.
2.b. Geologic Hazard: No geologic hazards have been identified on site. The site will be
graded consistent with the general overall existing topography.
2.c. Access Effect: The proposed site plan has minimized the access points to the overall site
to one on each street frontage. This should control vehicular circulation more effectively than the
existing conditions.
2.d. Pedestrian Circulation: The proposed site plan provides adequate sidewalks and plaza
areas to allow safe pedestrian movement within and across the site. A subway connection is
provided to further benefit the pedestrian circulation.
Members of the Zoning C m scion and City Council
e9 '
September 27, 2000
Page 3
2.e. Foundation and Site Plantings: The proposed landscape plan allows for existing
landscape features to remain as well as complimentary plant selections.
2.f. Site Status: Presently, the site is under ownership of three different parties. Upon
purchase the site will be replatted under single ownership to Sunstone Hotel Developers, Inc.
2.g. Screening and Bufferyards: There are no residential areas immediately adjacent to the
site. However, a hedgerow has been provided in the bufferyard between the site and the
remainder of the block currently occupied by another hotel use.
21. Final Building Design: 7'he proposed height of the hotel is compatible with
surrounding structures. The massing of the building is consistent with adjacent properties. There
are no required setbacks in the Central Development Core — Medical Area. The building has been
situated with no setbacks along West Center Street, allowing for a setback north of the west wing,
a green area to the north of the north wing, and plaza space along Fourth Avenue.
2.i. Internal Circulation Areas: The on -site parking area accessed off of First Street NW
provides an area for loading and deliveries. Passenger drop-off is accommodated by an off-street
loading zone/lane.
2.j. Ordinance Requirements: Two freestanding monument signs and two wall signs are
provided within the allowable area permitted for each sign type.
62.656 Central Development Core: Please consider the following criteria in granting bonus
floor area:
2.
3.
4.
71te architectural treatment of the proposed hotel is harmonious with the existing
development in that it begins to "step down" the massing of the more dense urban core
and reflects a more residential image.
The design of the development incorporates protection to pedestrian traffic from adverse
climatic conditions by providing:
a. A subway connection to the existing subway system under West Center Street.
b. Ground level parking protected by the guestrooms above.
C. An off-street passenger loading zone/lane.
Architectural accent lighting and plaza spaces along Fourth Avenue will be provided to
enhance the visual appearance and create a feeling of openness on the site as perceived at
street level.
Off-street loading and deliveries may be accommodated in the on -site parking area
accessed off of First Street NW.
1,koAlembers of the Zoning C• ssion and City Council
September 27, 2000
Page 4
If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
HANIMEL, GREEN AND ABRf1HAhiSON, INC.
sarurt . �.�.�-�
Mark A. Ja , CIA
Senior Associate
Enclosure
cc: Jerry Arndt, Sunstone
Charlie Biedermann, Sunstone
Bob Bruchmann, Sunstone
Kevin Molloy, Kahler
Terry Newell, HGA
g:\project\ 1900\ 1930\009-00\cotton-dcs\corres\maj8.doc;tab
I* 1R. % 141/,
Architecture I Engineering i Planning
October 23, 2000
Mr. Brent Senby
Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive Southeast
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Re: Marriott Residence Inn
Incentive Development Plan
HGA Commission Number 1920-009-00
Dear Brent:
WRITER'S 13M;CT DUL (507) 281-8632
This letter is in response to inquiries from your department relative to the displacement of parking
stalls on the site of the future Marriott Residence Inn. As you are aware, the "U' shaped site
presently contains between 50 and 60 stalls used for Clinic View Inn and Suites guest parking and
Kahler Grand employee parking. Kahler management intends to use space within the Kahler
Grand parking ramp to accommodate the displaced parking stalls.
The proposed Marriott Residence Inn will contain 132 rooms. 66 parking stalls will be provided
on site. We feel this number is adequate to cover the demand for guest parking for the facility.
Based on historical data, occupancy rates are expected to average 75 to 80% with seasonal peaks
up close to 100%. Typically less than 50% of guests require parking facilities, therefore the stalls
provided at the site should handle the demand created by the Residence Inn under normal
conditions. During peak usage, overflow parking will be diverted to the Kahler Grand parking
ramp.
On behalf of Sunstone Hotels Investors, Inc., we respectfully request a recommendation from
staff to approve the Incentive Development plan based on its merit. Sunstone will continue to
work dilitzently in cooperation with the City of Rochester towards viable long-term parking and
transit solutions.
Sincerely,
HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAfIAMSON, INC.
04�-a
ark A. J smin, AIA
Se ociate
cc: Jerry Arndt, Bob Bruchmann, Sunstone Hotel Investors
Kevin Molloy, Kahler Hotel
g:\project\1900\1920\009-00\comm-des\corres\majI i.doc
nammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. 202 1st Avenue SW - Suite 200 - Rochester, Minnesota USA 55902-3129
Telephone 507.281.8600 Facsimile 5 0 7 . 2 8 1 . 8688
Visit our Website: vvvlw.hga.com
jq�' 41 I-R.
Architecture I Engineering 1 Pl an nin9
October 26, 2000
Mr. Brent Svenb%
Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive Southeast
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Re: Marriott Residence Inn
Kahler Grand Hotel Parking Ramp Capacity
HGA Commission Number 1920-009-00
Dear Brent:
i
\XR11T_R'S DIRECT DL'tL (507) 281-8632
In response to your request, this letter addresses the parking capacity of the Kahler Grand Hotel
parking ramp relative to the room counts and occupancy rates of the Kahler Grand and the
Marriott Hotels, which currently utilize the ramp for guest parking.
The capacity of the ramp is 330 cars. The Kahler Grand Hotel contains 700 guestrooms. On an
annualized basis, the average occupancy of the hotel is 65%, or 455 rooms. Hotel management
finds that roughly 50% of guests create a parking demand on the ramp, or 228 cars. The Marriott
Hotel contains 194 guestrooms. On an annualized basis, the average occupancy of the Marriott is
75% or 146 rooms. Hotel management finds that roughly 20% of guests create parking demand
on the ramp, or about 30 cars. The total combined demand for parking in the Kahler Grand
Hotel parking ramp based on average occupancy and parking demand rates from the Kahler
Grand and Marriott Hotels is 258 cars.
As stated in previous correspondence, Sunstone Hotels, Inc., intends to use the excess capacity in
the ramp for overflow parking from the proposed Marriott Residence Inn on an as needed basis.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
AND ABRAHAMSON, INC.
A. Jas4-iin, AL-1
cc: Jerry Arndt, Sunstone Hotel Investors
Charlie Biederman, Sunstone Hotel Investors
Bob Bruchmann, Sunstone Hotel Investors
Kevin Molloy, Kahler Hotel
Terry Newell, HGA
g:\project\ 1900\ 1920\009-00\comet-des \corres\maj13.doc
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. 202 1st Avenue SW - Suite 200 • Rochester, Minnesota USA 55902-3129
Telephone 507.281.8600 Facsimile 507.281.8688
Visit our Webslle: www.hga.com
Ah r
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
DATE:
November 8, 2000
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
TO:
Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FROM:
Brent Svenby
FAx 507/287-2275
RE:
Signage for the proposed Residence Inn by Marriott
The applicant has submitted revised signage plans for the project based on the
purchase agreement between Sunstone and Best Western. The site plan
includes pylon signs in the southwest and northeast corner of the site. These
signs where were shown as Residence Inn signs. The purchase agreement
between the property owners indicates that these sign areas are to be granted to
Best Western. An additional wall sign was added to the north end of the building.
New signage
Wall Signage: (Residence Inn Signs)
South side - 141.8 sq. ft. (illuminated)
North end - 102.4 sq. ft. (illuminated)
East side - 35.35 so. ft. (non -illuminated)
279.55 sq. ft.
Free Standing Signage: (Best Western Signs)
Southwest corner — 135 sq. ft. 22 feet in height (illuminated)
Northeast corner - 80 sq. ft. 16 feet in height (illuminated)
215 sq. ft.
The proposed signage is within the limits of what is permitted for the proposed
use in the CDC — Medical District.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
ILK Page 5 •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Na
activity proposed on the site prior to annexatio/cad
erty, shall be
re wed and approved by the City of Rochester Publicrtment.
3. Until su time that any downstream culvert and/or ditcdeficiency is
remedied, a amount of development shall be limited tthe pond and
Quinstar G stormwater discharge shall be reduced the existing
capacity of C my Road 1 culvert. This will be evaluatby plat basis.
4. The applicant agr s to fu/-y
e necessary data coil tion activities that will
permit updating the afficct study and re -an sis of intersection operations
on CSAH 1. The type f dallection would Ilk include turning movement
and traffic volume cou s proposed CSA 1 intersection and the street
segments approaching t rsection. As suit of the re -analysis of traffic
condition for further limita n the inten or types of land used that will be
permitted on Phase Il woulestablishe as part of the re -platting process.
5. Geometric improvements arante at the intersection to insure safe
functioning of the intersectn n signalized manner. The applicant shall be
responsible for the construo northbound right turn lane on CSAH 1. The
applicant shall also be respbl r a left turn lane for southbound traffic on
CSAH1 turning left into the he plicant will need to work with the Olmsted
County Public Works Depat to d ermine how best to accommodate the left
turn lane. The commercial lopmen hall be served by 2 inbound and 2
outbound lanes.
6. The General
be revised
➢ Indicate controlle ccess along the entire\om
CSAH 1 and along the
interior street fo distance of 150 feet bacntersection with CSAH
➢ Provide a r dway to the unplatted land in ark GDP. The most
likely loca n to provide an access to the SGDP is by extending a
roadway orth from the east/west roadway with the entrance to the
southe cul-de-sac.
➢ Ind' ate that the commercial development will be develo ed in Phases with
P se I including no more than 3 lots with the mix of use on these three lots
e limited such that the total trip generation shall not exc d 2,500 trip per
day (+/-10 %).
➢ Show access points and pedestrian facilities.
/
Page 6 • . , #/s
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 1111
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report (there was one staff report for both items), dated
November 2, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted
Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant needed to apply for a variance to the parking
regulations of the ordinance because they intend to have parking facilities greater than 600 feet
away from the property. Therefore, the Commission tabled the Incentive Development
application to November 8, 2000 to hear the two applications concurrently. He indicated that
the parking facility would be approximately 825 feet from the property.
Mr. Svenby indicated that the applicant is requested that the City Council waive the final plan.
Mr. Svenby explained that, if the Commission approved the variance request, the Commission
would need to revise staffs -suggested findings to follow their motion.
Mr. Svenby explained that two separate motions would need to be made with respect to the
Incentive Development application and Variance application.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented a memorandum discussing signage for the proposed Residence
Inn by Marriott, dated November 8, 2000, to the Commission. The memorandum is on file at the
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Quinn asked if the Commission needed to take action on the additional memo regarding
signage.
Mr. Svenby responded no.
Mr. Kevin Molloy, Vice President of Operations for Sunstone Hotels, addressed the
Commission. He explained what types of rooms were being proposed.
Mr. Mark Jasmin, of HGA Architects, addressed the Commission. He showed colored samples
of the building, site plan, and proposed buffering. He explained that the applicant feels they
have maximized their parking on the site and that most customers would probably not bring their
cars with them. He indicated that they foresee a 78 percent occupancy rate.
Mr. Jasmin stated that the overflow parking would go to the Kahler ramp. He indicated that they
have an agreement with Mayo to have a subway connection.
Mr. Brede asked if there would be a location to drop off luggage.
Mr. Jasmin responded yes and indicated that it would handle 2 to 3 cars at one time.
Mr. Burke asked if the ramp would be closed to public parking and only reserved for customers
of the Kahler.
Page 7
• • '
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Mr. Molloy responded that it would be something they would address on a demand basis.
Mr. Burke asked if there was an alternative plan, if the ramp became full.
Mr. Molloy responded that they would use the West Center Street parking ramp at Michaels.
Mr. Mike Quirk, representative of the Kutzky Park Neighborhood Association, addressed the
Commission. He expressed concern regarding traffic parking in the neighborhood. He stated
that he felt that the applicant was underestimating the number of vehicles, especially since most
of the customers would be staying for an extended period of time. He also expressed concern
as to where the hotel's employees would park.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
ins. mcuowan moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase 11 Incentive Developm(
#00-30 Preliminary Plan by Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. with staff -suggested
conditions and findings. Ms. Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall execute a development agreement with the City of Rochester that
outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but hot limited to, stormwater
management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, 'contributions for public
infrastructure, abandonment of utilities, passenger loading/drop areas, loading zones,
re-routing of utilities for the subway connection and those items specified by the City,
Council.
a
2. Specific grading, drainage and construction plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the City prior to; any on -site construction activities. The applicant must also address
storm water management for the' -project.
i
3. Any needed repairs or panel replacement to the existing sidewalks and concrete
curbs which front the property shall be done at the owner's expense, concurrent with
this project. The Public Works,Department will inspect the condition of the sidewalk
and curb at the time of development to determine if repair or, replace is needed.
�L
4. The applicant will need to obtall
in a revocable permit from the City for the subway
connection proposed In West Center Street.:
5. Prior to development, a detailed lighting plan, including illumination levels at the
property lines be submitted to the Planning Department for review. The lighting must
meet standard "D" in Section 63.210 of the Land Development Manual._
6. A complete set of plan sheets be submitted to be Planning Department which reflect.,
the revision to the access to 5e Avenue NW ,
Ms. McGowan moved to approve Type III, Phase 1, Variance Request #00-36 by Sunstone:';
Hotel Investors, Inca
Page 8
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Discussion ensued regarding findings.
Mr. Svenby stated that the Commission might want to add language to the findings, such as
"Based on the information submitted by the applicant on occupancy rates of other hotels they
own, there appears not to be a need for the entire number of required parking spaces." He
referred to letters submitted by the applicant on pages 137 and 138 of the staff report.
FINDINGS:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS• There would appear to be extraordinary
circumstance or conditions that would apply to this property that would not apply
generally to other properties in the area. The applicant has submitted information
regarding the typical occupancy rates of other hotels they own that shows that
approximately 50% of the hotel guest require parking facilities and the average
occupancy is roughly 65 — 75%.
REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance may be necessary to permit the
reasonable use of the property. Based on the information submitted by the applicant
on occupancy rates of other hotels they own, there appears not to be a need for the
entire number of required parking spaces.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENTAL; The granting of this variance request does not appear
to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other property in the area. If
the applicant's information is accurate regarding what the occupancy rate and
parking needs for other hotels, the proposed number of parking spaces provided on
the site would be adequate...
MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the
alleged hardship would be a variance to allow off-street parking to be located
approximately 825 feet from the principal building instead of 600 feet. This finding
would not pertain in the case of denial.
Mr. Quinn seconded the motion.
Mr. Slaver stated that he agreed with staffs findings. He expressed concern regarding parking
on peak days (ex. conventions and seasonal events). He indicated that the plan could be
designed differently, therefore, there are no exceptional circumstances.
Ms. Petersson stated that she agreed with Mr. Staver. She questioned where the employees
would park.
Mr. Burke suggested adding the following to the motion: "The applicant must provide a
contingency plan to specifically address parking over the planned 132 parking spaces on the
site." He indicated that the plan should be on file. He indicated that on street parking is not
permissible as part of the alternative plan.
Mr. Brede agreed with Mr. Burke's additional condition. He suggested that a valet or shuttle
system should be available.
i
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Mr. Staver stated that he hear mention of another hotel facility where they had a rental
agreement to provide for overflow situations.
Mr. Suk asked Ms. McGowan if she would consider an amendment to her motion to add Mr.
Burke's condition.
Ms. McGowan amended her motion to approve Type III, Phase I, Variance Request #00-3
by Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. to include a written contingency plan to be on file with
the City and that they will not turn to on street parking.
inn
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mr. Brent SvenbyN
staff report is on file
e motion to amend. The motion carried 7-0.
ented the staff report, dated NovembeA, 2000, to the Commission. The
the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Delartment.
Mr. Svenby stated that, cording to an approved/thati
ment agreement with the City, the
owner is required to provid secondary access be concurrent with the development
of Century Hills Fourth Subdi ion. He indicatedapplicant is aware that a secondary
access needs to be open soon. a was informeddeveloper would have it open
sometime this year.
Ms. Petersson asked where the
Mr. Svenby showed where the a
report.
Ms. Petersson asked how far
Decorah shale in the past.
Mr. Svenby responded that
explained that there are no
however, it is not policy. Tt
a study that is in a draft fort/
located.
is on the map on page 155 of the staff
' Irs have bee equested to be away from the edge of the
/not asked them to sta way from it, in the past. He
ns adopted at this time. ere is a draft version of a report,
it is premature to limit devel ent in edge areas based on
Ms. Petersson/askeden the draft of the study would be in final form,Mr. Svenby reat he was not sure when it would be available.
Mr. Burke askstipulation stated, with regard to the secondary
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 12-11-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
5
DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-05 by Quinstar, LLP to amend the
PREPARED BY:
Rochester Urban Service Land Use Plan to change the designation of 12.10 acres of land
Brent Svenby,
from "low Density Residential" to "Commercial". The property is located north of Highway
Planner
52, east of 11`h Avenue SE (Co. Rd. 1).
November 30, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2000, to consider the Land Use Plan
Amendment request for the property. The applicant is requesting to designate approximately 12.10 acres be designated for
"Commercial" on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Geoff Griffin, GGG Engineering, addressed the Commission. Mr. Griffin stated that his client agreed with the additional
information supplied by Mr. Reiter regarding the traffic analysis.
The Commission discussed whether the area proposed to be designated "Commercial' is appropriate based on the criteria as
included in the staff report. The Commission recommended approval, with staff suggested findings.
Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve Land Use Plan Amendment #00-05 by Quinstar, LLP with staff -suggested
findings. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
ttached staff report dated November 3, 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 land use plan amendment as petitioned, it
should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an resolution amending the Land Use Plan supported by findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated November 3, 2000
2. Minutes of the November 8, 2000 CPZC Meeting
Distribution: p
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator!
3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
3. Planning Department File -
4. Planning Department GIS
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, December 11, 2000 in the Council I Board
Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building
6. GGG Engineering
C JCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to:
s
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904-4744
(507) 285-8232
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Planning Commission and City Council
FROM: Charles Reiter
Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: Original Staff Analysis: September 18, 2000
Additional Discussion Notes: November 1. 2000
RE: Review of Rezoning Traffic Analysis Report for proposed Quinstar Land Use Plan Amendment and Zone
Change
DISCUSSION dated 111112000
Subsequent to the preparation of the initial staff
report (see the following sections dated 9/18/2000),
follow-up meetings with the applicant, their
consultant and the County Highway Engineer were
conducted to discuss the findings of the staff report.
As summarized below, staff is concerned about the
potential trip generation that could result from the
development of 11+ acres of commercially zoned
land on the site, since an area this size could easily
support a level of development that would require a
traffic signal at the entrance to the development on
CSAH 1. As described in the Analysis beginning on
page 4, both the City and County Public Works
Department and Planning do not believe this is an
appropriate location for a traffic signal based on past
practice and policy, and would recommend that
controls on the intensity of development be
established in order to mitigate the need for a traffic
signal.
hi our follow-up meeting after preparation of the
initial staff report issues were discussed regarding
some of the inherent uncertainty that accompanies
preparation of a traffic impact study and how the
impact of actual development may vary from that
suggested by such a study. Among the uncertainties
include having an actual mix of land use different
from that assumed in the study, or having turning
movement patterns develop that are different from
those assumed for the purposes of the study. For
example, we agreed to assume in the study that
traffic exiting the site would split about 50/50, with
50% turning left primarily to get back to TH 52 and
50% turning right to head north on CSAH 1. If, for
example, the reality turns out to be that a higher
percentage of the traffic is leaving the site and
turning right to head north on CSAH 1, the
intersection could safely handle a higher level of
traffic than if we realize the 50/50 split assumed.
Since the applicant does not have specific purchasers
at this time for lots in the proposed commercial area,
the applicant and staff discussed whether there were
a set of parameters that could be established which
could allow for consideration of the 11+ acres of
commercial land. From the staffs perspective, any
such parameters would need to provide for control
and protection over the amount of traffic that would
be generated from the development. Staff would
recommend that such conditions be included in
approval of the General Development Plan and
formally reflected within the Development
Agreement established for the site. The specific set
r
of conditions that staff would recommend be
considered and included are as follows:
i. The commercially zoned area would
need to be developed as a Phased
Development. Phase I can include no
more than three lots, with the mix of uses
on these three lots limited such that total
trip generation would not exceed
approximately 2,500 trips per day
10%)
2. The portion of any commercially zoned
area not part of Phase I is defined to be
part of Phase II and would initially be
platted as an outlot(s) with the condition
that such lots could not be developed
until a replat is submitted and approved
by the City. A Type I subdivision (ie, by
metes and bounds description) would not
be permitted.
3. After the lots in Phase I are developed
and prior to proceeding with the replat of
any area included in Phase II, the
applicant or their assignees agree to fund
the necessary data collection activities
that will permit updating the traffic
impact study and re -analysis of
intersection operations on CSAH 1. The
ORIGINAL SUMMARY- dated 911812000
Based on the assumptions contained in the traffic
study and further analysis that staff conducted, it is
our conclusion that the total trip generation for the
proposed access to CSAH 1 will need to be limited in
order for the intersection to reasonably function in an
unsignalized manner. Staff is recommending that
installation of a traffic signal would not be consistent
with general practice and policy in the city as to
when signals should be utilized. At the level of
development that was evaluated in the report, it is
our opinion that installation of a traffic signal will be
mandatory within 10-15 years if not sooner at the
access to the site off CSAH 1. We feel the traffic
generation will need to be monitored and probably
limited to insure signal installation will not be
warranted for technical reasons or to satisfy
complaints from residents of the adjacent residential
type of data collection envisioned
includes turning movement and traffic
volume counts at the proposed CSAH 1
intersection and the streets segments
approaching that intersection.
4. As a result of the re -analysis of traffic
conditions, the need for further
limitations on the intensity or type of
land uses that will be permitted in Phase
H would be established as part of the re -
platting process.
5. Consistent with the recommendations in
the traffic study prepared for the
applicant, if the rezoning is approved the
applicant will be expected to
a) construct or contribute funds
towards the construction of right
and left turn lanes at the
proposed access on CSAH 1;
b) establish access control along
the access street for a minimum
distance of 150 from CSAH 1;
and
c) construct 2 inbound and 2
outbound lanes along the
commercial frontage within the
development.
area. Overall trip generation limits can be established
and monitored through a Development Agreement
that would be established for the site. Our initial
analysis suggests that the volume of traffic that will
utilize the CSAH 1 access should not greatly exceed
3 85 0 trips per day. We expect that there will be
approximately 1400 residential trips using this
intersection, which would leave a capacity for
approximately 2450 non-residential trips, which is
approximately 2/3 (67%) of the level that was
analyzed in the report.
It is also recommended, even with the establishment
of a cap on total traffic, that geometric improvements
are warranted at the intersection to insure safe
functioning of the intersection in an unsignalized
manner. The developer should be responsible for
construction of a northbound right turn lane on
CSAH 1, and should work with the County Public
Works Department to determine how best to
accommodate a left turn lane for southbound traffic
on CSAH 1 turning left into the site. The County has
a project programmed to replace the pavement on
CSAH 1 in 2003, and possibly a cash contribution in
lieu of actual construction of a left turn lane at this
time would be a better solution since the turn lane
INTRODUCTION (911812000)
can then be designed as part of the ultimate cross
section and accommodated as part of the county's
project.
It is also recommended that access control be
established along the interior street for a distance of
150' back from the intersection with CSAH 1 to
insure no conflict between driveway traffic and on -
street traffic that is queued to enter onto CSAH 1.
A Rezoning Traffic Analysis was prepared to evaluate the traffic impact of the proposed change of 12.1 acres of
land from Low Density Residential use to Commercial, as required by Section 61.523 of the Land Development
Manual. In order to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed rezoning, a land use scenario was defined for the
commercial area which consisted of the following uses:
♦ A Gas Station with Convenience Retail with 10 Vehicle Fueling Positions (1 acre of proposed B-4
area)
♦ A 7,000 square foot high turnover, sit down restaurant (Baker's Square or Perkins as an example) (2
acres)
♦ A 100 unit motel (2.5 acres)
♦ A 29,500 square foot Special Retail Center (Candlewood as an example) (3 acres)
♦ A 35,000 square foot Office Center (approx.the size of Marketplace at 19`" St & TH 52 North) (3
acres)
For the purpose of this analysis the applicant was asked to evaluate the traffic impact at the proposed access point
on CSAH 1, located approximately 900 feet north of the on/off ramps on the north side of TH 52. The traffic from
the proposed commercial development will primarily use this access, along with a share of traffic from the 147
single family lots and 100 townhome units proposed in the development
The expected trip generation from the site will consist of a mix of new traffic generated by the development or
attracted by the proposed commercial uses, trips that are considered to be "captured" from existing traffic flows on
CSAH 1 or TH 52 (referred to as pass -by traffic) and trips that will be internal to the area. The expected total trip
generation of the Quinstar Development and the share of the traffic that is expected to use the CSAH I on a daily
basis is summarized in the following table:
ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION FOR
QUINSTAR DEVELOPMENT
Traffic
Total
Amount of Amount of using Amount of
Area Primarily Served by
Daily
Pass -by Internal CSAH 1 Pass -by
rSAH 1 Access
Units Traffic
Traffic Traffic Access Traffic
Single Family - 'South
50
500
0
0
475
0
Townhome - South Area
70
525
0
0
499
0
Gas Station/Convenience
10
1625
813
0
1544
813
Sit -Down Restaurant
7,000
910
0
91
810
0
Motel
100
565
0
57
508
0
Specialty Retail
29,500
1200
120
0
1140
120
Office
35,000
400
0
40
340
0
Uses in Central and North Portion of
Single Family — North Area
641
6401
D
0
256
0
Townhome — North Area
30
225
01
01
231
0
Estimated TOTAL TRAFFIC
1
1 6,9201
933
188
5,7401
933
Total Residential Traffic
1
2,220
1,400
Total Non -Residential Traffic
1
4,7001
9331
1881
4,3401
933
TOTAL TRAFFIC w/o Commercial
1 2,6901
1 1 1,850
*NOTE: The last line of the table assumes that if the proposed commercial area is not rezoned it would be
developed with townhomes at a density of 5.5 units per acre on 11.4 gross acres of developable land.
The entire area encompassed within the Quinstar GDP would be expected to generate a total of 6,920
vehicles per day if the proposed commercial designation is approved, with approximately 5,740 vehicles
using the CSAH 1 access. This contrasts to an estimated total daily traffic of 2,690 vehicles per day if the
area remained zoned for low density residential use, of which 1,850 would be expected to use the CSAH
1 access.
The current traffic volume on CSAH 1 is estimated to be approximately 6,150 ADT (Average Daily
Traffic), and it is expected to grow by approximately 3.1% per year, resulting in an estimated 2015 ADT
of 9,430. The 3% estimate is based on the most recent traffic forecasting work of the Planning
Department and did not assume commercial development along CSAH 1. If commercial development is
assumed, the net daily increase in total traffic from the commercial development would equal 3,890 ADT
(5,740 — 1,850=3,890). Since 50% of the traffic is expected to come from the south and 50% from the
north, % of this total would be added to the base forecast , resulting in an expected ADT on a given
section of CSAH 1 of 11,375. The following table summarizes these totals:
uinstar Access Road
CSAH i
Existing traffic
0
6,150
Projected 2015 traffic w/o commercial
1,850
9,430
Projected 2015 traffic with commercial
5,740
11.375
Examples of current intersections with traffic similar to what would be expected within 20 years if the
commercial designation is approved would be:
♦ 41 St NW (7,100 ADT (Average Daily Traffic)) and West River Road (10,500 ADT)
♦ Main Entrance to the University Center (6,600 ADT) and East Circle Drive (10,500 ADT)
♦ 16" St SE (4,800 ADT) and 11t6 Ave SE (11,000 ADT north of 16'h St)
These intersections include one with signal control (I Oh St), one with All -Way stop control( 4l't St) and
one (University Center) where signal control has been requested and which currently benefits from
having signals at both adjacent intersections to create gaps in the traffic flow to allow left turns to occur.
REVIEW OFANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS IN REPORT (dated 9118100)
The traffic study conducted for the applicant
reported the following conclusions:
The proposed access along CSAH 1 will not
cause any operational problems along
CSAH 1 given the distance separation from
the north ramps of the TH 52 interchange
(approx. 1000 feet)
♦ The proposed access should be constructed
to allow for two outbound lanes and two
inbound lanes from CSAH 1 along the entire
commercial frontage
♦ The proposed access intersection with
CSAH 1 will not, using the estimates from
this analysis, require installation of a traffic
signal. Stop control on the access road
should satisfy traffic control needs
♦ The intersection should be monitored
closely with regard to traffic control needs
as development occurs. All -way stop control
or a signal could be necessary at some point
in the future if volume totals or directional
tendencies change
If the property on the west side re -develops
in the future, attempts should be made to re-
align 3Is' St, a local street intersecting
CSAH 1 from the west approximately 220
feet north of the proposed Quinstar access,
so that the access on the east and west side
align.
Staff review of the information provided in the
traffic study and further analysis of the data
leads us to believe that over a 10-15 year time
horizon stop sign control will not adequately
function at this intersection. We base this
conclusion on a number of factors:
As reported on page 4 of the traffic study,
the outbound left turn (west to south
movement at the proposed access) is
expected to function at a Level of Service'
(LOS) "F" once full development has
occurred and 10-15 years of background
traffic growth has occurred. Further, the
LOS under these conditions for the entire
westbound approach is projected to be at an
"E". Both of these conditions do not meet
the criteria of the Land Development
Manual. In addition to long delays, the
estimated queue for outbound left turning
traffic would be 7-8 vehicles, and small
right turn queues would also be expected.
These results suggest that a higher level of
traffic control or major geometric
improvements would be needed in the
future. All -way stop control tends to work
' See Attachment #1 for a description of the different
Level of Service criteria, which range from "A" —
representing very good traffic operations with little
delay — to "F" — representing extreme delays and long
queuing that all drivers will find unacceptable.
where opposing volumes are relatively
similar, which is not expected to be the
case here. Geometric improvements,
including right and left turn lanes, were
tested to determine their impact. While the
overall LOS for the westbound approach
improved, the left turn remained at a LOS
"F" even with the addition of turn lanes.
Thus, a signal would likely need to improve
traffic operations to an acceptable level of
service.
The last page of the traffic study contains a
copy of a chart used for checking whether
peak hour warrants for traffic signals will
be met. The chart used represents
thresholds for urban conditions, which
include travel speeds under 40 MPH. On
CSAH 1 the current speed limit is 45 MPH,
and given the geometry of the road, right of
way width, and probability of no other
signals within'/2 to'/, miles of the
intersection in the future, we believe an
alternate chart for conditions where the
speed is greater than 40 MPH should be
used. Attachment #2 is a copy of this chart
with the same peak hour traffic volumes
plotted on the chart. The use of this chart
suggests that under both Year 2015 cases
tested (one including right turns and one
without right turns included) the peak hour
warrants for a traffic signal would be met.
♦ In addition to the peak hour warrants for
traffic signals, there are 10 other potential
warrants used to test the need for a signal.
These are briefly described in Attachment
#3. Attachment #4 is a matrix we use as a
guide to check, based on expected ADT,
whether Warrants #1 (8 Hour volume) and
#2 (Interruption by continuous traffic) are
likely to be met. Since the corridor is a
higher speed facility, the numbers in
parenthesis are the applicable thresholds
against which to test projected ADT to
determine whether signals are likely to be
warranted. The upper chart on Attachment
#4 establishes upper thresholds where the
probability is low that signals will be
needed if the volumes are not exceeded; the
lower chart contains thresholds which, if
exceeded, suggest that signals are likely to
be needed. In between these upper and
lower values is a resulting range where the
ADT volumes alone are not a strong
indicator of the need for signals.
In the following table I have summarized the
applicable information from these charts and
Threshold below which
Signals not warranted
compared it with projected ADT volumes on
CSAH I and the Quinstar access road. We find
that the projected 2015 ADT is at the thresholds
for both Warrant #1 and #2 found in the lower
chart, which again suggests signals would be
needed to adequately serve the anticipated
development in the future.
Threshold above which
Signals likely to be warranted
Street
Projected
Traffic
Warrant
1
Warrant
2
Below
Threshold
Warrant
1
Warrant
2
Above
Threshold
CSAH 1
11,375
6,900
10,300
No
8,100
12,100
Yes(#1)
Access
5,740
3,450
1,700
No
5,400
2,700
Yes (#1&2)
Establishing the need or likelihood of needing a
traffic signal in the future at the proposed access
location has been evaluated from a number of
perspectives because staff (including not only
the Transportation staff of the Planning
Department but also both the City and County
Public Works Department) feels the installation
of a signal at this location raises a significant
policy issue as to when traffic signals will be
used in the city. As we consider the use of
traffic signals, and in reviewing locations
around the city where they have been used, a
fundamental philosophy has been that signals
should be used only at the intersection of
designated thoroughfares (expressways, arterial
or collectors streets) or where certain special
travel circumstances exist, primarily related to
the presence of school or pedestrian traffic.
Attachment #5 reviews existing signal locations
in the city currently. It can be seen from
reviewing this list that non -thoroughfare signals
have been used in a limited number of special
cases, including
♦ Locations where needed due to high
pedestrian volumes or as school crossings;
♦ In the core area of the Central Business
District;
♦ For major retail centers where access to the
center is one leg of an intersection. This has
included Apache Mall, Crossroads/HyVee
and Maplewood Square. The new signal at
Broadway Commons serves two public
streets that have not been reflected on the
Thoroughfare Plan, though both are likely to
function as collector roadways
Most smaller commercial developments are not
served with traffic signals at their entrance
points, and generally can function effectively
without signals because they have either
multiple means of ingress and egress or are
small enough in scale that the traffic generated
can access adjacent thoroughfares without
signals. Furthermore, the presence of multiple
access or entrances, even where that access may
be on a local street, helps to moderate the
volume of traffic that residential users of such
streets need to contend with. In the proposed
development, the residents of the proposed
housing area behind the commercial area will
need to deal with the commercial traffic on a
daily basis and are likely not to find this conflict
and congestion desirable, thus leading to
another voice speaking out for installation of
traffic signal control.
It is the perspective of staff that the fundamental
philosophy of using signals only at major
intersections or on a very limited basis serving
large scale developments should be supported,
and that establishing a level of development
intensity at this location that will lead to the
need for signal should not be approved. We
believe that some level of commercial use can
be supported at the site, but that the total
commercial trip generation should be capped at
a level approximately 60%-70% of that
evaluated in the traffic study to insure that
future signalization will not be needed at the
intersection of CSAH 1 and the Quinstar access.
At this reduced level the Level of Service
Standards in the LDM can be met for an
unsignalized intersection, and most of the
warrant checks reviewed fall below minimum
signal warrants.
ABLE)
.EVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION
ATTACHMENT # 1
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
AVERAGE
QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION
STOPPED
OF
RESERVE
IMPACT ON
DELAY
SERVICE
CAPACITY
MINOR STREET TRAFFIC
PER VEHICLE
DESIGNATION
(PCPH)
(SECONDS)
- Good progression with condition of free flow
accompanied by low volumes and high speeds.
Major movements have low percentage of stops.
< 3.1
A
> 400
Little or no delay
Waiting vehicles will clear on one green phase.
Good progression with traffic moving fairly free,
but operating speeds are beginning to be restricted
somewhat by traffic. .
More vehicle stops will be required than L.O.S.-A.
5.1 - 15.0
B
300-399
Shan traffic delays
Waiting vehicles still will probably clear on one
green phase.
.
Fair progression with traffic moving smoothly.
The number of vehicles stopping is significant at
this level, although many still pass through without
15.1 - 25.0
C
200.299
Average traffic delays
stopping.
Individual cycle failures (waiting for more than one
green) may begin to appear.
Acceptable intersection operation during peak
Sours.
Congestion becomes noticeable, and traffic is
flow high V/C ratios.
'
approaching unstable with
25.I -40.0
D
100 - 199
Long traffic delays
Drivers have little freedom to maneuver.
Many vehicles stop and proportion of vehicles not
;topping declines. Individual ryeie failure arc
noticeable.
i
Poor progression, high volumes, long queues.
4t or beyond limit of acceptable delay.
-
40.1 -60.0
E
0.99
Very long traffic delays -
Volumes are a4 or near, capacity.
e
'ndividuai cycle failures are frequenL
'arced flow openttion at low speeds where
clumes are over capacity.
Volumes exceed capacity of
each lane. Extreme delays with
Jnacceptable to drivers with all vehicles stopping.
> 60.0
F
queuing causes congestion
affecting all movements in the
:ycie failures are maximized.
intersection
'C - Volume to Capacity .
:PH) - Passenger Cars Per Hour
Cn►
z
ol
sn
nirti�
v
r
C = N
m N
r
N m�
r
OR
zmm
in a
�0
c
=,m
Q�
s
� 2
Rig
r�
Ail
N
MINOR STREET
HIGH VOLUME APPROACH — VPH
19
Y-
v
CD
-
F �
V,
2 A
m
cCD
c
go
•°
N
O
m
o
s
m
.,,
m
o
z
m m
�(C cx�'
W 0D a N
O ' ? o
U3 N
C
3 n 3
rn H
ATTACHMENT # 3
The Institute of Transportation Engineers
Traffic Engineering Council /
—it1 presents TIPS on
4raffic
TrafFjc
information �"�i"citi
proa ra m
\ genes
Traffic Signal Warrants
What are traffic signal "Warrants?"
In order to ensure that the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages of installing a
traffic signal, and to provide some
consistency in the application of traffic
signals, a series of warrants has been
developed to define the minimum
conditions under which further
consideration of a traffic signal is
appropriate. Simply meeting the
warranting criteria does not mean that a
signal is justified at a given location.
There are many factors that impact the
effectiveness of a signal, and all should be
evaluated before a decision to install a
signal is made. However, failure to meet
any of the warranting criteria indicates that
a traffic signal should not be installed, as
there should be a better way of addressing
the problems or needs at that location.
Furthermore, if an existing traffic signal no
longer meets any of the warrants, it should
be removed. The traffic signal warrants
currently contained in the national Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) are summarized below. It is
important to note that your local or state
transportation agency may have modified
or added additional warrants to the list
below.
Number and Title
Basis
I
Minimum Vehicular
8-hour volumes
Volume
2
Interruption of
8-hour volumes
Continuous Traffic
Minimum Pedestrian
4-hour pedestrian
3
Volume
volumes and gaps
number of school
4
School Crossing
children and gaps
5
Progressive
signal progression
Movement
6
Accident Experience
accidents and warrant
#1, #2 or #3 volumes
7
Systems Warrant
volumes
Combination of
volumes and
$
Warrants
pedestrians
9
Four Hour Volume
4-hour volume
volume and delay on
10
Peak Hour Delay
minor street
11
Peak Hour Volume
1-hour volume
10 ATTACHMENT # 4
ADT VOLUMES BELOW WHICH SIGNAL .ISN'T WARRAMM
(951 Confidence Level)
TABLE S
Number of Lanes
for Moving
A.D.T.
on Major St.
A.D.T. on Minor St.
Traffic on Each
Approach
Assuming
D - 671
Major St.
Minor St.
Warrant 1
1
1
8.200
(5,750)e
3,700
(2,600)-
2 or more
1
9,850
(6,900)
3,700
(2,600)
2 or more
2 or more
9,850
(6,900)
4s900
(36450)
1
2 or more
8,2
, 50
•4,900
(3,450
Warrant 2
1
1
229300
(8,600)
1,8SO
(1,300)
2 or more
1
140750
(10,300)
2,850
(113D0)
2 or more
2 or more
14,750
(10,300)
2,450
(1.700)
1
2 or more
12,300
80
,(19700)
r•
ADT VOLUMES ABOVE WHICH SIGNAL IS WARAAMM
(952 Confidence Laval)
Table 4
Number of Lanes
Traffic on Each
Major St.
for Moving
Approach
Minor St.
A.D.T.
on Major St.
A.D.T. an Minor St.
Assuaing D • 502
Warrant 1
1
l
9,600
(6,700)s
50750
(4,000)
2 or more
1
12.550
(81100)
1.750
(48000)
2 or more
2 or more
12,550
(3,IDO)
7,700
(5,400)
1
2 or sore
9,600
(60700)
79700
(50400)
Warrant 2
1
1
14,400
(20,100)
21900
(21050)
2 or more
1
171300
(12.100)
2,900
(2,OSO)
2 or more
2 or more
17,300
(12,100)
3,850
(2,700)
1
2 or more
14,400
(10.100)
3,850
(2,700) .
*Humbars in aarentbesea 702 of values
5-81 ��
ATTACHMENT #5
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS IN THE CITY
Location
NON
THOROUGHFARE
54
1 AVENUE SW & 6 STREET SW
55
2 AVENUE SW & 1 STREET SW
DOWNTOWN
56
2 AVENUE SW & 2 STREET SW
DOWNTOWN
57
3 AVENUE SW & 1 STREET SW
DOWNTOWN
58
3 AVENUE SW & 2 STREET SW
59
3 AVENUE SW & 4 STREET SW
60.3
1/2 AVENUE SW & 12 STREET SW
Major Retail
61
4 AVENUE SW & 2 STREET SW
62
4 AVENUE SW & 4 STREET SW
63
6 AVENUE SW & 2 STREET SW
64
MEM.PARKWAY SW & 12 STREET SW
65
APACHE DR SW & 16 STREET SW
Major Retail
66
11 AVENUE & 2 STREET SW
67
ST.MARY'S ENT. SW & 2 STREET SW
HIGH PEDS
68
14 AVENUE SW & 2 STREET SW
69
E. FRONTAGE RD. SW & 2 STREET SW
70
W. FRONTAGE RD SW & 2 STREET SW
71
FOX VALLEY & CO.RD.8
72
2 STREET SW C.C.M. RD & CORD 22 W.CIR.DR
73
1 AVENUE NW & 2 STREET NW
74
1 AVENUE NW & CIVIC CENTER DR.NW
75
3 AVENUE NW & 2 STREET NW
76
3 AVENUE NW & 14 STREET NW
77
3 AVENUE NW & E. HILLS DRIVE NW
78
4 AVENUE NW & 2 STREET NW
79
4 AVENUE NW & CIVIC CENTER DR NW
80
4 AVENUE NW & 7 STREET NW
81
6 AVENUE NW & CIVIC CENTER DR. NW
82
VALLEYHIGH DR.NW & 14 STREET NW
83
E. HILLS DR. NW & 14 AVENUE NW
84
W. RIVER RD NW & 37 STREET NW
85
E. HILLS DR. NW & H.H. SCHOOL NW
SCHOOL
86
11 AVENUE NW & CIVIC CENTER DR. NW
87
11 AVENUE NW & 7 STREET NW
88
11 AVENUE NW & 12 STREET NW
SCHOOL
89
11 AVENUE NW & 14 STREET NW
90
16 AVENUE NW & CIVIC CENTER DR. NW
91
E.HILLS DR 19 ST NW & EYRONTAGE RD. NW
92
E. HILLS DR. 19 ST NW & W. FRONTAGE RD.NW
93
18 AVENUE NW & 37 STREET NW
94
18 AVENUE NW & 41 STREET NW
95
19 AVENUE NW & 19 STREET NW
SCHOOL
96
36 AVENUE NW & 4 PLACE NW CCM
SCHOOL
97
21 AVENUE NW & 37 STREET NW
Major Retail future
frontage road
98
EYRONTAGE RD. TH52 & 37 STREET NW
99
W.FRONTAGE RD, TH52 & 37 STREET NW
100
T.H. 14 WEST & 7 STREET NW
101
EYRONTAGE RD. TH52 & 41 STREET NW
102
W.FRONTAGE RD. TH52 & 41 STREET NW
103
22 AVENUE NW & 41 STREET NW
104
55TH STREET NW & E. FRONT RD.
105
55TH STREET NW & 18th Ave NW
0
ATTACHMENT #5
TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS IN THE CITY
Location
NON
THOROUGHFARE
1
NORTH BROADWAY & 37TH STREET NO.
2
NORTH BROADWAY & N.HEIGHTS DRIVE
3
NORTH BROADWAY & E.HILLS DRIVE
4
NORTH BROADWAY & 14 STREET NO.
5
NORTH BROADWAY & 13 STREET NO.
6
NORTH BROADWAY & 7 STREET NO.
7.
NORTH BROADWAY & CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
8
NORTH BROADWAY & 2 STREET NO.
9
BROADWAY & CENTER STREET
10
SOUTH BROADWAY & 1 STREET SO.
HIGH PEDS
11
SOUTH BROADWAY & 2 STREET SO.
12
SOUTH BROADWAY & 4 STREET SO.
13
SOUTH BROADWAY & 6 STREET SO.
14
SOUTH BROADWAY & 9 STREET SO.
15
SOUTH BROADWAY & 12 STREET SO.
16
SOUTH BROADWAY & 14 STREET SO.
17
SOUTH BROADWAY & 16 STREET SO.
18
SOUTH BROADWAY & 20 STREET SO.
19
SOUTH BROADWAY & 28 STREET SO.
20
WEST CENTER STREET & 1 AVENUE
21
WEST CENTER STREET & 2 AVENUE
HIGH PEDS
22
WEST CENTER STREET & 3 AVENUE
23
WEST CENTER STREET & 4 AVENUE
24
WEST CENTER STREET & 11 AVENUE
25
EAST CENTER STREET & CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
26
EAST CENTER STREET & 11 AVENUE
27
2 AVENUE NE & 7 STREET NE
28
SILVER LAKE POOL & 7 STREET NE
HIGH PEDS
2919
AVENUE NE & 14 STREET NE
SCHOOL
30
11 AVENUE NE & 7 STREET NE
31
11 AVENUE NE & 10 STREET NE
SCHOOL
32
11 AVENUE NE & 14 STREET NE
33
EAST RIVER ROAD NE & 37 STREET NE
34
5 AVENUE NE & N. HEIGHTS DRIVE NE
FLASHER
35
CO.RD 2 VIOLA RD NE & CO.RD 22 E.CIR. DR
36
CIVIC CENTER DRIVE & 2 STREET SE
37
3 AVENUE SE & 4 STREET SE
38
3 AVENUE SE & 8 STREET SE
CHURCH
39
TA -VENUE SE & 9 STREET SE
40
3 AVENUE SE & 12 STREET SE
41
8 AVENUE SE & 12 STREET SE
42
11 AVEUNE SE & 4 STREET SE
43
11 AVENUE SE & 12 STREET SE
44111
AVENUE SE & 16 STREET SE
45
13 AVENUE SE & 4 STREET SE
46
15 AVENUE SE & 8 1;2 8 1/2 STREET SE
47
15 AVENUE SE & 12 STREET SE
48
MARION RD SE & PARK LANE SE
SCHOOL
49
WILLOW CREEK FLASHER & 11TH AVE SE
FLASHER
50
CO RD 9 SE C. VIEW RD & CO RD 22 E.CIR.DR
51.1
AVENUE SW & 1 STREET SW
DOWNTOWN
52
1 AVENUE SW & 2 STREET SW
5311
AVENUE SW & 4 STREET SW
�-L
a -
Bonestroo
JA Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
Memorandum
Bonestroo, Rosene. Anderlik and Associates, an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity
Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. P.E. • Marvin L. Sorvala. PE. • Glenn R. Cook, P.E. -
Robert G. SChunitht, P.E. • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE.
Senior Consultants: Robert W.Rosene. P.E. • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE. • Richard E. Turner, P.E.
swan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
Associate Principals: Howard A, Sanford. PE. • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R. Pfefferie, PE. -
Richard W. Faster P.E. • David O. Loskota. P.E. • Robert C. Russek, A.LA. • Mark A. Hanson, P.E.
Michael T. Rautmann, PE - • Ted K.Fteld. P.E. • Kenneth P Anderson, P.E. • Mark R. Rolls. P.E. -
Oavid A. Bonestroo. MAA. • Sidney P Williamson, PE., L.S. • Agnes M. Ring. M.R.A. • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE,
Offices: St. Paul, St. Claud. Rochester and Willmar, MN • Milwaukee. WI
Website: w w.borrestroo.com
TO: Geoffrey G. Griffin
FROM: Sheldon J..Johnsong
DATE: August 3, 2000
RE: Quinstar Development Traffic Impact Analysis
Our File No. 664-00-102
A. Site Description
The proposed Quinstar.development site is located in -the northeast quadrant of -the interchange of
U.S. 52 and County State Aid Highway (CSAH) I:, CSAH 1 is also Imown as 11 m Avenue SE.
The development proposed for the site consists of the following land uses
Single Family Residenlial 147 lots
Townhome 100 dwelling units
Commercial Area 11.4 gross acres
Wetland 12.1 acres
Development adjacent to the vicinity of the site consists of residential and undeveloped lands. A
concept site plan, dated 4-11-00, is shown as Figure 1,
B. Study Area
The roadway system in the study area is dominated by U.S. 52, CSAH 1, and Pinewood Road.
U.S. 52 is a four -lane freeway with an interchange at CSAH 1. CSAH 1 is a four -lane undivided
arterial adjacent to the site with the exception of the segment through the interchange, which is
four -lane divided with exclusive turn lanes at the intersections with the U.S. 52 ramp terminals.
Pinewood Road is a two-lane roadway that would provide access to the north part of the
proposed residential land uses.
2335 West Highway 36 a St. Paul, MN 55113 a 651-636-4600 a Fax: 651-636-1311
r.
Mr. Geoffrey G. Griffin August 3, 2000
Page 2 of 5
Discussion with staff at the Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) has indicated
that the primary analysis intersection will be the proposed access to CSAH 1 located north of
U.S. 52. Staff indicated that analysis of access to Pinewood Road would not have to be provided
in this study.
C. Existing Roadway/Traffic Characteristics
The roadway system adjacent to the site is shown on Figure 2. This graphic also illustrates the
existing traffic lane availability and existing traffic controls.
Daily traffic volume information was obtained from ROCOG staff. Available daily traffic data
is shown on Figure 3. As a part of this study, intersection turning movement counts were
conducted at the U.S. 52 ramp terminals with CSAH 1. At the request of ROCOG, the counts
were conducted on a weekday from the hours of 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. These counts, taken on
Thursday, July 13 and Wednesday, July 19, 2000, provide that the peak hour occurred from 5:00
to 6:00 p.m. The peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 4. The p.m. peak hour is chosen as the
analysis hour as it is during this time period when volumes normally reach their peak on a
weekday.
D. Site Generated Traffic Estimates
The traffic generated by the site development is estimated using trip generation rates contained in
the report titled Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 6`h
Edition, 1997. The residential land uses are already identified on the concept site plan. Land
uses for the commercial area are not identified. For purposes of this analysis, the following land
uses are assumed for the commercial area:
Gas Station/Convenience Store
1 acre
High Turnover -Sit Down Restaurant
2 acres
Motel (100 rooms)
2.5 acres
Specialty Retail
29,500 SF
Office
35,000 SF
These land use assumptions are made in order to estimate site generated traffic and are not
considered to be a land use development proposal. Such development is market driven. It is felt
that the assumed land uses are conservative in the fact that trips generated are probably more
than what could actually occur.
The p.m. peak hour and daily trip estimates are shown on Table 1 for the assumed land uses on
this site. Pass -by and internal -internal trips are accounted for in the totals shown on Table 1.
Mr. Geoffrey G. Griffin
Page 3 of.5
Table 1
Site Generated Traffic Estimates
August 3, 2000
Land Use
Units
Estimated New Traffic Volumes
P.M. Peak Hour
Daily
2-Way
IN
OUT
Single Family Residential
147 dwelling units
95
50
1,405
Townhome
100 dwelling units
35
20
585
Convenience Store/Gas Station
10 fueling positions
35
35
815
Restaurant
100 rooms
40
25
820
Motel
7,000 SF
30
25
820
Specialty RetailJ
29,500 SF
30
35
1,080
Office
35,000 SF
10
40
345
Totals
275
230
5,870
1. Trips discounted by 50% (passby)
2. Trips discounted by 10% (internal trips)
3. Trips discounted by 10% (pass by)
The directional distribution of site -generated traffic is estimated by utilizing the traffic volume
count information and available roadway system. These directional distribution estimates are
illustrated on Figure 5.
The volumes on Table 1 are "new" traffic volumes as estimated passby and internal trips are
discounted for each land use. The driveway volumes are slightly larger than the volumes on
Table 1 as the passby trips are already on the roadway system. The total p.m. peak hour volumes
using site entrance locations is 595 (320 in 275 out). This volume includes the passby trip
estimates.
The traffic estimated to use the north access to Pinewood Road totals 55 in the p.m. peak hour
and 575 on a daily basis. The volumes at the CSAH 1 access total 540 (285 in; 255 out) during
the p.m. peak hour and 6,200 on a daily basis.
E. Total Traffic Volume Estimates
The analysis years of the development, as required by ROCOG staff, is one year after
development occurs and the year 2015. The year 2015 is selected as ROCOG has future traffic
volume data for his time period that can be used in the analysis. For purposes of this analysis it
is assumed that twenty-five (25) percent of the project buildout is online one year after initial
development occurs. This is to say, 25 percent of the buildout trips are estimated to occur in the
year 2002.
The total volume estimates at the proposed CSAH 1 access intersection, for the p.m. peak hour
for the 2002 and 2015 years are shown on Figures 6 and 7 respectively.
Mr. Geoffrey G. Griffin August 3, 2000
Page 4 of 5
The through traffic, for the year 2002, has been increased by approximately 3.5 percent per year.
The year 2015 p.m. peak hourly volumes are calculated to be 13 percent of the 2015 projected
ADT of 7,370. The ADT projection was obtained from ROCOG. The projected ADT on the
proposed site access connection to CSAH I is approximately 6,000 using site buildout of the
assumed land uses. The 2015 ADT projection for CSAH 1 may be low dependent upon the land
use designations that were used in the ROCOG transportation model. The differences should not
be such that future roadway planning for CSAH 1 will be affected.
F. Access Analysis
The proposed access to CSAH 1, located approximately 1,000 feet from the U.S. Highway 52
ramp terminal, will provide sufficient access to serve the development traffic needs. The 1,000-
foot spacing should not create any adverse traffic movement complications with regard to the
location relevant to the ramp terminus.
The four -lane segment of CSAH 1, adjacent to the proposed development, has more than
adequate capacity available to serve year 2015 volume projections. Analysis of traffic control at
the intersection of CSAH 1 with the access intersection assumes installation of stop sign control
on the proposed access approach to CSAH 1. The access roadway should provide for two
approach lanes.
The level of service for the intersection, using year 2002 p.m. peak hour volume estimates, is
good. The service level for the access roadway, using 2015 volumes does decrease to a level of
service F for the outbound left turns. The following table provides the critical movement service
levels using the cross street stop control analysis.
Year 2002
Year 2015
Traffic Movement
L.O.S.
L.O.S.
Southbound left
turn from CSAH 1
A
A
Westbound left
turn from access road
B
F
Westbound right
turn from access road
A
B
A method of checking whether an intersection could be considered for signalization is to
evaluate the peak hour volume projections against the peak hour signal warrant contained in the
Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Using this method, the
intersection does not meet the peak hour signal warrant. The attached graph indicates the results.
Given the year 2015 level of service for the westbound left turn (LOS F), an analysis of all -way
stop control has been conducted using the 2015 peak hour estimates. The analysis indicates that
the intersection LOS would be C. The southbound approach would be D.
Mr. Geoffrey G. Griffin August 3, 2000
Page 5 of 5
G. Conclusions
Primary conclusions drawn as a result of this traffic study are as follows:
• The proposed access along CSAH 1, located approximately 1,000 feet north of the U.S.
52/CSAH 1 ramp, will not cause any operational problems along CSAH 1.
• The proposed access should be constructed to allow for two outbound lanes and two inbound
lanes from CSAH 1, thence easterly along the commercial area land use.
• The proposed access intersection with CSAH 1 will not, using the estimates from this
analysis, require the installation of a traffic signal. Stop control on the access road should
satisfy traffic control needs.
• It is recommended that, as development occurs, the intersection be monitored closely with
regard to traffic control needs. Should volume totals and tendencies change, installation of an
all -way stop or a signal could be necessary at some point in the future.
• Attempts to align the 3 1 " Street intersection with CSAH 1 to a location opposite the
development access intersection should be made when property on the west side of CSAH 1
develops.
mor
TOTAL LOTS - 147 sm
APPROXIMATE ROAD - 12.941
TOTAL TOWNHOMES - 100 e COMMERCIAL - 11.2 ACRES .-___ _ -
TOTAL WETLAND - 12.1 ACRES
fire. WETLAND AREA - -- -j-
FLOODWAY BOUNDARY-
-__— f
------- EXISTING CITY LIMITS
DRAINAGE CORRIDOR wus7wu-
— —._— 4
— r
noT a iV
•C weer-e. nsRa w.r I•. -- •
T• 9C+a-1- VIA4 M- � H
_.. i• RONY1/ qY- 4b __—_
N WRW — I f is
..
• f rmt r�uwZ� �_ �:
` IrI r
R
FIGURE 1
CONCEPT SITE PLAN
No Scale
Bonestroo
Rosene
"0 Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
M\Iq�NY11m11aV Lumen.
FIGURE 2 Ll Rosestroo
osene
AREA ROADWAY SYSTEM v Anderlik &
" Associates
Engineers & Architects
�wVOTwmimney
FIGURE 3
EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC
Bonestroo
Rosene
Mom Andertik &
" Associates
Engineers & Architects
t��wV�w�oo�eTsrr
FIGURE 4
EXISTING P.M. PEAK -.:HOUR VOLUMES
JABonestroo
Rosene
0 Anderiik &
" Associates
Engineers & Architects
FIGURE 5 Jj Rosestroo
oserte
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ESTIMATES OEM Anderlik &
" Associates
Engineers & Architects
Jew\�OAum�mnro
a •
n �^
30
Proposed Access
FIGURE 6 y�
TOTAL TRAFFIC
VOLUME ESTIMATES
Year 2002 p.m. Peak Hour
No Scale
NOTE: Development
Volumes Total 25% of
Assumed Buildout
JjBonestroo
Rosen
Andertik &
Associates
Engineers & Amhi(ects
Z
Q
Ln
U
0 0
130
125
Proposed Access
FIGURE 7
TOTAL TRAFFIC
VOLUME ESTIMATES
Year 2015 p.m. Peak Hour
No Scale
NOTE: Development
Volumes are Assumed
Buildout
JABonestroo
Rosene
Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
a
600
oz w
Q 500
400
a
V o W 300
200
>> 100
cn
FIGURE 4-5. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
■■■
■■■■■■■■■■
■'',=�—=
■■
= 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Cgl� j /- MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
'NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
O YEA2 20oZ. P.m, PEAK 1tA+�
® YEq� 20ls P-m p�AK 1tv fz (M uUrz fiPP20ACt
R�bh}j 71nrrJS P-JEN01E0 }rzu)" VALItE)
® �(E-pp- 20)5 Prn. PE AM hvP rz, hPP2P,t`c,'c-
V)6s-r iNRNS jTJGL.N0C=0J
d�K
OIIU 11111MIMnn
%nuu nMlMnunnN\-
\\11111 IIIIIIMIIIII�I�9N
I11111 0001� \II�;''TY^^
1111111 1111111� ��
1111111111 111111I1� Il..
\I11111 011�
I11111 I11J
\IIIII
//111111�
F
TOTAL LOTS = 147
APPROXIMATE ROAD = 12.941
TOTAL TOWNHOMES = 100
COMMERCIAL = 11.2 ACRES
TOTAL WETLAND = 12.1 ACRES
WETLAND AREA
FLOODWAY BOUNDARY
---------- EXISTING CITY LIMITS
DRAINAGE CORRIDOR
<
1 0 l 81 Z) j
i
, ul
m
17
r711
tt
1 OT
OWNERSHIP
Pp=
c:
R�=
Pplk w
Roch.I. P.Wk ftrk.
E'
r
G:
ROC . P.
Ra "lw Pu
scH
UNPLATTED S BDIM
tv I. I jr—l— I
TTED
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
pF �yOCHESTFR-Ir/.1' (5-I
rj
Z'. e
R'�TED:p UGti ST � .
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232
MAPPING
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213
DWELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
ATE: November 3, 2000
FAX 5071287-2275
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-05 by Quinstar LLP. The applicant is
requesting to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to allow for
approximately 12.10 acres of "commercial' land use designation. The property is
located north of Highway 52 and east of 111h Avenue SW (Co. Rd. 1).
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner:
Consultant:
Quinstar LLP
1652 Greenview Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
GGG Engineering
241 North Winona Street
Chatfield, MN 55923
Location of Property: The area includes approximately 12.10 acres of land
located north of Highway 52, east of 11th Avenue SE
(Co. Rd. 1). The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural -
Urban Expansion) District on the Olmsted County
Zoning Map.
Requested Action: The applicant is requesting to amend the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate
approximately 12.10 acres of land for "commercial"
uses. According to the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan, the land is currently designated
for "Low Density Residential" development.
The applicant has filed an amendment to the
approved GDP to show this area being developed
with uses that are permitted in the B-4 zoning district.
A specific use for the property has not been
proposed.
This request was originally before the Commission on
June 14, 2000. At that time the applicant withdrew
the application because a Traffic Impact Analysis had
not been completed for the property. A neighborhood
Mesa
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
194 0
Page 2
LUPA 00-5
November 3, 2000
Existing Land Use:
•
meeting was held on April 26, 2000 to discuss this
project with area residents and landowners.
Present use of the property is agricultural. It is
currently used as a pasture.
Proposed Land Use: The applicant has submitted a concurrent General
Development Plan Amendment for this site. The
applicant has not specified uses for the property other
then those allowed within the B-4 (General
Commercial) district. Currently the area is shown as
non-residential uses permitted in the low -density
districts on the approved GDP.
Adjacent Land Use and North: The property to the north is zoned A-4
Zoning: (Agricultural -Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted
County Zoning Map. Also Southport Subdivision
Number Three is located to the north. This property
is zoned R-1 on the Olmsted County Zoning Map.
Rochester Township and City of Rochester have
entered into an orderly annexation agreement for this
area.
South: Highway 52 is adjacent to the property along
the south side. Across Highway 52, the land is zoned
A-1 (Agricultural Protection) district on the Olmsted
County Zoning Map.
East: Land that is zoned A-4 (Agricultural -Urban
Expansion) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. The
property is within the Quinstar GDP and is shown as
being developed with townhomes and single family
dwellings.
West: 11'" Avenue SE (CSAH 1) is adjacent to the
property on the west side. Across 111° Ave. SE is
land zoned A-4 (Agricultural -Urban Expansion) on the
Olmsted County Zoning Map.
Transportation Access: According to the GDP, access to this property will be
from a future east/west roadway along the northern
portion of the proposed commercial area. The GDP
does indicate controlled access along CSAH 1 so no
access points will be permitted along this roadway.
Please refer to the attached memo from Charlie
Reiter for detailed information regarding
transportation issues on this proposal.
Wetlands: There are no wetland located on this portion of the
property. A wetland delineation was completed for
the entire GDP area and an exemption was granted
in 1998. According to the delineation, less than 2000
square feet of wetlands will be filled.
Referral Comments: 1. Planning Department —Transportation
2. Planning Department — Wetlands
�cC
Page 3
LUPA 00-5
November 3, 2000
Report Attachments:
3. RPU Water Division
4. RPU Operations Division
5. City of Rochester Public Works Department
6. MnDOT
7. Fire Department
1. Approved General Development Plan Map
2. Proposed Amendment to GDP
3. Land Use Designation Map
4. Referral Comments
5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
6. Traffic Impact Analysis
7. Memo from Charlie Reiter
Analysis for Land Use Plan Amendment.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan includes locational criteria for four different
types of commercial centers. They are: 1) Neighborhood Shopping Centers (4-8 acres in size); 2)
Community Shopping Centers (15-25 acres in size); Regional Shopping Centers (40+ acres in
size); and Highway Commercial Uses. Other types of commercial uses that are less easily
classified are also addressed for professional office use, business -serving commercial use,
isolated neighborhood -oriented commercial uses, and recreational commercial uses. Staff used
the criteria for Highway Commercial Uses in evaluating this proposal because it was the most
appropriate for evaluating this proposal.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan states that highway commercial uses, which
include uses oriented primarily to serving the traveling public, such as gas stations, drive-in
restaurants, truck stops, motels, hotels, and so on, as well as uses requiring large areas of
highway frontage, such as automobile dealerships, are most suitable in areas with the following
characteristics:
a) On major highway approaches with access to a frontage road (or in the case of
lodging establishments, in close proximity to major visitor attractions such as the
medical complex).
b) Having relatively level terrain.
c) Providing for concentration of similar uses
d) Not detrimental to the safety or appearance of the surrounding area.
Staff Suggested Findings:
a) This property is located adjacent to TH 52 but is not located on a highway approach
with access to a frontage road. As shown on the General Development Plan for this
property, access to the commercial area is to be from a local street located
approximately 900 feet north of the on/off ramps on the north side of TH 52. The traffic
from the proposed commercial development will primarily use this access, along with a
share of traffic from the 147 single family lots and 100 townhome units proposed in the
development.
f1} 0 . • i
I Page 4
LUPA 00-5
November 3, 2000
The expected trip generation from the site will consist of a mix of new traffic generated
by the development or attracted by the proposed commercial uses, trips that are
considered to be "captured" from existing traffic flows on CSAH 1 or TH 52 (referred to
as pass -by traffic) and trips that will be internal to the area. The expected total trip
generation of the Quinstar Development and the share of the traffic that is expected to
use the CSAH 1 on a daily basis is summarized in the following table:
ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION FOR
QUINSTAR DEVELOPMENT
Traffic
Total
Amount of Amount of using Amount of
Area Primarily Served by
Daily
Pass -by Internal CSAH 1 Pass -by
CSAH 1 Access
Units Traffic
Traffic Traffic Access Traffic
Single Family — South Area
50
500
0
0
475
0
Townhome — South Area
70
525
0
0
499
0
Gas Station/Convenience
10
1625
813
0
1544
813
Sit -Down Restaurant
7,000
910
0
91
810
0
Motel
100
565
0
57
508
0
Specialty Retail
29,500
1200
120
0
1140
120
Office
35,000
400
0
40
340
0
Uses in Central and North Portion of Site
Single Family —Central Area
1 33
3301
01
0
149
0
Single Family— North Area
1 641
6401
01
01
256
0
Townhome — North Area
1 301
2251
01
01
231
0
Estimated TOTAL TRAFFIC
1 6,9201
9331
1881
5,7401
933
Total Residential Traffic
1 2,220
1,400
Total Non -Residential Traffic
4,700
933
188
4,340
933
TOTAL TRAFFIC w/o Commercial
1 2,6901
1 1 1,850
'NOTE: The last line of the table assumes that if the proposed commercial area is not
rezoned it would be developed with townhomes at a density of 5.5 units per acre on 11.4
gross acres of developable land.
The entire area encompassed within the Quinstar GDP would be expected to generate
a total of 6,920 vehicles per day if the proposed commercial designation is approved,
with approximately 5,740 vehicles using the CSAH 1 access. This contrasts to an
estimated total daily traffic of 2,690 vehicles per day if the area remained zoned for low
density residential use, of which 1,850 would be expected to use the CSAH 1 access.
The current traffic volume on CSAH 1 is estimated to be approximately 6,150 ADT
(Average Daily Traffic), and it is expected to grow by approximately 3.1 % per year,
resulting in an estimated 2015 ADT of 9,430. The 3% estimate is based on the most
recent traffic forecasting work of the Planning Department and did not assume
commercial development along CSAH 1. if commercial development is assumed, the
net daily increase in total traffic from the commercial development would equal 3,890
ADT (5,740 — 1,850=3,890). Since 50% of the traffic is expected to come from the south
and 50% from the north, /: of this total would be added to the base forecast, resulting
in an expected ADT on a given section of CSAH 1 of 11,375. The following table
summarizes these totals:
Page 5 • ��
LUPA 00-5
November 3, 2000
Quinstar Access Road
CSAH 1
Existing traffic
0
6,150
Projected 2015 traffic w/o commercial
1,850
9,430
Projected 2015 traffic with commercial
5,740
11,375
b) The property has relatively level to rolling terrain on the western half of the property.
There is a large hill on the eastern half of the property that would more than likely need
to be excavated in order to develop the property with commercial uses.
c) The property to the north is developed with single family homes. This property is
shown as being designated for "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan. According to General Development Plan #136 (Quinstar),
the land to the east is shown as being developed with townhomes. This property is
also designated for "low density residential' uses on the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan
d) Based on review of the proposed traffic study and further analysis that staff has
conducted it is our recommendation that the total trip generation for the proposed
access to CSAH 1 should be capped at 213 (67%) of the level that was analyzed in the
report. We would recommend that the total volume of traffic permitted to use the CSAH
1 access would be 3900 trips; 1400 residential trips and 2500 non-residential trips. At
this level of development intensity the intersection should be able to reasonably
function in an unsignalized manner, which we feel is consistent with general practice
and policy in the city and county as to when signals should be utilized. At the level of
development that was evaluated in the report it is our opinion that installation of a
traffic signal will be mandatory within 10-15 years if not sooner at the access to the
site. We feel the traffic generation should be capped to insure signal installation will
not be warranted for technical reasons or to satisfy complaints from residents of the
adjacent residential area. The overall trip generation limits can be established and
monitored through the Development Agreement that would be established for the site.
it is also recommended, even with the establishment of a cap on total traffic, that
geometric improvements are warranted at the intersection to insure safe functioning of
the intersection in an unsignalized manner. The developer should be responsible for
construction of a northbound right turn lane on CSAH 1, and should work with the
County Public Works Department to determine how best to accommodate a left turn
lane for southbound traffic on CSAH 1 turning left into the site. The County has a
project programmed to replace the pavement on CSAH 1 in 2003, and possibly a cash
contribution in lieu of actual construction of a left turn lane at this time would be
desirable and would allow design of the turn lane to be accommodated within the
larger construction project.
It is also recommended that access control be established along the interior street for
a distance of 150' back from the intersection with CSAH 1 to insure no conflict between
driveway traffic and on -street traffic that is queued to enter onto CSAH 1.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff suggests that the findings and referral comments do not provide strong support for approval
of a "commercial' land use using the land use intensity evaluated in the traffic impact analysis for
this property.
Page 6 • •
LUPA 00-5
November 3, 2000
If however, the Commission and Council conclude that some limited amount of commercial
development should be considered, there would need to be a upper trip generation limit set for
this property through the GDP and also through a Development Agreement. The GDP
amendment presented concurrent with this petition is based on a "commercial" land use
designation and the future zoning of the property to the B-4 zoning district and provides very little
information regarding the intensity or styles of uses proposed. If the GDP were revised to identify
commercial uses is limited to 2,500 trip per day for the first phase of development as indicated in
the information provided by Charlie Reiter, Senior Transportation Planner, and the applicant were
to enter into a Development Agreement with the City outlining the phasing of development, trip
and use limits of the property, and the updating of the traffic impact study and re -analysis of
intersection operations on CSAH 1 during Phase II of development a "commercial' land use
designation for this property could be considered. The other option would be to encourage the
applicant to proposed a specific use of the property through the Restricted Development
Conditional Use Permit process. This process would allow staff, Commission and Council to
evaluate the appropriateness of a specific use/group of uses for this property.
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 their recommendation. This
recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council and heard at a later public hearing.
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
9/ 11 /00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4U' Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the revised application for an
Amendment to General Development Plan #136, and for LUPA #00-05,on the
Quinstar property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
Adequate public facilities may not be in place and may not be able to
effectively be provided. There currently exists a surface water and a
ground water problem in this area. A change in the land use from
residential to commercial will likely increase the surface water run-off
from these lands and worsen the existing problems. More analysis is
needed prior to approval. .
C:VTEMPIG13P136 Revised 9-OO.dac
��
w �
�DCHESTEP VS/.Yq.
R4 HESTER
vz
✓�iiz✓ze�aLa
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507) 285-8256
DATE: September 15, 2000
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
SUBJECT: Land Use Amendment #00-05 and Amend. to GDP #136, Quinstar LLP
project located north of Hwy 52 and east of 11th Ave SE.
This project is beyond the 4 minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire
Department and is adding 147 residential lots, to the city's fire protection area. With
that regard the fire code has the following requirements:
An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
No hydrant locations were noted on this submittal.
2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance
with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. All fire
department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building
construction.
All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any
residential buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when
located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road
fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
Quinstar, 1652 Greenview Dr. SW, Rochester, Mn. 55902
GGG Engineering, 14070 Hwy 52 SE, Chatfield, Mn. 55923
rpm ,
we pledge, rve deliver
September 11, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-05 and Amendment to General Development
Plan # 136 by Quinstar. The property is located south of Pinewood Rd. SE, east of 11 Ave. SE
and north of TH 52.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced amendments is complete and our comments are the same as our
April 27, 2000 letter, which are as follows:
1. This proposed commercial area is within the Main Level Service Area with approximate
static pressures ranging from 42 PSI to 54 PSI.
2. Preliminary computer water system modeling indicates flows for fire protection will be
below the minimum required by the Fire Prevention Bureau for this type of development.
Development of this area of the GDP will only be possible upon connection to future water
main extensions through adjoining properties to the north and the northwest.
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,
"44t� R
LaLl
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Quinstar
GGG Engineering
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
GGG
Engineering Surveying c& Planning
14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923
Phone:507-867-1666
Fax: 507-867-1665
April 2, 2000
Brent Svenby
Olmsted County Planning
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Re: Neighborhood meeting for Quinstar Land Use Plan Change / Rezone
Dear Mr. Svenby:
A neighborhood meeting was held at Pinewood School on April 26, 2000 at 6:30PM. Besides
myself and three representatives from Quinstar only two neighbors showed.
Virginia Wentzel (288-2550) was against the project. She lives to the north of the project and
wants no change. If change has to occur it should be single family housing.
Glenn Mulholland (288-3838) owns adjoining property to the east and is strongly supportive of
the rezone. His only comment is that the entire frontage along 52 should be rezoned to B4.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey G Griffin PE LS
Cc: Quinstar
TO'd LEEV L98 L09 959 d8Z:Z0 00-£O-XVW
To: Rochester Planning and Zoning
` u v L7, I
"!' 43'
r4_
1' S; l OCT 2 5 2000
,�" r�•�R 0, �,crs'�—I
Re: Public Hearing, October 25, 2000
Land Use Plan Amendment #00-05 and Amendment to General
Development Plan #136 Quinstar LLP
We are opposed to any change of zoning from 'low Density Residential' to "Commercial.
The following are some of our concerns:
1. The greatest concern is traffic. We now have a quiet neighborhood and the only
access to the new development is proposed immediately south of the existing homes.
2. County Road 1/11th Ave.. is already a highly traveled roadway. There are two
schools within a mile and increased traffic will be a problem.
3. As we do not have control at this time as to the type of commercial development
we can only assume lighting, late openings etc. would not be conducive to existing
neighbors and to the new proposed single homes and twinplexes.
3. Before any zoning changes are made the neighborhood is concerned about the
potential problems with the drainage of the entire Quinstar project.
Myron and Virgina Wentzell
3016 19th Ave. SE
Rochester, Mn. 55901
J` q Page 2 • •
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated November 8, 2000, to the Con)mission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Ms. Petersson m ed to recommend approval of Annexation Petiti4r+`#DO-15 by B & N,
LLC to initiate Orde Annexation and to place the property in t e1H (Holding) Zoning
District. Mr. Staver sec ded the motion. The motion Carried -0.
VACATION RIGHT-OF-WAY\\
Vacation Petition #00-15 by ISD #h5 to vacate unHevelo ed right-of-way of 5'h St. SE
[originally platted as Second Street) rving easYof 5` Ave SE and west of 6` Avenue SE
tatted in East Rochester Addition latted-and undeveloped right-of-wa of 6` Ave. SE
(originallylatted as Cherry Street lyinef bdiacent to Lot 2 Block 35 and Lot 1 Block 36
Morse & Sergeant's Addition• latte nd u evelo ed ri ht-of-wa of 5` Ave. SE
(originallyplatted as Penn Street in north 5 Street to the north line of Lot 12
Block 2 Morse & Se r eant's A ition. The vacat oetition is re uested to facilitate the
development of Riverside C tral Elements Scho .
Mr. Brent Svenby pres ed the staff report, dated October 2000, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Depart ent.
Ms. Peterss moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petitio 00-15 by ISD #535, as
resente y staff. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion ca ' A7-n
Mr. Svenby indicated that the Commission would need two separate motions with regard to the
Land Use Plan Amendment and General Development Plan Amendment. He also explained
that, if the Commission approved the Land Use Plan Amendment, a zone change application
would need to be submitted by the applicant in the future once the land is annexed.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report for the Land Use Plan Amendment, dated
November 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted
Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained that the GDP Amendment is based on a commercial land use designation
and future zoning to the B-4-zoning district. He indicated that it provides little information
regarding the intensity and styles of the proposed uses on the property. If the GDP were
revised to identify commercial uses being limited to 2,500 daily trips for the first phase of
development and if the applicant entered into a development agreement with the City outlining
the phasing of development[ trip and use limits of the property, and the reanalysis of intersection
operations at County Road-lduring the second phase of development, staff could consider the
Page 3 •
City Planning and Zoning Comtnission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
0 tl�5r/
property being designated for commercial types of uses. If the Commission feels that those
conditions were not appropriate, they could encourage the applicant to propose a certain use on
the property through the restrictive development process. This process would allow staff, the
Commission, and Council to evaluate the appropriateness of certain uses for the property.
Mr. Svenby presented staff report for the Amendment to General Development Plan, dated
November 3, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted
Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby explained that it would be against City and County policy to have a signal light at the
intersection of County Road 1 and the future easUwest roadway. They are looking at locations
further north of the property as possible signal locations.
Mr. Svenby stated that there is an area outside of the proposed amendment that is part of the
South Park GDP. He stated that there is an access point shown, on the South Park GDP, that
should connect to Quinstar Development. Therefore, staff recommended that the Commission
suggest the Quinstar Development provide an access to the north to align with the South Park
GDP.
Mr. Svenby suggested that Condition Number 3 be a part of Condition Number 6. Also,
revisions to the GDP should include any proposed access points along the east/west roadway
and the pedestrian facilities located along County Road 1.
Mr. Svenby stated Mike Nigbur, of City Public Works, suggested that the following condition be
added. He indicated that the consultant is agreeable to the condition. He explained that it
would be evaluated by a plat by plat basis.
"3. Until such time that any downstream culvert and/or ditch capacity deficiency is
remedied, the amount of development shall be limited to such that the pond and
Quinstar GDP stormwater discharge shall be reduced to less than the existing capacity
of County Road 1 culvert. This shall be evaluated on a plat by plat basis."
Mr. Burke asked if the traffic count took into consideration the additional access into South Park.
Mr. Svenby responded no.
Mr. Burke asked if it would put undue burden on the applicant, as far as adding additional traffic
he would not otherwise be responsible for.
Mr. Svenby responded that it would be unlikely that traffic would travel all the way south through
the development and back through County Road 1.
Mr. Quinn questioned what alternatives staff provided in the staff report.
Mr. Svenby explained that, if the Commission chose to approve the land use plan amendment,
they should set some limits based on the traffic analysis that was done for the property.
However, if the Commission feels that it is not appropriate, the Commission could have the
applicant go through a restrictive development process.
I (R Page 4 • • /
ll City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Mr. Geoff Griffin, of GGG Engineering, addressed the Commission. He stated that he agreed
with the additional information supplied by Mr. Reiter, a 3 lot condition and capping it at 25 adt
and reevaluate it later to see where traffic is going.
Mr. Griffin stated that he has been working with Mike Sheehan on the right turn lanes and is
willing to pay the costs. He stated that they would also work with him when they regrade
County Road 1.
Mr. Griffin stated that the applicant is concerned about connecting to the subdivision to the
north. He stated that he thought that they did not have the access on their plan. Therefore, they
went forward with their grading plan and explained the difficulty in changing it.
Ms. Petersson asked if a property would be landlocked if there were no connecting road
between the subdivisions.
Mr. Svenby responded that there is one access point for the property in question.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Sulk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval Land Use Plan Amendment #00-05 by
Quinstar, LLP with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion.
Mr. Staver expressed concern regarding drainage. He explained that he knew people in that
area that currently have water problems.
Mr. Svenby responded that Mr. Nigbur's additional condition would address that concern. The
applicant is proposing to control all the water on site.
The motion carried 7-0.
Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval of Amendment to General Development
Plan #136 by Quinstar, LLP with staff -suggested findings and conditions as discussed,
including the staff -recommended road. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion.
Mr. Svenby asked if Ms. Petersson's motion including showing pedestrian facilities and access
points.
Ms. Petersson responded yes.
Mr. Quinn seconded the. motion. The motion carried 7-0.
CONDITIONS:
1. Prior to approval of:a,final plat for this property, the applicant shall execute a
development agreement with the City that outlines the trip generation limits,
phasing of the property and also outlines the obligations of the applicant relating
to, but not limited toj, stormwater management, traffic improvements, pedestrian
facilities, right -of -Way dedication and contributions for public improvements.
2. Due to the current,surface water and groundwater problem in this area, an
Page 5 • 1� ^
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes r /
Hearing Date: November 3, 2000
grading activity proposed on the site prior to annexation of the property shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Rochester Public Works Department.
3. Until such time that any downstream culvert and/or ditch capacity deficiency is
remedied, the amount of development shall be limited to such that the pond and
Quinstar GDP stormwater discharge shall be reduced to less than the existing
capacity of County Road 1 culvert. This will be evaluated on a plat by plat basis,
4. The applicant agrees to fund the necessary data collection activities that will
permit updating the traffic impact study and re -analysis of intersection operations
on CSAH 1. The type of data collection would likely include turning movement
and traffic volume counts at the proposed CSAH 1 intersection and the street
segments approaching that intersection. As result of the re -analysis of traffic
condition for further limitation on the intensity or types of land used that will be
permitted on Phase 11 would be established as part of the re -platting process.
5. Geometric improvements are warranted at the intersection to insure safe
functioning of the intersection in an unsignalized manner. The applicant shall be
responsible for the construction of a northbound right turn lane on CSAH 1. The
applicant shall also be responsible for a left turn lane for southbound traffic on
CSAH1 turning left into the site. The applicant will need to work with the Olmsted
County Public Works Department to determine how best to accommodate the left
turn lane. The commercial development shall be served by 2 inbound and 2
outbound lanes,
6. The General Development Plan be revised to:
Indicate controlled access along the entire frontage on CSAH 1 and along the
interior street for a distance of 150 feet back from the intersection with CSAH
1.
Provide a roadway to the unplatted land in the South Park GDP. The most
likely.location to provide an access to the South Park GDP is by extending a
roadway north from the east/west roadway that aligns with the entrance to the
southerly cul-de-sac.
➢ Indicate that the commercial development will be developed in Phases with
Phase I including no more than 3 lots with the mix of uses on these three lots
are limited such that the total trip generation shall not exceed 2,500 trip per
day (+/-10 %).
Show access points and pedestrian facilities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AUtNUA Jti I IUN:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
MEETING 1(6�
DATE: 12-11-00
ITEM NO,
S_(v
M DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan 4136 by Quinstar LLP to PREPArRED BY:
..._dify the approved General Development Plan to reflect commercial uses on the 12.10 Bent Svenby,
acres in the southwest corner of the GDP. The property is located north of Highway 52, Planner
east of 111h Avenue SE (Co. Rd. 1).
November 30, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On November 8, 2000 the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment to GDP #136
known as Quinstar.
Geoff Griffin, GGG Engineering, addressed the Commission. He stated that his client agrees with the additional
information supplied by Charlie Reiter about limiting the amount of commercial permitted now and reevaluating it later. He
also stated his client did not want to provide an access to the property in the South Park GDP. Otherwise, they were in
agreement with the conditions suggested by staff.
The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual.
Ms. Petersson made a motion to approve Amendment to General Development Plan #136, known as Quinstar, with
staff -suggested conditions and findings as amended. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Conditions:
Prior to approval of a final plat for this property, the applicant shall execute a development
agreement with the City that outlines the trip generation limits, phasing of the property and also
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
improvements.
2. Due to the current surface water and ground water problem in this area, any grading activity
proposed on the site prior to annexation of the property shall be reviewed and approved by the
City of Rochester Public Works Department.
3. Until such time that any downstream culvert and/or ditch capacity deficiency is remedied, the
amount of development shall be limited to such that the pond and Quinstar GDP stormwater
discharge shall be reduced to less than the existing capacity of County Road 1 culvert. This will
be evaluated on a plat by plat basis.
a. The applicant agrees to fund the necessary data collection activities that will permit updating the
traffic impact study and re -analysis of intersection operations on CSAH 1. The type of data
collection would likely include turning movement and traffic volume counts at the proposed CSAH
1 intersection and the street segments approaching that intersection. As result of the re -analysis
of traffic condition for further limitation on the intensity or types of land used that will be
permitted on Phase II would be established as part of the re -platting process. -
Continued on page 2 NOTE: �� ' � """� Cornn+w�o 4- CPac r""tai�ts.•- FktN-te+� 1, PA
P g U.. Li....__
r")UNCIL ACTION: Motion by:' Second by: to:
Page 2 IV
RCA
November 30, 2000
5. Geometric improvements are warranted at the intersection to insure safe functioning of the
intersection in an unsignalized manner. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of
a northbound right turn lane on CSAH 1. The applicant shall also be responsible for a left turn
lane for southbound traffic on CSAH1 turning left into the site. The applicant will need to work
with the Olmsted County Public Works Department to determine how best to accommodate the
left turn lane. The commercial development shall be served by 2 inbound and 2 outbound lanes.
6. The General Development Plan be revised to:
➢ Indicate controlled access along the entire frontage on CSAH 1 and along the interior street for
a distance of 150 feet back from the intersection with CSAH 1.
➢ Provide a roadway to the unplatted land in the South Park GDP. The most likely location to
provide an access to the South Park GDP is by extending a roadway north from the east/west
roadway that aligns with the entrance to the southerly cul-de-sac.
➢ Indicate that the commercial development will be developed in Phases with Phase I including
no more than 3 lots with the mix of uses on these three lots are limited such that the total trip
generation shall not exceed 2,500 trip per day (+1-10 %).
➢ Show access points and pedestrian facilities.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
See attached staff report dated November 3, 2000.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the amendment to the general development plan.
The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215.
2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the amendment to the general development plan as proposed, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated November 3, 2000
2. Minutes of the November 8, 2000 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Administrator 10q'
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Planning Department GIS Division
5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m, on Monday, December 11, 2000 in the Council/Board
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
6. GGG Engineering
MA s.
TOTAL LOTS - 147 STE MAP
APPROXIMATE ROAD = 12,941
TOTAL TOWNHOMES = 100
COMMERCIAL - 11.2 ACRES
TOTAL WETLAND - 12.1 ACRES
WETLAND AREA
FLOOOWAY BOUNDARY 24-
- -------- EXISTING CITY LIMITS
DRAINAGE CORRIDOR
11
C.
F-
y
<1 iWTLOT OWNERSHIP R�.[� F.blk
R.h.1- P.O. Wad.
P.Mk W�.
-r Aocnntw Pubik WOMv
PwWk
wme«
A
nTH V a UNPLATTED
-------- - ---- 1
ICI 7 T1.11- III
® ® aglC l!Y>�s��®
7-7
U F:L-'.TTED
NT
V
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: November 3, 2000
RpCIt F.STE$. „1 I'I3 /
v
ka rSO:A-Oct: •i
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GISIADDRESSING/
5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
5071285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELL/SEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
RE: Amendment to General Development Plan #136 known as Quinstar
GDP
PlanningDepartment Review:
Applicant: Quinstar LLP
1652 Greenview Drive SW
Rochester. MN 55902
Consultants: GGG Engineering
241 North Winona Street
Chatfield, MN 55923
Size and Location: The portion of the GDP the applicant is proposing to
amend is located in the southwest corner. The area
consist of approximately 12.10 acres and is located
north of Highway 52 and east of 11'h Avenue SE
(CSAH 1).
Existing Land Use: Present use of the property is agricultural. It is used
as a pasture area.
Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to amend the GDP to
designate the southwest corner (12.10 acres) as
being developed with uses that are permitted within
the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. At this
time the property is not annexed into the City of
Rochester.
Land Use Plan: This property is identified for "Low Density
Residential' use on the Rochester Urban Service
Area Land Use Plan Map. A petition to amend the
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan from
"low density residential" to "commercial" is being
considered concurrent with this GDP amendment.
Zoning: The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural —Urban
._1
PAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Kam.
l iq Page 2 0
General Development Plan Amendment
November 3, 2000
Streets:
Sidewalks:
0
Expansion) district on the County Zoning Map.
The proposed amendment does not include any new
streets from what was previously approved.
Sidewalks will be required along all new public
roadways.
Drainage: There is large knob in this portion of the property.
Stormwater ponds are shown to the east and north of
the proposed amendment area. There currently exist
a surface water and ground water problem in this
area. A change in the land use from residential to
commercial uses will likely increase the surface water
run-off from these lands and worsen the existing
problem. The applicant's consultant has indicated
that all surface water from this development will be
contained on site.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
when the property is developed,
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. A wetland delineation has been completed and
approved for the entire GDP. Wetland corridors are
shown as outlots on the plan.
Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to be
extended from their present ends.
Parkland Dedication: The park and recreation department had no comment
regarding the proposed amendment. Parkland
dedication for the development will continue as a
combination of land and cash in lieu of land. A
neighborhood park site has been identified on the
GDP.
Transportation Access: According to the GDP, access to this property will be
from a future east/west roadway along the northern of
the proposed commercial area. The GDP does
indicate controlled access along CSAH 1 so no
access points will be permitted along this roadway.
Please refer to the attached memo from Charlie
Reiter for detailed information regarding
transportation issues on this proposal.
Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works
2. Planning Dept: Transportation Division
3. Planning Dept: Wetlands
4. RPU Water Division
5. MnDOT
6. RPU Operations Division
11
Page 3
General Development Plan Amendment
November 3, 2000
Review:
On March 15, 1999 the City Council approved GDP #136 by Quinstar which included
approximately 177 acres. At that time the applicant had the southwest corner (11 acres) labeled
as being developed with commercial and industrial uses. One of the conditions of approval of the
GDP was that the SW corner had to be labeled "Non residential uses permitted in the low -density
district". This was required because the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan Map
designates this area for "Low Density Residential" uses. The applicant is now proposing to
amend the approved plan to accommodate B-4 (General Commercial) uses in the southwest
corner of the property. The applicant has also filed a Land Use Plan Amendment to change the
designation from the "Low Density Residential" to the "Commercial" designation on the Plan for
the area. The Land Use Plan Amendment is being reviewed concurrently with this proposed GDP
Amendment.
A Rezoning Traffic Analysis was prepared to evaluate the traffic impact of the proposed change of
12.1 acres of land from Low Density Residential use to Commercial, as required by Section
61.523 of the Land Development Manual. In order to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed
land use plan amendment, a land use scenario was defined for the commercial area which
consisted of the following uses:
♦ A Gas Station with Convenience Retail with 10 Vehicle Fueling Positions (1 acre of
proposed B-4 area)
♦ A 7,000 square foot high turnover, sit down restaurant (Baker's Square or Perkins as
an example) (2 acres)
♦ A 100 unit motel (2.5 acres)
♦ A 29,500 square foot Special Retail Center (Candlewood as an example) (3 acres)
♦ A 35,000 square foot Office Center (approx.the size of Marketplace at 191h St & TH 52
North) (3 acres)
For the purpose of this analysis the applicant was asked to evaluate the traffic impact at the
proposed access point on CSAH 1, located approximately 900 feet north of the on/off ramps on
the north side of TH 52. The traffic from the proposed commercial development will primarily use
this access, along with a share of traffic from the 147 single family lots and 100 townhome units
proposed in the development. Please see the attached memo from Charlie Reiter for the
complete review of the traffic impact analysis done for this proposal. The following is a summary
of Mr. Reiter's memo.
Based on review of the proposed traffic study and further analysis that staff has conducted it is our
recommendation that the total trip generation for the proposed access to CSAH 1 should be
capped at 2/3 (67%) of the level that was analyzed in the report. We would recommend that the
total volume of traffic permitted to use the CSAH 1 access would be 3900 trips; 1400 residential
trips and 2500 non-residential trips. At this level of development intensity the intersection should
be able to reasonably function in an unsignalized manner, which we feel is consistent with general
practice and policy in the city and county as to when signals should be utilized. At the level of
development that was evaluated in the report it is our opinion that installation of a traffic signal will
be mandatory within 10-15 years if not sooner at the access to the site. We feel the traffic
generation should be capped to insure signal installation will not be warranted for technical
reasons or to satisfy complaints from residents of the adjacent residential area. The overall trip
generation limits can be established and monitored through the Development Agreement that
would be established for the site.
It is also recommended, even with the establishment of a cap on total traffic, that geometric
improvements are warranted at the intersection to insure safe functioning of the intersection in an
unsignalized manner. The developer should be responsible for construction of a northbound right
Page 4 •
General Development Plan Amendment
November 3, 2000
turn lane on CSAH 1, and should work with the County Public Works Department to determine
how best to accommodate a left turn lane for southbound traffic on CSAH 1 turning left into the
site. The County has a project programmed to replace the pavement on CSAH 1 in 2003, and
possibly a cash contribution in lieu of actual construction of a left turn lane at this time would be
desirable and would allow design of the turn lane to be accommodated within the larger
construction project.
It is also recommended that access control be established along the interior street for a distance
of 150' back from the intersection with CSAH 1 to insure no conflict between driveway traffic and
on -street traffic that is queued to enter onto CSAH 1.
There is an area outside of the GDP labeled "unplatted" which is shown only being serve by one
roadway (281" Street SE). The approved GDP for South Park does provide for a roadway
connection to the Quinstar GDP. The connection was missed when the originally GDP for
Quinstar was approved. Staff would recommend that the Commission and Council required that
an access be provided from the Quinstar GDP to the South Park GDP. The mostly likely location
to provide an access to the South Park GDP is by extending a roadway north from the east/west
roadway that aligns with the entrance to the southerly cul-de-sac.
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.
A Land Use Plan Amendment is being considered concurrent with this GDP
amendment to designate this property for "commercial" uses. If the Land
Use Plan Amendment is approved, the labeling of this area as being
designated for "commercial' use would be consistent with that document
Based on a traffic impact analysis it is necessary, however, to establish
what the trip generation capacity of the intersection is as a way of
controlling the intensity of commercial uses to insure that the uses are
compatible with the existing and planned thoroughfare system.
Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation
are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent
property.
There is limited access to the site. No specific uses are shown on the
General Development Plan, except for those uses which are allowed within
the B-4 (General Commercial) zoning district. With a wide range of
permitted uses in the B-4 zoning district, development of this site could
result in uses that are not compatible with the existing and proposed
thoroughfare system and could result in safety concerns.
An additional access connection is needed to be provided to the property
in the South Park General Development Plan.
1079 .
Page 5
General Development Plan Amendment
November 3. 2000
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans
No housing is proposed in the amendment area.
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.
This property is located adjacent to TH 52 but is not located on a highway
approach with access to a frontage road. As shown on the General
Development Plan for this property, access to the commercial is proposed
from a local street located approximately 900 feet north of the on/off ramps
on the north side of TH 52. The traffic from the proposed commercial
development will primarily use this access, along with a share of traffic
from the 147 single family lots and 100 townhome units proposed in the
development.
If the proposed amendment is approved to allow commercial uses,
improvements to CSAH 1 are needed. The County has a project
programmed to replace the pavement on CSAH f in 2003, and possibly a
cash contribution in lieu of actual construction of a left turn lane at this
time would be desirable and would allow design of the turn lane to be
accommodated within the larger construction project. Geometric
improvements are warranted at the intersection to insure safe functioning
of the intersection in an unsignalized manner. The developer should be
responsible for construction of a northbound right turn lane on CSAH 1,
and should work with the County Public Works Department to determine
how best to accommodate a left turn lane for souhbound traffic on CSAH 1
turning left into the site.
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.
Based on review of the proposed traffic study and further analysis
that staff has conducted it is our recommendation that the total trip
generation for the proposed access to CSAH 1 should be limited
such that total trip generation would not exceed approximately
Z500 trips per day (_/- 10%). At this level of development intensity
the intersection should be able to reasonably function in an
unsignalized manner, which we feel is consistent with general
practice and policy in the city and county as to when signals should
jU Page 6 •
General Development Plan Amendment
November 3, 2000
be utilized. At the level of development that was evaluated in the
report it is our opinion that installation of a traffic signal will be
mandatory within 10-15 years if not sooner at the access to the site.
We feel the traffic generation should be capped to insure signal
installation will not be warranted for technical reasons or to satisfy
complaints from residents of the adjacent residential area. The
overall trip generation limits can be established and monitored
through the Development Agreement that would be established for
the site.
It is also recommended, even with the establishment of a cap on
total traffic, that geometric improvements are warranted at the
intersection to insure safe functioning of the intersection in an
unsignalized manner. The developer should be responsible for
construction of a northbound right turn lane on CSAH 1, and should
work with the County Public Works Department to determine how
best to accommodate a left turn lane for southbound traffic on
CSAH 1 turning left into the site. The County has a project
programmed to replace the pavement on CSAH 1 in 2003, and
possibly a cash contribution in lieu of actual construction of a left
turn lane at this time would be desirable and would allow design of
the turn lane to be accommodated within the larger construction
project.
It is also recommended that access control be established along the
interior street for a distance of 150' back from the intersection with
CSAH 1 to insure no conflict between driveway traffic and on -street
traffic that is queued to enter onto CSAH 1.
The expected trip generation from the site will consist of a mix of
new traffic generated by the development or attracted by the
proposed commercial uses, trips that are considered to be
"captured" from existing traffic flows on CSAH 1 or TH 52 (referred
to as pass -by traffic) and trips that will be internal to the area. The
expected total trip generation of the Quinstar Development and the
share of the traffic that is expected to use the CSAH 1 on a daily
basis is summarized in the following table:
ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION FOR
QUINSTAR DEVELOPMENT
Total
Area Primarily Served by Daily
CSAH 1 Access Units Traffic
Traffic
Amount of Amount of using
Amount of
Pass -by Internal CSAH 1
Pass -by
Traffic Traffic Access
Traffic
Single Family— South Area
50
500
0
0
475
0
Townhome — South Area
70
525
0
0
499
0
Gas Station/Convenience
10
1625
813
0
1544
813
Sit -Down Restaurant
7,000
910
0
91
810
0
Motel
100
565
0
57
508
0
Specialty Retail
29,500
1200
120
0
1140
120
Office
35,000
400
01
40
340
0
Uses in Central and North Portion of Site
i
Page 7
General Development Plan Amendment
November 3, 2000
Single Family— Central Area
331
330
01
01
1491
0
Single Family— North Area
641
6401
01
0
256
0
Townhome — North Area
301
2251
0
-01
231
0
Estimated TOTAL TRAFFIC
1 6,920
933
1881
5,7401
933
Total Residential Traffic
1 2,220
1,400
Total Non -Residential Traffic
1 4,7001
9331
1881
4,3401
933
TOTAL TRAFFIC w
1 2,6901
1 1 1,850
'NOTE: The last line of the table assumes that if the proposed commercial area is not
rezoned it would be developed with townhomes at a density of 5.5 units per acre on 11
gross acres of developable land.
The entire area encompassed within the Quinstar GDP would be
expected to generate a total of 6,920 vehicles per day if the
proposed commercial designation is approved, with approximately
5,740 vehicles using the CSAH 1 access. This contrasts to an
estimated total daily traffic of 2,690 vehicles per day if the area
remained zoned for low density residential use, of which 1,850
would be expected to use the CSAH 1 access.
The current traffic volume on CSAH 1 is estimated to be
approximately 6,150 ADT (Average Daily Traffic), and it is expected
to grow by approximately 3.1 % per year, resulting in an estimated
2015 ADT of 9,430. The 3% estimate is based on the most recent
traffic forecasting work of the Planning Department and did not
assume commercial development along CSAH 1. If commercial
development is assumed, the net daily increase in total traffic from
the commercial development would equal 3,890 ADT (5,740 — 1,850
=3,890). Since 50% of the traffic is expected to come from the south
and 50% from the north, % of this total would be added to the base
forecast, resulting in an expected ADT on a given section of CSAH
1 of 11,375. The following table summarizes these totals:
Quinstar Access Road
CSAH 1
Existing traffic
0
6,150
Projected 2015 traffic w/o commercial
1,850
9,430
Projected 2015 traffic with commercial
5,740
11.375
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
e permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
Page 8
(J General Development Plan Amendment
November 3, 2000
This property is within the Main Level Service Area with
approximate static pressure ranging from 42 PSI to 54 PSI. The
preliminary computer modeling indicates flows for fire protection
will be below the minimum required by the Fire Prevention Bureau
for the proposed type of development. Development of this area
will only is possible upon connection to future water main
extensions through adjoining properties to the north and the
northwest.
Sanitary sewer will also need to be extended to the site.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
Stormwater management will need to be reviewed further for this
development. There currently exists a surface water and ground
water problem in this area. A change in the land use from
residential to commercial uses will likely increase the surface water
run-off from these lands and worsen the existing problem.
Stormwater detention ponds are shown to the north and east of this
area and will need to be addressed at the time a specific
development is proposed for the site.
Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through
normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land
subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to
solve unusual problems that have been identified.
The site generally drains to the west, north and south. There currently
exists a surface water and ground water problem in this area. A change in
the land use from residential to commercial uses will likely increase the
surface water run-off from these lands and worsen the existing problem.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed at the time a
specific development is proposed on the 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 amendment to the General Development Plan does not address any lot
or block layout. According to the plan, the site will be developed as one lot
with only one roadway serving it. Depending on the intensity or type of
use developed on the site, the development may not be compatible with the
existing and planning development of the adjacent parcels.
An additional access should be provided to serve the South Park GDP area.
Recommendation:
If the Land Use Plan Amendment is not approved for this site, staff would recommend denial
of the proposed amendment to the General Development Plan,
Page 9 0 ( /
General Development Plan Amendment iii
November 3, 2000
If the CPZC and Council approve the Land Use Plan Amendment, staff would recommend
approval subjected to the condition that the applicant enters into a Development Agreement
with the City which outlines the trip generation limits, phasing of the property and the
necessary infrastructure improvements required to accommodate commercial development.
If the applicant enters into a Development Agreement with the City, which outlines the trip
generation limits, phasing of the development and the necessary infrastructure improvements,
Staff would recommend the following conditions or modification to the proposed amendment
to the General Development Plan:
1. Prior to approval of a final plat for this property, the applicant shall execute a
development agreement with the City that outlines the trip generation limits,
phasing of the property and also 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 improvements.
2. Due to the current surface water and ground water problem in this area, any
grading activity proposed on the site prior to annexation of the property shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Rochester Public Works Department.
3. The General development Plan shall be revised to indicate that the commercial
development will be developed in Phases with Phase i including no more than 3
lots with the mix of uses on these three lots are limited such that the total trip
generation shall not exceed 2,500 trip per day (+/- 10 %).
4. The applicant agrees to fund the necessary data collection activities that will
permit updating the traffic impact study and re -analysis of intersection operations
on CSAH 1. The type of data collection would likely include turning movement and
traffic volume counts at the proposed CSAH 1 intersection and the street segments
approaching that intersection. As result of the re -analysis of traffic condition for
further limitation on the intensity or types of land used that will be permitted on
Phase it would be established as part of the re -platting process.
5. Geometric improvements are warranted at the intersection to insure safe
functioning of the intersection in an unsignalized manner. The applicant shall be
responsible for the construction of a northbound right turn lane on CSAH 1. The
applicant shall also be responsible for a left turn lane for southbound traffic on
CSAH1 turning left into the site. The applicant will need to work with the Olmsted
County Public Works Department to determine how best to accommodate this left
turn lane. The commercial development shall be served by 2 inbound and 2
outbound lanes.
6. The General Development Plan be revised to
> indicate controlled access along the entire frontage on CSAH 1 and along the
interior street for a distance of 150 feet back from the intersection with CSAH 1.
> provide a roadway to the unplatted land in the South Park GDP. The mostly
location to provide an access to the South Park GDP is by extending a roadway
north from the east/west roadway that aligns with the entrance to the southerly
cul-de-sac.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 183
DATE: 12-11-00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S — 7
A DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase ll, Land Subdivision Permit (Preliminary Plat) #0045 by I PREPARED BY:
ne Company to be known as Century Hills Fifth Subdivision. This Plat proposes to Theresa Fogarty,
subdivide approximately 13.66 acres of land into 34 lots for single family development, one Planner
outlet and also dedicates the right-of-way for 3 new public roadways. The property is located
east of East Circle Drive and south of Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills V and 40
Subdivisions.
December 7, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 2000 to consider this preliminary plat
The Planning Commission discussed the location of the edge Decorah Shale and how far the developers have been
requested to be away from the edge of the Decorah Shale in the past. Staff responded that the developers have not been
asked to stay away from it in the past.
The Planning Commission also discussed the completion of the secondary access and if the completion of the secondary
access is a condition of the plat being proposed. Staff explained that completion of the secondary access is not a condition
of the plat being proposed because it is already included in a executed development agreement with the City.
Mr. Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant agrees with the
staff -suggested conditions and that the secondary access needs to be completed concurrent with the development of
Century Hills Fourth Subdivision.
The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following
mditions or modifications:
1. The Plat shall be revised.,
a. Providing an additional utility easement along the north side of Lot 3, Block 5, according to the memo
from Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division, dated November 2, 2000.
b. Dedicating a 30' wide outlet mid -block connection between Lots 10 and 11 of Block 4, providing for
pedestrian connection between "Oakview Drive NE" and the proposed roadway located south of this plat
as identified in the Century Hills General Development Plan.
2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, with payment due prior to recording the rrnal plat, as
recommended by the City Park and Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated October 24, 2000.
3. Temporary turn -a -rounds and associated easements shall be provided for the proposed tum-around at the
southerly end of Century Hills Drive NE prior to recording the Final Plat documents.
4. Stormwater Management must be provided.
JAny intercepted recharge water shall be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of recharge processes.
Clay plugs shall be installed in utility trenches as a means of maintaining dispersed groundwater recharge
flows.
7. Prior to approval of the final plat of Century Hills Fifth Subdivision, the� sepco�ndary ccess must be passable
for the residents of Century Hills.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motlon by: second by: to:
Page 2
RCA
December 7. 000
DECORAH EDGE RECOMMENDATIONS:
9. Delineation of high water table conditions be completed.
2. Retain the existing vegetation and soils on the site. Limit the extent of grading that can occur where the Decorah
shale is the first encountered bedrock. If areas do become disturbed, encourage the planting of appropriate
native vegetation.
3. Develop vertical and lateral setbacks to minimize the disruption of groundwater recharge where the Decorah
shale is the fist encountered bedrock.
4. In areas where the Decorah shale does become disturbed, require that intercepted recharge water be reinftltrated
to minimize disruption of recharge processes. Reinfiltration should mimic natural recharge processes where
feasible.
5. Clay plugs should be installed in utility trenches as a means of maintaining dispersed groundwater recharge
flows. Trenches may inadvertently serve as subdrainage channels.
6. Preserve the unique hydric features of the site. Utilize undevelopable areas as common or public open space,
linear parks, and/or trafiways.
Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #00-45 by Payne Company to be known as Century
Hills Fifth Subdivision with staff -suggested conditions and adding Tony Hills Decorah Edge recommendations. Mr.
Quinn seconded the motion.
Ms. Petersson amended her motion to include a condition "Prior to approval of the final plat of Century Hills Fifth
Subdivision, the secondary access must be passable for the residents of Century Hills". Mr. Quinn second the
amendment to the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated November 2, 2000.
Council Action Needed
1. The Council may approve,' approv9 "rim, condrLtins, deny ther an subd�v�sfon pprrinlL The
counciff must make haurngs ofFfacf;based on; the tera Included in t o staf report A'
_'motion, to deny must Include suppong reasops fob �concWslontliairat least ante of the
fifteen findings for denial in -paragraph 61225 can be inatle `,;aa
Attachments:
1. Staff Report, dated November 2, 2000.
2. Minutes of the November 8, 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 / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. Yaggy Colby Associates
on Monday, December 11, 2000, in the Council
0
i P
N Vld 1N3WdOl3A30 1
V1OS3NNlW'V3lS3H:)0l
IBM SlllHksnlN D M) ;� 3_ ; a
PRELIMINARY PLAT 100-45
CENTURY HILLS 5th
r
1%
K 1 ;if 9[ iVId A2IVNIMIRld d
1 3 1 s:=55i7s
iff d1053NN1w't131S3HJOUWH
r
• sa Ski R6 ; isiii±i { NOISIAKIGnS HIJ14 S111H aniN3J
✓ 9TO }f 9929to
l _ �
r r ^
n i
'-ern %}n l�l q Iv i' L. ItP
I /
a
I j '� x j
..t.eu� i �/ ev v
R I~ i
R ¢
�'' iall
��t{{
i bJ, s R I�' � ei : i St �s E�lFg'` a 'f• � ° �x
J cuss+ •, i' ; 3x�-"xl#e'�1� !F iFss $ ii Y%
S v v �++ I I . ew _ .a i •t'aa €L`�t [i. r:4: x: •s ei [ j' 2
__J�`,_�v, ,.<.Hui I I I. � i � •�„'' i :5 �; �•f x giFx :i�( �' �1 .��[ � ��l {
r e;� {P !/ F� � !S m \ � �+ a ���^g•rT=s��Fi[A!?�• �t�3 s�:��st;'
I 1 'yy
„l ', I I —
it
�M7 / r•�:Yz Y i�y. t{4 zfd_i!r}itt•'ii i
.R"i L. .. $I i. l/ /,i •Ri Y / �3 x���•=f i8 _xxA
v a•'aS` /J� h ��� � I� iri:l.x73�,r�'ei r
ac 't t2 !r a Zf4t9Sf oe
x d• J 'ell - I 'r. a¢11 1 I
74 rA.
: H.% o :nr a`f�.�� �a R ;, 69' 8f x }' 'Z LLY.BL! 1• s aTa .o . � r.. • ` t
II
Century
High School
W
National
z
Volleyball
Z
Center
O
0
Z
o,e+
p
% I 1F
Preliminary Plat #00-45
Century Hills 5th Subdivision
1,100' Notification Distance
Ward 5 Evans
10/19/00
f qq , •
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner, q'
DATE: November 2, 2000
OF •RGC H ESTER.,tlLt'.1 f.
ORa TEO:A U GUST''
ROCHESTER-OLMSTIED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
5071285-8232
PLANNING
GIS/ADDRESSING/
5071285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC
5071285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
RE: Preliminary Plat #00-45 by Payne Company to be known as
Century Hills Fifth Subdivision. This Plat proposes to subdivide
approximately 13.66 acres of land into 34 lots for single family
development, one outlot and also dedicates the right-of-way for 3
new public roadways. The property is located east of East Circle
Drive and south of Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills 3rd and
4th Subdivisions.
PlanningDepartment Review:
Applicant/Owner:
Surveyors/Engineers:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Development Review:
Location of Property:
Payne Company
1700 Northwood Drive NE
Rochester, MN 55906
Yaggy Colby Associates
717 V Avenue SE
Rochester. MN 55904
RPU Water Division
Park and Rec. Department
Rochester Public Works Department
Rochester Fire Department
MN Soil and Water Conservation District
1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Referral Comments (5 letters)
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat
4. Century Hills General Development Plan
The property is located east of East Circle Drive and
south of Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills 3`d
and 01 Subdivisions.
ANEQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2 • 1 V r
Preliminary Plat #00-45
Century Hills 5th
November 3, 2000
Zoning: The property is currently going through the Annexation
process and is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban
Expansion) District on the County of Olmsted Zoning
Map. Once the property is annexed, the property will
be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City
of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 13.66 acres of land to be
subdivided into 34 lots for single family development.
Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three
new roadways.
The first would be a southerly extension of "Century
Hills Drive NE". This roadway is designed with a 66'
right-of-way. Execution of a temporary turn -around
easement is required for the proposed turn -around at
the southerly end of "Century Hills Drive NE".
The second roadway is an easterly extension of
"Oakview Drive NE". This roadway is designed with a
60' right-of-way.
The third roadway known as "Century Valley Road NE"
intersects into "Oakview Drive NE". This roadway is
designed with a 60" right-of-way.
According to the approved Development Agreement
with the City and as required by the Land Development
Manual, Section 64.127, Paragraph 10, the owner is
required and has agreed to provide a secondary
access concurrent with the development of Centu
Hills 4' Subdivision.
Pedestrian Facilities: In accordance with current City policy and the approved
Development Agreement pedestrian facilities will be
provided on both sides of all of the new streets in the
subdivision.
Section 64.227 of the Land Development Manual
requires the dedication of trails needed to maintain
connectivity between and through subdivisions under
the following circumstance "Across any block
exceeding 800 feet in length. According to the
proposed preliminary plat, Block 4 exceeds the 800 feet
in length. A mid -block connection (30' wide outlot) is
required providing connection between "Oakview Drive
NE" and the proposed roadway located south of this
plat as identified in the Century Hills GDP. Staff is
suggesting that the mid -block connection be placed
between Lots10 and 11, Block 4, in the same location
as the 20' drainage and utility easement.
Drainage: The topography of this plat indicates natural drainage to
the southwest. The elevations range from about 1,240'
on the northeastern portion of the plat to about 1,156'
on the southwestern end.
i
Page 3 • •
Preliminary Plat #0046
Century Hills 5th
November 3, 2000
Drainage (Continued): It appears that the Decorah Edge Recharge Area
underlies Lots 1 and 2 of Block 5 and Lot 1 of Block 4
and general development recommendations for the
Decorah Edge setting should be considered for this
site.
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.
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. However, the Decorah Edge setting may
produce hillside wetlands.
Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from
their present ends to accommodate this development.
An additional utility easement is required, on the north
side of Lot 3, Block 5 (in addition to the 20' utility
easement already shown for the sanitary sewer)
Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for service
vehicles and visitors. This development requires 41
spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the
additional parking can be accommodated on the
roadways and most likely within private driveways, as
well.
Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends
that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu
of land with payment due prior to recording of the final
plat.
General Development Plan: This property is included within the Century Hills
General Development Plan (GDP).
Staff Review and Recommendation:
Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by
the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application.
This section is attached for your information.
Page 4 0
Preliminary Plat #00-45
Century Hills 5th
November 3, 2000
The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of Section
61.225 of the LDM, effective May 15, 1999. A Development Agreement has been executed with
the City for this property, therefore staff recommends approval of this plat with the following
conditions / modifications:
1. The Plat shall be revised:
a. Providing an additional utility easement along the north side of Lot 3, Block 5
according to the memo from Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division, dated
November 2, 2000,
b. Dedicating a 30' wide outlot mid -block connection between Lots 10 and 11 of
Block 4, providing for pedestrian connection between 'Oakview Drive NE and
the proposed roadway located south of this plat as identified in the Century
Hills General Development Plan.
2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, with payment due prior to
recording the final plat, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department
in the attached memo, dated October 24, 2000.
3. Temporary turn -a -rounds and associated easements shall be provided for the
proposed turn -around at the southerly end of Century Hills Drive NE prior to
recording the Final Plat documents.
4. Stormwater Management must provided.
5. Any intercepted recharge water shall be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of
recharge processes.
6. Clay plugs shall be installed in utility trenches as a means of maintaining dispersed
groundwater recharge flows.
Reminder to Applicant:
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City 1 Owner Contract
for construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15,
1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans will need to be submitted
with the final plat application, if the applicant intends to record the final plat
documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements.
t Page 5
Preliminary Plat #00-45
Century Hills 5th
November 3, 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
Page 6 • r ( J
Preliminary Plat #00-45
Century Hills 5th
November 3, 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
rpv.
:ve pledge, m? deliver
November 2, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: REVISED Due to additional information provided by Yaggy Colby Associates on
a probable revision to the cul-de-sac depicted on the approved GDP to the south: Preliminary
Plat 400-45 by Payne Company to be known as Century Hills Fifth Subdivision.
Dear Ms. Fogarty:
Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
determines the applicability of these fees.
2 Additional i •ii easements afe required f r 2 L+ wa4e_...e:_. leeps. One e,i the nel4h side of
hot 3, Blee 5 (in ,.Anti,. to the 20' utility easeffient shown fe the . aaitaFy se er—) to
the existing stiab out fr-e ... Gent..._.. Hills Third and e..e either. between rots 12 D.
1 a 13 P 14, Bl el A (to lifte tip with the A.t....e eul des e to the south per the app•,ed
GDR
3. An additional utility easement is required for a 6" water main loop on the north side of Lot
3, Block 5 (in addition to the 10' utility easement shown for the sanitary sewer) to connect to
the existing stub -out from Century Hills Third.
4. Other revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the
applicant's engineering firm with these comments.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,rs. 0,. ,O.
"44
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
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
115-
ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 24, 2000
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: Century Hills 5`h
Preliminary Plat #0045
Acreageof plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Densityfactor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land .............................................
13.66 acres
34 units
2.49 units/acre
.0244
.83 units
$14,000/acre
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements
be met via:
Cash in lieu of land with payment due prior to recordation of final plat.
Applicant:
Payne company
1700 Northwood Dmre NE
\\CITY OP ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ,. 2000\DEDICATION\NE 2896\CEN HILLS 5TH.DOC
�q�
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
10/27/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4 h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a
Preliminary Plat #00-45 on the Century Hills Fifth Subdivision (Payne Company)
property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. There is an executed Development Agreement for this property.
2. Execution of a temporary turn -around easement is required for the
proposed turn -around at the southerly end of Century Hills Or NE.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the
Development Agreement, and include::
•: Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J9218) @ $1403.17 per acre (no
interest based on prepaid contribution).
High Level Water Tower in Northern Heights Area (J9288) @
$1021.46 per acre plus interest @ 7.5% from May 4, 1998
•:• A Stormwater Management Fee @ $2043.01 per acre, for any
area of this property that does not drain toward a detention
facility, constructed by the Owner, to serve this property.
❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic
Division:
4 Street name Signs
1 Street Ends Sign
4 Stop Signs
T* C:%TEMP1PP#DG 45.doc
/ i
--f� OLMSTED SOIL AND ATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1485 Industrial Drive NW
Room 102
Rochester, Minnesota 55901
(507) 280-2850
Fax (507) 280-2858
MINNESOTA I L
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Date: October 27, 2000
To: Jennifer Garness
From: Tony Hill
RE: Preliminary Plat #00-45 — Century Hills Fifth Subdivision
Preliminary Plat Review
Drainage Information: Natural drainage of the plat is to the southwest. The
elevations range from about 1,240 feet on the northeastern portion of the plat to
about 1,156 feet on the southwestern end.
Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area: As was noted in the EAW
comments received from Rochester Public Utilities (11/22196) and Minnesota
Geological Survey (10/15/96) the site overlies the Decorah Edge Groundwater
Recharge Area (attached). As was recommended in the comments received
from Rochester Public Utilities during the EAW process, plats in this GDP should
maintain open space to preserve the natural buffer in the Decorah Edge
Recharge Area (where the Decorah is the first encountered bedrock).
It appears that the Decorah Edge Recharge Area underlies lots 1 and 2 of block
5 and lot 1 of block 4. This assessment is based on bedrock mapping using
ArcView coverages of the two -foot contour lines and well logs and bedrock
exposures north and south of the site indicate that the Cummingsville/Decorah
contact is at about 1,168 feet in elevation. More accurate geologic information
may be available from borings completed at the site.
General development recommendations for the Decorah Edge setting should be
considered for this site. These recommendations are based on a recently
completed study of soils, geology and hydrology of the Decorah Edge Recharge
Area. The study was completed by Northern Environmental with assistance from
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, A.W. Research Laboratories, Inc.,
and Lawler Environmental, Inc.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Decorah Edge Recommendations:
1. Delineation of high water table conditions be completed.
2. Retain the existing vegetation and soils on the site. Limit the extent of grading that
can occur where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. If areas do
become disturbed, encourage the planting of appropriate native vegetation.
3. Develop vertical and lateral setbacks to minimize the disruption of groundwater
recharge where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock.
4. In areas where the Decorah shale does become disturbed, require that intercepted
recharge water be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of recharge processes.
Reinfiltration should mimic natural recharge processes where feasible.
5. Clay plugs should be installed in utility trenches as a means of maintaining dispersed
groundwater recharge flows. Trenches may inadvertently serve as subdrainage
channels.
6. Preserve the unique hydric features of the site. Utilize undevelopable areas as
common or public open space, linear parks, and/or trailways.
Historical Agricultural Structures: None appear present.
Soils Information:
Erodible Soils: There appears to be highly erodible soils (Mt. Carroll silt
loam-401 B) within the proposed plat. Soil erosion could be severe on this
site when grading occurs. Erosion control and runoff measures should be
installed and maintained during all phases of construction.
Hydric Soils: Review of the Olmsted County Soil Survey indicated that
hydric soils are not present within the plat. However, past experience in
the Decorah Edge setting has indicated that hillside wetlands do appear
present within the soil layer.
Wetlands: Hydric soils, hydrophytes and high water tables did not appear
present during the plat review process. However, as mentioned above the
Decorah Edge setting can produce hillside wetlands.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 280-2850.
Ja
AW
LO
0
a
0
RID
2 f' v N E O O C 0.
O u O
3 waat)oacn
N
C
a]
N
O
aoa •
1V9d UIVNIMIRld B i
..
,Eli
1 • i '� E•'jg91 V1OS3NNIW'M1S3HJOk -
o:e
q e��: NOISIAI(IsnS H-UH SIIIH ,1 niN3J �3 �� f g III ,
LB'f0 LfBS9S " � �
Vim'' io
n7 ,�> I 1 =x;� :' / s • �7
�1
jn,rws
i
l
S i
jig !
e«� -j.
.LNYI
N
t7
Y,/
q
I• I11
.
�KxYI , I
/ H. l
vis
9
:, a
f ,k-
i ON
4S ix"4dI7:
fill
V.
zzz
f�iti�ttt
tttt
3
5071280-1556
ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES
- Environmental/Regulatory Affairs -
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 22, 1996
TO: Terry Speath, Planner
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
FROM: Joe Hensel, Manager, Environmental/Regulatory Affairs
SUBJECT: CENTURY HILLS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed
Century Hills development with respect to ground water and wellhead protection issues
and concerns.
The aquifer which is the source of water for the Rochester municipal water supply system
is susceptible to contamination because it is near the land surface with minimal soil cover,
fractured bedrock and Karst geology, and rather brief residence times. The location of the
proposed development is significant from a ground water perspective because it is
essentially on the edge of the Decorah-Plateville-Glennwood formations (refer to Bedrock
Geology exhibit). Recharge of the aquifer is greatest along the edge of this confining unit,
estimated to be about 13 inches per year, resulting in over 50 percent of total recharge.
(Delin 1988).
Located down gradient from the proposed development are three municipal wells (13, 30
& 32). Modeling has been performed to determine areas contributing ground water to each
well. The modeled zones of contribution for these wells extend into the proposed
development area. A portion of this area is within the 5-year time -of -travel zone of well 32.
Attached is an exhibit that shows the relationship of time -of -travel zones for these three
wells and Century Hills. Also attached is an exhibit of the well logs, which identifies
geologic sensitivity, wellhead protection rating and water age category.
As you are aware RPU is in the process of developing a wellhead protection program for
the municipal water system in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
proposed regulations.
AO?\
The program will consist of public information and education, best management practices
(BMPs) for specific activities and land uses, and possibly regulations or controls within
wellhead protection areas (WHPAs). Our current time table for that part of the plan is
1998. In the interim, our intention is to provide recommendations on voluntary BMPs within
WHPAs to reduce the potential for ground water contamination.
Generally speaking, residential development is not inconsistent with WHP goals and
objectives. Many of the activities that would be controlled in WHPAs, such as manure and
sludge spreading, feedlot operation, application of restricted agricultural chemicals, etc.,
would not be found in a residential/commercial development. However, developments on,
or at the base of the Decorah-Plateville-Glennwood edge oftentimes reduce or eliminate
the natural buffer zones that are important for ground water protection. Thus, we would
recommend maintaining "natural" open space in the zones of high recharge for
contaminant attenuation. BMPs that we would expect to be followed include proper
application rates for lawn fertilizer and herbicide, no use or storage of insecticides, and
proper use, handling, storage and disposal of household and commercial chemicals.
Some commercial establishments may fall into the category of hazardous waste
generators. In the future there may be inspections of hazardous waste generators,
including very small quantity generators (VSQGs) located in WHPAs to insure strict
compliance with RCRA requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW. Please call me if you have any
questions or comments.
S �
UNIVERSITY OF Mr. JESOTA
as 3
Twin Cides Campus
October 15, 1996
Mr. Terry A. Spaeth
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 559044744
Minnesota Geological Survey
Institute of Technology
RE: Comments on EAW for Century Hills General Development Plan
2642 University Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55114.1057
612-6274780
Far: 611-6274778
The following comments were prepared by Ms. Barbara Palen and Dr. Anthony Runkel, hydrogeologist
and geologist, respectively, at the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS). Ms. Palen is the Survey's
principal liaison with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), and in that capacity has
reviewed the Comprehensive Local Water Plans prepared by all Minnesota counties, including Olmsted.
Dr. Runkel is the author of a geologic map and report published in 1996 that together describe the
bedrock geology and hydrogeology of the Rochester area (Minnesota Geological Survey Open -File Report
%-1). The work reported in Open -File Report 96-1 was partly funded by Rochester Public Utilities, and
copies of the report may be examined in the RPU offices.
1. The EAW does not address the fate of surface water runoff as potential recharge to the nearby
municipal wells. No data from the Ohnsted County Geologic Atlas (Ohnsted CGA) or more recent USGS
and MGS investigations are included in the EAW. Only a map of depth to water -table and depth to
bedrock based on the county soil survey is appended to the EAW.
2. The list of data items for the EAW does not explicitly include a requirement to report on effects of the
development on wellhead protection areas. However Item 14 is titled "Water -Related Land Use
Management Districts," which should reasonably encompass a discussion of the environmental effects of
the development on wellhead protection in a sensitive area like Rochester. Item 20, entitled "Ground
Water -Potential for Contamination," provides another opportunity to discuss potential effects on aquifer
recharge, but does not explicitly demand a review of the site's geology and aquifers.
The lack of discussion of recharge might be excused by the poor wording of the EAW worksheet, but the
Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department should not allow the issue to be overlooked.
Specific comments
1. The study area has high -moderate to high sensitivity rating with respect to the vulnerability of the
ground water system to pollution from the land surface, according to the Olmsted CGA. The
development will have city water and sewer, so it will not depend on underlying aquifers for drinking
water or discharge septic system effluent to shallow bedrock. Nevertheless, the area is sensitive and
precautions against inadvertent aquifer contamination should be considered.
2. Recharge contaminated by lawn fertilizers and pesticides and road salt might be a problem Most of
the housing is on a hill of Galena bedrock (Cummingsville member) according to the CGA. The Galena -
Decorah -Platteville -Glenwood -St. Peter contacts are found on the hill slopes and in the valleys within the
development boundaries. On -site recharge from rainfall, snowmelt, and lawn/ garden irrigation would
probably discharge in springs and seeps at the Galena -Decorah contact on the hill slopes.
aNd •
a. Although the development has plans for storm -water detention ponds in the valley bottoms,
these might allow recharge into the Platteville or the St. Peter formations. There are 4 ponds, all of
which are over the St. Peter, and two of which appear to be over the Platteville -Glenwood. Any
water recharging into the Platteville would be expected to discharge at the Glenwood contact and
then recharge again into the St. Peter unless controlled by a lined drainage ditch.
b. The development site may be within the wellhead protection area for Rochester city wells. There
are two municipal wells within a half mile of the development boundaries, #506819 in section
30CACD and #224212 in section 31CACC. According to the Olmsted CGA, the St. Peter sandstone
is in hydraulic connection to the underlying Prairie du Chien bedrock group, which in turn is in
connection with the Jordan Sandstone, the source of water for the municipal wells. Therefore it is
possible that recharge of storm -water from the ponds into the St. Peter sandstone may infiltrate into
the Prairie du Chien -Jordan and reach the city wells. The municipal wells are to the west and
southwest of the development site. According to the map of the potentiometric surface of the St.
Peter -Prairie du Chien -Jordan Aquifer in the Olmsted CGA, ground -water flow in the aquifer
under the development site is to the west, toward the municipal wells.
c. The EAW does not discuss karst or karst potential. Parts of the proposed development are on
the "upper Plateau' where the Galena Group is first bedrock and drift is typically less than 20 feet
thick. First bedrock is a "karstic" unit, but according to sinkhole mapping there are no known
sinkholes in the area, and the potential for sinkhole development is rated as low to moderate. The
sinkhole potential is not zero, however, and this should be considered with respect to the recharge
problems discussed in 2a and 2b.
d. The EAW does not state how long the water will be held in the stormwater ponds, or whether
the ponds are sealed on the bottom or sides. The stated primary purpose of the ponds is to control
soil erosion off -site, not to address the content of the dissolved solids in the water. According to the
EAW, the detention ponds will empty into Silver Creek, which flows to the west on the south side
of the development site. The EAW does not discuss the potential of the surface water in the ponds
or in the stream to recharge into the St. Peter -Prairie du Chien -Jordan Aquifer, or address potential
effects of runoff on the surface water quality of Silver Creek.
The Minnesota Geological Survey is an applied research and outreach unit within the School of Earth
Sciences of the University of Minnesota. The Minnesota Geological Survey has no regulatory authority,
consequently, our comments on the Century Hills EAW are offered only as technical advice for serious
consideration.
Yours sincerely,
David L. Southwick
Director
cc: Barbara Palen
Tony Runkel
gd
Page 9
City Planning and Zoning Comm ssion Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Mr. Staver stated that he hear mend of another
agreement to provide for overflow situ ions.
Mr. Suk asked Ms. McGowan if she wou
Burke's condition.
Ms. McGowan amended her motion tplar
by Sunstone Hotel In Inc. me
the City and that they will not to to on
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4R
where they had a rental
an amendment to her motion to add Mr.
�d5''
5t ove Type III, Phase I, Variance Request #00-36
id a written contingency plan to be on file with
stre parking:
the matron to amend. Thelnotion carried
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated November 2, 2000, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby stated that, according to an approved development agreement with the City, the
owner is required to provide a secondary access that is to be concurrent with the development
of Century Hills Fourth Subdivision. He indicated that the applicant is aware that a secondary
access needs to be open soon. He was informed that the developer would have it open
sometime this year.
Ms. Petersson asked where the Decorah edge is located.
Mr. Svenby showed where the approximate location is on the map on page 155 of the staff
report.
Ms. Petersson asked how far developers have been requested to be away from the edge of the
Decorah shale in the past.
Mr. Svenby responded that staff has not asked them to stay away from it, in the past. He
explained that there are no regulations adopted at this time. There is a draft version of a report,
however, it is not policy. Therefore, it is premature to limit development in edge areas based on
a study that is in a draft form.
Ms. Petersson asked when the draft of the study would be in final form.
Mr. Svenby responded that he was not sure when it would be available.
Mr. Burke asked what the stipulation stated, with regard to the secondary access.
ao� r
Page 10
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Mr. Svenby responded that the access would need to be constructed once they exceeded 120
lots or 1200 trips. He stated that the access would be open this year and that it is likely that the
project would not begin until spring of next year.
Mr. Quinn asked if the secondary access is a condition of the plat being proposed.
Mr. Svenby responded no, as it is already in a development agreement that has been executed
with the City. He indicated that the City could take action against the developer, if the access
were not opened.
Mr. Staver stated that he had some conversations with Public Works that lead him to believe
that they have changed their minds as to where the streets should be placed relative to where
some of the stcrmwater pipe were laid. He asked if it was an issue.
Mr. Svenby responded that he was not aware of that issue.
Mr. Staver expressed concern regarding the word "Century" being used consistently regarding
addressing.
Mr. Svenby responded that the GIS Division handles addressing for the City and County. He
explained that they use themes to help emergency response vehicles.
Mr. Wade Dumond, of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He indicated that
the Development Agreement states that the roadway needs to be completed concurrent with the
development of Century Hills Fourth. He explained that the Century Hills Fourth Subdivision is
still in the process of being developed. He indicated that Mr. Payne is working with Public
Works so it could be completed this year. At the present time, construction vehicles are using it.
Mr. Dumond stated that the paving leading to Circle Drive has been constructed. The
remainder of the road will be a rock surface. He explained that there has been a little bit of a
realignment of the roadway from the original General Development Plan in 1996. The sanitary
sewer did not follow the roadway. He stated that the roadway has been graded. The section
that goes through Century Hills Fifth Subdivision is the worst area. The reason they have been
holding off on that portion, is so that they can get the water main in and not have to tear the
roadway later.
Mr. Quinn asked if the roadway would be accessible by any other traffic other than graders.
Mr. Dumond responded yes. He explained that it would have crushed rock on it.
Mr. Dumond stated that they do not have objections to the staff -recommended conditions, at
this point. He explained that he is in the process of trying to figure out the Decorah shale issue.
He tried getting on a Committee of the Whole meeting with Terry Lee or Tony Hill. He indicated
that there is a preliminary study that shows that, in certain areas, it reduces the nitrates in the
groundwater.
Mr. Dumond stated that the outlot, referred to in Condition 1b, would be very steep with a
pedestrian connection to the next road. Therefore, he is working with Public Works to see what
options they have.
Page 11
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
Ms. Petersson asked if the applicant would have any objection to the Decorah edge
recommendations on page 153 of the staff report.
Mr. Dumond made the following comments to the recommendations as numbered.
Recommendation No. 1: The delineation of the high water table is not a problem.
Recommendation No. 2: Retaining the vegetation and soils on the site is not a problem.
Recommendation No. 3: They were not positive as to where the Decorah shale is.
Recommendation No. 4: He stated that all the water gets reinfiltrated or it evaporates.
He stated that he is unsure if recharge happens in that area.
Recommendation No. 5: The sanitary sewer is already there.
Recommendation No. 6: There are no hydric features on the site.
Mr. Dumond explained that they would be okay to list as recommendations and not conditions.
Mr. Stever asked Mr. Dumond if staff -recommended Condition Number 3 could be stricken.
Mr. Dumond responded that it would be okay to leave in for the present time.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Sulk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval. of Preliminary Plat #00.45 by Payne
Companylo be known as Century Hills Fifth Subdivision witKstaff suggested conditions
and adding Tony kill 's/ Dyecorah Edge recommendations Mr Quinn seconded the
motion. 6'YY.i�rl�ft 1 i
FQ. rx t—'WI4 i_Yi
Discussion ensued regarding a condition should be added indicting that the second egress be
created this year.
Ms: Petersson amended leer motion to.inciudera�cbnditido- , or to approval of the final
We of Century HI11s .Fifth Subdivision, the secondarywaccess must b` passable forthe
residents of Century Hdis Mr Quinn seconded the amendment to the' motion The
motion carried 7-0 at •y �„; , ''�'a * ,; , 'k, ' rk
r .r "si3 3ic.rw'.^.aa t, eb ..�sa, 1�'9
CONDITIONS t��ti , t�ae 1�r`�R a s +r ti�s�a 1- t' y'4k " <v7v�'�+yyiiea.r xx i+ `"�i °� i +r"%"w'' u7o:} d
1 ° The Piat shall.be revised T Nil
lFt
nxr s3 �'ea .0 &.,�t k'Ih"�ifr'•S, r'.tnt-''x r}'�t`sF+•x L.v s.+.A"
�..{:N r w�'k'4' r `fJn,a•Z i v,{•1si' "sfb-..yrw sS+ '-r F *+ m
a Providing th additional uti ft easement along the north `side of Lot 3, Block 5 ,
according to the memo from Rochester Public Utlhties Water pivision dated
s "' c,,{y^ "+oE .Ft"4F ui s .r'a f-
A� l �1� ',!'-PP'n
November 2, 2000 nth <, • fi'§ +
.Y'r+r 4 '�"�t k<in*:{�''eY'u..sfTu"e�>.
b Dedicating a 30 wide outlot mid-6i' kconnection betweerl;�Lots 10 andrll ofs
Block 4 providing for pedestrian'corinection be" tvu en' Oakview Drrve NE
"and
.* a` V+y^ K2�c - eRr+l+KA6,f"'*G�AM'r,.4„�1FS't a r,.v-. 9. •Y':i*•:iL••' �'.
}�,�the,proposed roroadwayr located south .of,this,pla't asidentifled, rij 6 Century,
„ Hills i;eneral'Developme t P►ann. {
r 2 Dedication of pa MI name met.via cash In'lieu-of iand, with' payment':' due prior to
fi a plat, as°r`nc1 d by the City PaBRec eation
Y `b l.. ii'/+ TY. viPvsmr: x.r,s-..,.c�*, .,c..,,Recreation
artmenYin'the'attached memo at October.1j4 2000 n 9.. y t <_ *•'
D
Page 12
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 8, 2000
3. Temporary turn -a -rounds and associated easements shall be provided for the
proposed turn -around at the southerly end of Century Hills Drive NE prior to
recording the Final Plat documents.
4. Stormwater Management must provided.
5. Any intercepted recharge water shall be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of
recharge processes.
6. Clay plugs shall be installed in utility trenches as a means of maintaining
dispersed groundwater recharge flows.
7. Prior to approval of the final plat of Century Hills Fifth Subdivision, the secondary
access must be passable for the residents of Century Hills.
DECORAH EDGE RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Delineation of high water table conditions be completed.
2. Retain the existing vegetation and soils on the site. Limit the extent of grading
that can occur where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. If
areas do become disturbed, encourage the planting of appropriate native
vegetation.
3. Develop vertical and lateral setbacks to minimize the disruption of
groundwater recharge where the Decorah shale is the first encountered
bedrock.
4. In areas where the Decorah shale does become disturbed, require that
intercepted recharge water be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of recharge
processes. Reinfiltration should mimic natural recharge processes where
feasible.
5. Clay plugs should be installed inutility trenches as a means of maintaining
dispersed groundwater recharge flows. Trenches may inadvertently serve as
subdrainage channels.
Preserve the unique hydric features of the site. Utilize undevelopable areas as
common or public open space, linear parks, and/or trailways.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Annual Meeting
Mr. Svenby asked the Commission if they w Id
earlier.
like to begin the Annual Meeting at 6:00 p.m. or
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING a0
DATE: 12-11-00
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development B-60
.lay Square) to allow for the construction of a convenience store with fuel pumps. The
proposed store would be located along the western edge of the Barclay Square property,
south of the main entrance off of Salem Road (County Road 8).
November 30, 2000
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
M NO.
C-g
PREPARED BY:
Brent Svenby,
Planner
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on November 27, 2000, to consider this amendment to PUD
B-60. The amendment would permit the construction of a convenience store with fuel pumps within Barclay Square.
Hans Zietlow, Kwik Trip, Inc. addressed the Commission. He stated that they were in agreement with conditions as revised
by staff. Mr. Zietlow also stated that they would revise the lighting plan to comply with the ordinance.
One neighboring resident suggested that screening be provided along Salem Road.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request according to the applicable criteria and standards in the LDM. The
Commission found that this request is consistent with those criteria, subject to the following modifications or conditions:
1. Prior to development of the building, the applicant shall execute a Development Agreement with the
City that includes, but is not limited to, the Owner's obligations for stormwater management, on -site
traffic improvements, public improvements and charges and pedestrian facilities (i.e. along
Greenview Drive SW and CSAH 8).
7 The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Olmsted County Public Department for any work in the
)unty right-of-way. None of the detention ponds shall be within the right-of-way for CSAH 8. The
ante plan shall be revised to remove the detention facilities out of the right-of-way if required.
3. Stormwater management shall be provided for this development. Since the ponds are private,
execution of maintenance and ownership agreement is required for the facilities. As an option to
providing stormwater management, the applicant may voluntarily participate in the City's Regional
Stormwater Plan for the increase in runoff and the loss of stormwater detention if the proposed
stormwater ponds modifications do not fully account for the modifications. Easements shall be
granted over the stormwater detention areas.
4. The applicant is required to grade for a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire
frontage of CSAH 8 and shall provide a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Greenview Drive SW.
5. The modifications to the parking lot are required as shown on the site plans submitted for review.
The area of the existing parking lot located on the north side of the shopping center shall be striped
for parking.
6. The existing landscaping in the southwest corner of the property (CSAH 8 and Greenview Drive SW
intersection) shall remain and not be removed. The applicant shall obtain a revocable permit for any
landscaping located within the drainage/utility easements. If a revocable is not executed the
landscaping shall be moved outside of any drainage/utility easement.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
to:
Page 2 �/O
RCA ll
November 30, 2000
7. The applicant shall contact the Rochester Fire Department to determine if additional fire hydrants
necessary. If additional hydrants are required, a minimum a 20 foot public utility easement must
dedicated.
Additional lighting information is required to be submitted to verify that the lighting calculations meet
Vthe standards for "C". The lighting must meet standard "C" in Section 63.210 of the Land
Development Manual.
y 9. All other PUD (B-60) plans on file for this project which are not specifically altered by the submittals
jy of this amendment shall remain in effect. The 6,000 square foot freestanding building approved in
1991 shall be voided.
10. Prior to development, grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City
Ms. Petersson moved to approve the Amendment to PUD #B-60, Barclay Square, with staff -suggested findings and
conditions as revised. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2 with Mr. Werven and Mr. Staver
voting nay.
Council Action Needed:
1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this request. If the Council wishes to proceed with the
proposed amendment, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution authorizing the changes to the approved
plan. The resolution should also specify any conditions of approval that the Council places on this amendment.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated November 20, 2000
2. Minutes of the November 27, 2000 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
p.m. on Monday, December 11, 2000 in the Council/Board
n
fJ A
=
a
CM
Dn
m r
a
m>
s;
z
J TO F`bo \ \\
..J
y �
i •'1
1
at3
i
moos tius�aor F
rx.s oroa nnrsr •'as use 1!'i�� m
rzry xxvs r a. 2EEil,
w. s 3tl018 30N31N3AN00 �:�
NYId 3118 e I I E
I
iwr,iatwwrr��
u
0
El
t
i
M'S 3AINO M31AN3380
A&I i 4
E ! !
EP Pi PP2E
t
E � !
F��i'�E�it�Et a
tEr�i�=�I�ttE'3��b
g�E�4fff��l�6[=�EiE
gF F
! 1
F Ey111
g(q 0 • '
riasv, fi Q v�vaxoou
tw`t arox w3tr" vl , 'au 'uwa vzv� szvw r i
i:2t e� f•-; 3tl018 3ON31N3AN09 1
NYId Allllln
•
Y riov3wrlw b3la3H 4 4
r I t rsl 4 [[�� rare arou rrnral v .� 'aua i r� c ` g � E� [,tali:: rzry xxv�
°•'y 3801E 3ON31N3ANOO
Ir] e i
E Nvw 3OY8O
I
L S l i I I1I
J
RRWI
Qr
glb
'Y
7
`9
I
%
"
e
1
:il, 7xe I
3HOIS 30NMNgAN00[flE
NYId 3dVO8ONYl
=jgilla!,
7¢3
did
i Y
a
71mm
at?
my�anxua
Y2a'ld lOCAI !'1
"a �i " .a .s .s .5 .n .e .s •e Jl .� .s .e .E a .a a a : -e e
� a a � pis - Ia s r � a + : i P • � .e .s � a a a �
14
� ;g ` a �.q s x : a .a � " •5 5'e ::.a s _ d .,. - e..5 .n tar
aallii�e--T"';�:$•S:'�2 ^9$3���Zh��—::'.—:ae•5 .�
ei?A4d _ 3-a-5 1-313.9
.B a^er o� 1i L•i -il_ i��-^e'�E'd �'A gqq�qqq���
•� i ter^ - - ii R? e-2 e'_'
-5 .5 .5 A•S 'J i'�'e '« e e e e e. .R .5 e a e :.SAB
.a .���� o- d e�^ a-�� d e d : � d•5 .da�.5 .5 �
.a .a e„a I I1.S 111
.a .a a -9 •9'9 -5 -2 •s � -� -9 9 s' -9 � -9 � •5 •3 •: •:.e
.$.5 .g.H .6;'S•�-5.9'��9-9-a-§ •�� •S-e��-5 a3a
': 3 .e -�' •3 � a a : '° -e 3 -a •3 . '3 a -3 3 -5 s : � s. -3
e ds.5 .5 '� '3 ;'9 •sas e a e as ".ga e.e .e �.s��s_d .g
a a.a �.$.� .gy x.5 ._�a �.e -5 •: .'_°.sue :-5 �. 3'3-�
•
1.
SO
x
00
00
v
0
s
o�
r�
'Iqa =
au
❑00000
RAO • 0
119°
Ln
CV
76.78 SO. FT.
12.85 SO. FT.
23.45 SQ. FT.
KWIK TRIP STORE
TJ MAX OUTLOT
ROCHESTER, MN
DRAWN BY: EP
DATE: 8/23/00
SAVED AS:
321 SIGN - 3PROD
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
City Planning and Zoning Commission
Brent Svenby, Planner
November 20, 2000
RO.. EWT R.,1,I,1, �� I
� y
2 el x
GRA TF.D:A f:Gl'SZ';�
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
ADMINISTRATION/
507/285-8232
PLANNING
GISADDRESSING/
507/285-8232
MAPPING
HOUSING/HRA
507/285-8224
BUILDING CODE
507/285-8213
WELUSEPTIC
507/285-8345
FAX
507/287-2275
Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned Unit Development B-60
(Barclay Square) to allow for the construction of a convenience
store with fuel pumps. The proposed store would be located
along the western edge of the Barclay Square property, south of
the main entrance off of Salem Road (County Road 8).
Planning Department Review:
Petitioners:
Surveyor/Engineer:
Referral Agency Comments
Kwik Trip, Inc.
Attn: Hans Zietlow
PO Box 1095
Oconomowoc, WI 53066
Insites
17810 Second Avenue North
Plymouth, MN 55447
Rochester Public Works
RPU Water Division
RPU Operations Division
Planning Department — Transportation
Planning Department— Wetlands
MnDOT
Qwest
Olmsted County Public Works Department
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (4 letters)
2. Location Map
3. Approved Site Plan
4. Reduced Copy of Proposed Amendment
PUD Summary: The Final PUD plans for the Barclay Square
Shopping Center were approved in 1984. In 1989
the sign standards for the shopping center were
revised to allow wall business signs around the
a
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
pq- 11/20/00 •
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
Amendment Summa
�i
building centered between the roof and the accent
stripe and the addition of a second pylon sign.
None of the signage of the center was actually
changed after the 1989 amendment. In 1991 the
plans were amended to make exterior modifications
to the building by adding glass storefronts with
doors and canopies along the west side of the
building. The interior mall area was reduced from
approximately 18,000 square feet to 7,260 square
feet. All tenant space in the shopping center except
one had direct access to the outside. The change
of the shopping center was basically a change in
the style of the center to similar to the "strip
shopping center" rather than a "mall". The parking
lot layout was modified to accommodate 737
spaces. The approved amendment in the 1991
also allowed for the addition of a future 6,000
square foot freestanding restaurant or retail store
and one freestanding sign along the west side of
the parking lot just south of the entrance off CSAH
8.
Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to construct a Kwik Trip
convenience store. The total square footage of the
building is approximately 3,971 sq. ft. The proposal
also indicates that there would be 8 fuel pumps with
a lighted canopy overhead. The building would be
similar to the other Kwik Trip store in town, white
vinyl siding with red brick around the lower 1/3 of
the building. The building will be located south of
the main entrance into Barclay Square off of CSAH
8.
In addition to the convenience store, the applicant is
proposing to install a 113.08 square foot, 25 feet in
height, free-standing sign, double sided with back
lights. The sign will be located north of the
proposed fuel pumps, near the detention pond.
Some other features of the proposal include a
future 10' bituminous trail within the right-of-way of
CSAH 8, additional/modifications to the detention
ponds, relocating some of the parking lot islands
and placement of landscape within them.
Analysis:
The Barclay Square PUD was approved in 1984 under the planned unit development provisions of
the 1972 Zoning Code. The approved PUD has been amended a couple of time since it was
originally approved. When the current Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual was
adopted in 1992, it eliminated these provisions. The manual, however, does provide for
11/20/00 • • a23
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
amendments to an existing PUD. Section 60.326 states that amendments to a PUD shall be
processed through the Type III, Phase 11, hearing process, and according to the regulations
applicable to the criteria for restricted developments.
The underlying zoning for Barclay Square is the B-4 (General Commercial) district. According to
the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM), a comparable type of
development to the existing PUD is a business center.
The most recent approved site plan for Barclay Square provided 737 off-street parking spaces.
This plan was approved in November of 1991. The required number of parking spaces was
determined by a formula of one space per 200 square feet of net retail floor area. The net retail
floor area was defined as 85% of the gross retail floor area in the shopping center. Using the
zoning regulations in the current ordinance, the site has the following parking requirements:
BASE RATE:
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) in centers with up to 600,000 square
feet GLA. 522 spaces
ADJUSTMENTS TO BASE RATE:
Cinemas
In center between 100,000 and 200,000 GLA, 3 spaces per 100 seats over an initial level of 450
seats. 29 spaces
Restaurants:
In centers between 100,000 and 200,000 GLA, 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area
devoted to food service tenants. 41 space
A total of 592 parking spaces would be required using the current zoning ordinance. With the
proposed amendment there is still 665 parking spaces being provided, 73 more than what is
required by the zoning ordinance. The proposed PUD amendment should not have an impact on
parking because the number of parking stalls exceeds the required parking stalls using the
current ordinance.
The proposed signage does meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant
proposing to install a 113.08 square foot, 25 feet in height, free-standing sign, double sided with
back lights. The sign will be located north of the proposed fuel pumps, near the detention pond.
The amended site plan includes extending the raised median dividing the inbound and outbound
lanes at the main entrance in order to provide adequate protected stacking distance for outbound
traffic leaving the shopping center. With the eventual installation of a traffic signal at 16" Street
SW, anticipated in the future as traffic flow continues to grow and warrants are eventually met, it
was determined that the intersection of Greenview Drive will adequately handle any additional
exiting traffic now and in the future once signals in place on both adjacent intersections. There will
be a defined 30 driving lane through the parking lot between the main entrance of the shopping
center and Greenview Drive in order to better manage the traffic flow internally in the parking lot.
The parking lot islands will be moved to create is defined driving lane. The new islands will have
landscaping planting in them.
Review Criteria and Suggested Findings:
aa� 11/20/00 /
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
Amendments to an existing PUD are processed according to the regulations applicable to a
conditional use permit and restricted developments. Paragraph 61.146 lists the standards for
conditional use permits as follows:
61.146 Standard for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council
shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of
the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made:
1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian
circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards
to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities.
The proposed amendment stills provides parking spaces exceeding what is
required in the zoning ordinance. The number of parking spaces being
provided still exceeds the number of parking spaces required by 73 spaces.
The applicant is providing a 10-foot wide pedestrian path along CSAH 8
(Salem Road) but a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Greenview Drive SW
is also necessary. The site does indicate that there will be a 30-toot wide
driving lane between the proposed building and the parking lot islands.
2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will
be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose
undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public
facilities.
The construction of a one story building should not be detrimental to other
private development in the neighborhood. Several existing buildings in the
neighborhood are two stories in height.
3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate
protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development.
The proposed amendment should provide adequate protection to neighboring
properties from detrimental features. The proposed amendment does include
a landscaping plan and it appears to meet the 10% requirement of the B-4
District. The existing trees on the property located in the southwest corner by
the intersection of Salem Road (CSAH 8) and Greenview Drive SW shall not be
removed.
4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be
created by the development.
Stormwater management must be provided for this project. Modifications to
the existing detention ponds on the property are proposed. If the proposed
modifications do not fully account for the increase in runoff and there is a
loss of stormwater detention, the owner shall voluntarily participate in the
City's Regional Stormwater Plan to account for the increase/loss.
5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on
adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the
site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent
properties.
11/20/00 •
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
• aas
The proposed amendment does not include any additional free standing
lighting, but does include exterior building lighting accessories and lighting
on the canopy. It appears that the lighting standards are not being met at the
property line. The applicant will need to submit additional information
showing that the lighting standard "C" is being met.
6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing
adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles.
The building will be accessible from Greenview Drive SW and the parking lot.
A 30-foot driving lane will be provided adjacent to the building. The
Rochester Fire Department has indicated that one fire hydrant is required to
be located within 150 feet of the proposed building and fuel pumps. No
hydrants were shown on the plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits,
adequate fire hydrants shall be provided to serve the proposed amendment.
7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in
the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised
plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph.
Not applicable
8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to
permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically
applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific
ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the
proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been
secured by the applicant.
The proposed amendment to PUD B-60 does appear to comply with the
standards of the B-4 District, except for exterior lighting.
61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to
allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose
modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are
necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of paragraph 61.146.
62,708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by
the following criteria:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are
adequate to serve the proposed development.
Utilities are available within development to serve the proposed amendment.
Easements will need to be dedicated if watermain extensions are required.
b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as
unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of
these areas has been. taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans.
Not applicable
ga " 11/20/00 • •
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of
buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing
topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site.
A portion of the drainage ditch will be filled to accommodate the proposed
building. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the detention ponds to
accommodate stormwater and/or need to participate in the City's regional
Stormwater Plan. The existing vegetation in the southwest corner of the property
(CSAH 8 and Greenview Drive SW intersection) should not be removed.
d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed
development:
1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential
streets;
2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets;
3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local
residential streets;
Not applicable
e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not
cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to
reduce the impact of access points on the traffic Flow of adjacent streets have been
identified where needed.
The proposed development should not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be
exceeded. The amended site plan includes extending the raised median dividing
the inbound and outbound lanes at the main entrance in order to provide adequate
protected stacking distance for outbound traffic leaving the shopping center. With
the eventual installation of a traffic signal at 16`s Street SW, anticipated in the
future as traffic flow continues to grow and warrants are eventually met, it was
determined that the intersection of Greenview Drive will adequately handle any
additional exiting traffic now and in the future once signals in place on both
adjacent intersections.
f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and
placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development.
Factors to consider include:
1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of
the day for over four (4) months out of the year;
2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of
adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation.
The proposed construction of a one story building is compatible with the
surrounding development.
11/20/00 0
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
a;?
g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related
to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in
the underlying zoning district.
The proposed building meets the required setbacks and is consistent with
permitted uses in the B-4 District.
h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site
layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to
open spaces, street frontages or other focal points.
The proposed project appears to meet adequate building separation to the
orientation of the existing buildings to open spaces, street frontage, etc.
i) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are
adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential
areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as
refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards,
unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk
between adjacent land uses.
The proposed amendment does provide a landscaping plan. Trees will be planted
in most of the new parking lot islands be moved. The existing vegetation in the
southwest corner of the property (CSAH 8 and Greenview Drive SW intersection)
should not be removed.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of
off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is
adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements.
The approved PUD is currently providing 737 parking stalls. The proposed
amendment will cause the loss 72 parking stalls, leaving a balance of 665 parking
stall. The number parking stalls available is exceeded by 73 of the required parking
stalls using the current ordinance standards.
k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and
overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established
pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land
forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its
surroundings.
The proposed convenience store and freestanding sign is compatible with the
existing uses on the property and the surrounding properties.
2) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the
requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, construction plans for utilities will need
to be approved and a City Owner Contract will need to be executed if the extension
of the public watermain is required. The grading and stormwater management
plans will also need to be approved prior to the issuance of building permits.
aQ�g 11/20/00 0 0
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have been
incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside from
development.
Not applicable.
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as to:
1. Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent private
driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways are minimized;
2. Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as noise from
accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from vehicles entering or
leaving the site.
In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential problems in the
operation of access points, plans for private improvements or evidence of planned public
improvements which will alleviate the problems have been provided.
The applicant has met with the City Public Works Director, County Engineer and
the staff from the Planning Department Transportation Division on the design and
modifications necessary to the existing parking lot necessary on order for the site
to adequately function.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians can
move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and activities
within the neighborhood area, and where appropriate, accommodations for transit access
are provided.
The site plan does indicate a future 10-foot bituminous pedestrian path along
CSAH 8. The applicant will be responsible for the grading of this path. In addition
to the path along CSAH 8, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required along
Greenview Drive SW.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared which
indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of the
surrounding area.
Proposed project will meet the landscaping requirements of the underlying 8-4
District. The existing vegetation in the southwest corner of the property (CSAH 8
and Greenview Drive SW intersection) should not be removed
f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future maintenance and
ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the completion of any platting
activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of
required public improvements, screening and landscaping.
The execution of maintenance and ownership agreements is required for the
private detention facilities. A drainage easement will be required to be dedicated
over the stormwater detention areas. Also the applicant will need to execute a
City -Owner Contract for the extension of watermains and/or additional fire
hydrants.
11/20/00
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
aaq
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains earth
forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the need identified in
Phase I for the project.
Not applicable.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles
identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height, Setbacks, and Internal Site
Design.
Construction of a one story building should not be in conflict with the principles
identified in the approved PUD.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation
aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design.
The overall parking requirements for the total site will still be met with the
proposed amendment. There will be a defined 30 driving lane through the parking
lot between the main entrance of the shopping center and Greenview Drive in order
to better manage the traffic Row internally in the parking lot. The extension of the
raised median dividing the inbound and outbound lanes at the main entrance
should provide adequate protected stacking distance for outbound traffic leaving
the shopping center.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage and
other appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility and
emergency access.
The proposed development is consistent with the underlying zoning district B-4,
except for exterior lighting.
Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Planning staff has reviewed this request based on the above criteria. The staff finds that this
proposal is generally consistent with the above criteria. Staff would recommend the following
conditions if the Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendment:
1. Prior to development of the building, the applicant shall execute a Development
Agreement with the City that includes, but is not limited to, the Owner's obligations for
stormwater management, on -site traffic improvements, public improvements and
charges and pedestrian facilities (i.e. along Greenview Drive SW and CSAH 8).
2. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Olmsted County Public Department for any
work in the county right-of-way. None of the detention ponds shall be within the right-
of-way for CSAH 8. The site plan shall be revised to remove the detention facilities out
of the right-of-way if required.
3. Stormwater management shall be provided for this development Since the ponds are
private, execution of maintenance and ownership agreement is required for the
facilities. The owner shall also voluntarily participate in the City's Regional
Stormwater Plan for the increase in runoff and the loss of stormwater detention if the
aO 11/20100 • •
Barclay Square PUD Amendment
proposed stormwater ponds modifications do not fully account for the modifications.
Easements shall be granted over the stormwater detention areas.
4. The applicant is required to grade for a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along
the entire frontage of CSAH 8 and shall provide a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along
Greenview Drive SIM
5. The modifications to the parking lot are required as shown on the site plans submitted
for review. The area of the existing parking lot located on the north side of the
shopping center shall be striped for parking.
6. The existing landscaping in the southwest corner of the property (CSAH 8 and
Greenview Drive SW intersection) shall remain and not be removed. The applicant
shall obtain a revocable permit for any landscaping located within the drainagelutility
easements. If a revocable is not executed the landscaping shall be moved outside of
any drainagelutility easement.
7. The applicant shall contact the Rochester Fire Department to determine if additional
fire hydrants are necessary. If additional hydrants are required, a minimum a 20 foot
public utility easement must be dedicated.
8. Additional lighting information is required to be submitted to verify that the lighting
calculations meet the standards for "C". The lighting must meet standard "C" in
Section 63.210 of the Land Development Manual.
9. All other PUD (B-60) plans on file for this project which are not specifically altered by
the submittals of this amendment shall remain in effect. The 6,000 square foot
freestanding building approved in 1991 shall be voided.
10. Prior to development, grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City.
Planning Commission Action Required:
The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval, approval with conditions,
or denial of this request. This recommendation will then be forwarded to the Council. The
Council will hold a public hearing on this item at a later date.
f a31 .
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
11/17/00
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester. MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
2010 Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for an amendment to
PUD B-60,on the Kwik Trio / Barclay Square property. The following are Public Works
comments on the proposal:
1. The Owner shall execute a Development Agreement for this property The
plan indicates private on -site stormwater detention.
2. Execution of a maintenance and ownership agreement is required for the
detention facilities. Owner shall also voluntarily participate in the City's
Regional Stormwater Plan for the increase in runoff and the loss of
Stormwater Detention, if the proposed stormwater pond modifications do
not fully account for the modifications.
3. Grading for a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along
the entire frontage of Salem Road, and provide a 5 foot wide concrete
sidewalk along Greenview Dr SW.
4. If the extension of watermain, or the addition of hydrant(s) is required for
this project, execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required.
5. The Owner shall dedicate a drainage easement over the stormwater
detention area.
6. The Owner shall execute a revocable permit for any landscaping located
within the drainage / utility easement(s).
7. Modifications to the Barclay Square parking lot are required as shown on
the site plan.
8. The crosssection of the pond/ROW grading must match the County
requirements.
9. A permit is required from Olmsted County to work in the CSAH 22 ROW.
10. More detailed field survey information is needed to confirm the
compatibility of the site plan with CSAH 22 roadway and surface
drainage.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property include:
• Substandard Road Reconstruction Charge @ $49.44 per foot of frontage on
Greenview Dr SW.
C:%TEMP%PUD B-60 AmendM8i1L-11-00.doc
ive rledie, we deliver
November 1, 2000
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II Amendment to PUD B-60 (Barclay Square) to allow for the
construction of a convenience store with fuel pumps.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced amendment is complete and our comments follow:
The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Assessments Manager (507-281-6004) at the Public Works Department determines the
applicability of these fees.
2. The fire Prevention Bureau will need to comment on the location of the existing fire hydrants
as they relate to protection of this building. If they require additional on -site fire hydrant(s),
water mains connecting to and including any fire hydrant are considered public and need to
be within a 20' minimum public utility easement. The owner would be required to enter into
a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the installation of the public water
main. Contact the Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works
Department for details. Final water main construction plans with profiles would need to be
prepared by a civil engineer, approved by us and conform to standard City of Rochester
requirements.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,rs�.� pp.�.�•0_
06-J4
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Kwik Trip
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ROCHaQ ER-OLMSTED COUNCIL OF GOVERnmENTS
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE S.E.
ROCHESTER, MN 55904-7996
PHONE 507-285-8232 FAX 507-287-2275
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: November 16, 2000
TO: Brent Svenby
FROM: Charlie Reiter
Transportation Planner
RE: Comments on proposed Kwik Trip Store at Barclay Square
The proposed project involving development of a convenience store by Kwik Trip Inc. at Barclay
Square is of a sufficient size to require analysis through the Traffic Impact Study process
identified in Section 61.520 of the Land Development Manual. Because of the technical analysis
that is being done as part of the Circle Drive Traffic Management Study which is currently under
development, it was felt that sufficient information was available to assess the impact of the
project without requiring the applicant to complete a full Traffic Impact Study.
I, along with the City Public Works Director and the County Highway Engineer, have had a
series of meetings to discuss site development issues with the applicant related to vehicular
and non -motorized traffic. From a traffic perspective, the site plan reflects the recommendations
that we provided the applicant, which were
1. Creation of a defined 30' driving lane through the parking lot between the main
entrance of the Shopping Center and Greenview Drive in order to better manage
traffic flow internally in the parking lot
2. Extend the raised median dividing the inbound and outbound lanes at the main
entrance in order to provide adequate protected stacking distance for outbound
traffic leaving the shopping center
3. We reviewed the capacity of the inbound left turn lane at the main entrance off of the
westbound lanes of Circle Drive and determined that the existing capacity was
sufficient
4. With the eventual installation of a traffic signal at 16`" St SW anticipated in the future
as traffic flow continues to grow and warrants are eventually met, it was our
determination that the intersection of Greenview Drive would adequately handle any
additional exiting traffic now and in the future once signals in place on both adjacent
intersections.
There was also discussion regarding the need to develop the site plan in such a way that there
would be a place to construct a sidewalk/trail along the south/east side of the Circle Drive in the
future between the Fox Valley intersection and Greenview Drive. The applicant has been
working with the City and County Public Works Departments on this issue and it is my
understanding that they have developed a grading and drainage plan for the site that will allow
for accommodation of that trail in the future.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744
507/285-8231
November 1, 2000
Jennifer Garness
Planning Department
Dear Jennifer:
The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase II Amendment to Planned
Unit Development B-60 (Barclay Square) and has the following comments:
• Permit will be required from Olmsted County Public Works
Department for any work in county right of way.
• None of the pond/wetland shall not be within county road right of
way.
• Typical section along CSAH 22 for bituminous path shall drain to
curb and gutter.
Sincerely,
1&lw 'V /o�i,S'�/t/
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:ss
tlengindoclplanzcne.da
�.waww�
0
Administration
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
39-
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
•
s
ROCHESTER
,/%/�4re&elata
November 7, 2000,
Jennifer Garness, Planning
Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
c N ESTER
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507) 21315-8256
Type III, Phase, II Amendment to PUD B-60, Barclay Square Kwik Trip,
located south of the main entrance off Salem Road SW.
This project is within 4 minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire Department
and is adding a commercial gasoline dispensing operation to the city's fire protection
area. With that regard the fire code has the following requirements:
An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
A minimum of one hydrant must be located within 150 feet of this building and fuel
pumps. No hydrants were shown on the plans submitted.
2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance
with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual. All fire department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and
during building construction.
3. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when
located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road
fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended.
c: Donn Richardson; RPU, Water Division
Kwik Trip, Box 1095, Oconomowoc, WI. 53066
g 3(40P 0
i
MINUTES OF THE
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Mi tes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commis
on M y, November 27, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the
Governm Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. /
Members Pres t: Mr. Jim Suk, Chair; Ms. Mary Petersson, Vice Chair; James Burke; Mr.
Michael Quinn; Mr. andy Staver; Ms. Christine Schultze; Mr. Ardell B e; and Mr. Gerry
Werven
Members Absent: Ms. DXpe McGowan
Staff Present: Mr. Brent
Other City Staff Present: None
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Ms. Petersson explained at a corr ion needed to be made on page 13
of the minutes to indi a that Mr. We was interested in serving on
CUDE but that he not currently on th\thr.
Mr. Brede ma a motion to approve the mber 8, 2000,
with the co ection on page 13 of the minrven was
interest in serving on CUDE and was nhe committee.
Mr. B e seconded the motion. The minber 8, 2000
wer approved unanimously.
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated November 20, 2000, to the Commission.
The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby indicated that he wanted to change the third sentence of Condition Number 3 listed
in the staff report to read: "As an option to providing stormwater management, the applicant
may voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Plan for the increase in runoff and
the loss of stormwater detention if the proposed stormwater ponds modifications do not fully
account for the modifications." He stated that the applicant is agreeable to the revision.
Mr. Staver stated that the proposal indicates that 72 spots for parking would be eliminated. He
asked if staff is comfortable with the loss in parking spots.
Page 2 • • a3�
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 27, 2000
Mr. Svenby responded yes. He indicated that the area located north of Old Country Buffet
would be used for parking spaces as shown on the approved site plan. He indicated that, at the
present time, the parking spaces are not striped. He explained that he added a condition of
approval that the spaces be striped.
Discussion ensued regarding access to the building from the parking spaces north of Old
Country Buffet.
Ms. Petersson stated that a condition should be added that a walkway be constructed from the
parking area to the access of the building.
Ms. Schultze commented that it would be inappropriate to require a major revision of a parking
lot based on a minor application.
Mr. Brede asked what the four rectangles indicated on the site plan near the north detention
pond were.
Mr. Svenby responded it would be their fuel underground storage tanks.
Mr. Brede asked if all the accesses would be to the parking lot.
Mr. Svenby responded yes.
Mr. Hans Zietlow, of Kwik Trip, Inc., addressed the Commission. He indicated that David
Larson was also present as a representative of Barclay Square.
Mr. Zietlow, asked the Commission to verify if detention ponds would be required, as listed in
Condition Number 2 of the staff report. He explained that the detention ponds would not be in
the right-of-way.
Mr. Svenby explained that he would need to verify the information with the County Engineer.
Mr. Zietlow asked if the detention pond determined by the lowest elevation. He indicated that
the lowest elevation would be 13.13.
Mr. Svenby responded that he would clarify the issue with the County Engineer prior to the
Council meeting.
Mr. Zietlow stated that when they originally did their surveys, they were not aware that they
would need to put a 5-foot sidewalk along Greenview Drive. However, they are willing to do it.
He explained that the sidewalk may need to be moved somewhat to avoid two utility boxes and
trees.
Mr. Zietlow stated that they currently do not meet code on their lighting plan. Therefore, they
will try to reduce their lighting or ask for a variance.
Mr. Suk asked Mr. Zietlow to address the parking spaces north of Old Country Buffet
Mr. Zietlow deferred the question to David Larson, representative of Barclay Square.
Mr. Brede asked what the hours of operation would be.
93% Page 3 • • /
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: November 27, 2000
Mr. Zietlow responded that it would be a 24-hour operation.
Mr. Staver asked if they would be able to maneuver the tanker trucks, without obstructing traffic
Mr. Zietlow responded yes. He explained how the trucks would maneuver on site.
Mr. David Larson, representative of Tanurb Corporation, addressed the Commission. He stated
that there are sidewalks all around the building, except the two loading dock areas. He stated
that most of the stores have a back entrance and that the employees are supposed to park in
the back area.
Mr. Kevin Ohm, of 1702 Fox Valley Drive SW, addressed the Commission. He stated that the
only screening showed on the site plan would be along the detention pond. He expressed
concern of how the site would be screened from the neighboring property owners. He
suggested that trees be planted along Salem Road.
Ms. Schultze asked staff to comment on what the screening requirements would be for the
property.
Mr. Svenby read screening and lighting requirements from the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Schultze explained that the planting of trees would not reduce the amount of light coming
from the property.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing.
Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase II Amendment to
Planned Unit Development B-60 (Barclay Square) with staff -suggested findings and
conditions, including the revision of Condition Number 3 as amended by Mr. Svenby. Mr.
Burke seconded the motion.
Ms. Schultze commented that the Ordinance does not address buffering, lighting, noise, etc.,
regarding 24-hour operations. She indicated it could be an issue that could be discussed in the
future.
Mr. Werven expressed concern regarding lighting and how it affects neighboring homeowners.
Ms. Schultze stated that the applicant brought up the issue of the detention ponds and indicated
that the issue should be resolved through Mr. Svenby and the County Engineer.
The motion carried 6-2, with Mr. Werven and Mr. Staver voting nay.
CONDITIONS:
1. Prior to development of the building, the applicant shall execute a Development
Agreement with the City that includes, but is not limited to, the Owner's obligations
for stormwater management, on -site traffic improvements, public improvements and
charges and pedestrian facilities (i.e. along Greenview Drive SW and CSAH 8).
Page 4 • 0
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes J
Hearing Date: November 27, 2000
The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Olmsted County Public Department for
any work in the county right-of-way. None of the detention ponds shall be within the
right-of-way for CSAH 8. The site plan shall be revised to remove the detention
facilities out of the right-of-way if required.
3. Stormwater management shall be provided for this development. Since the ponds are
private, execution of maintenance and ownership agreement is required for the
facilities. As an option to providing stormwater management, the applicant may
voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Plan for the increase in
runoff and the loss of stormwater detention if the proposed stormwater ponds
modifications do not fully account for the modifications. Easements shall be granted
over the stormwater detention areas.
4. The applicant is required to grade for a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along
the entire frontage of CSAH 8 and shall provide a 5 foot concrete sidewalk along
Greenview Drive SW.
5. The modifications to the parking lot are required as shown on the site plans
submitted for review. The area of the existing parking lot located on the north side of
the shopping center shall be striped for parking.
6. The existing landscaping in the southwest corner of the property (CSAH 8 and
Greenview Drive SW intersection) shall remain and not be removed. The applicant
shall obtain a revocable permit for any landscaping located within the drainagelutility
easements. If a revocable is not executed the landscaping shall be moved outside of
any drainage/utility easement.
7. The applicant shall contact the Rochester Fire Department to determine if additional
fire hydrants are necessary, If additional hydrants are required, a minimum a 20 foot
public utility easement must be dedicated.
8. Additional lighting information is required to be submitted to verify that the lighting
calculations meet the standards for "C". The lighting must meet standard "C" in
Section 63.210 of the Land Development Manual.
All other PUD (B-60) plans on file for this project which are not specifically altered by
the submittals of this amendment shall remain in effect. The 6,000 square foot
freestanding building approved in 1991 shall be voided.
10. Prior to development, grading and drainage plans must be approved by the City.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1.
Mr. Suk stated that the 'on received a memo it Wheeler, Director of the
Planning Department, regarding gr ter r ge areas. He indicated that his
understanding from the memo is that the Department would be approaching the
Planning and Zoning Commissioner future to eClio{yLgulations.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t;V
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
e - I
I DESCRIPTION: Hearing: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Elmcroft
Subdivision Area, J9746
PREPARED BY:
J. Loehr
This is a Hearing to consider the construction of sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Elmcroft
Subdivision Area in a project described as follows:
Proiect No. M1-02, J9746
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Elmcroft Subdivision Area."
The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $1,198,520
Service Connections 105,000
Trunk Watermain 59,230
Sub -Total $1,362,750
Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 408,825
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,771,575
The Elmcroft Area sewer and water extension project is included in the proposed 2001 Capital Budget.
On October 2, 2000 the City Council adopted an Ordinance and approved the first reading of the
Ordinance to annex the Elmcroft Area and other lands in Rochester Township 100% surrounded by the
City.
On November 20, 2000 the City Council approved the second reading of the Ordinance for the
annexation. The City Clerk forwarded the Rochester Township annexation to the Minnesota Planning
Commission for their consideration and final approval.
The annexation must be finalized prior to the City constructing a sewer and water project to serve the
Elmcroft Area.
The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection
Agreements), Sales Tax eligible Water Availability Charges, Water Utility (oversize watermain costs),
City Share (City park land) and Sales Tax revenue.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since
the project is petitioned by greater than 50% of the owners of property affected by the project, a simple
majority vote of the Council is required for adoption.
Condition of resolution: annexation of the Rochester Township 100% surrounded area must be
finalized prior to the construction of the proposed project.
Attachment: Feasibility Report
INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
a�f 3
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TO SERVE THE ELMCROFT SUBDIVISION AREA.
October 31, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Elmcroft Subdivision Area was forwarded by
the City Council at their meeting of April 19, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the preparation
of a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was signed by 51 of
71 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling. This represents 71.8 percent
of the single-family residential lots within the Elmcroft Area that are eligible to participate in the City of
Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999. The
Elmcroft Area also includes 4 developed commercial lots and 16 undeveloped single-family residential
lots.
Feasibility Report
We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of
this project is within an area of existing single-family residential development and existing commercial
development that currently lacks public sanitary sewer and watermain. A majority of the septic systems
and wells within the Area were constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having
any requirements or standards for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under
/-- acre in size and are unable to absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an
increasing threat of contamination to the City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic
systems and wells begin to fail. This project would allow property owners of lots containing existing
single-family residential dwellings and developed commercial lots to connect to public sanitary sewer
and water systems rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. This project also allows the
undeveloped single-family residential lots to develop with public sewer and watermain
The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection'
charges (Utility Connection Agreements), sales tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water
Quality Protection Program for both existing single-family residential and existing commercial
development, and Water Availability Charges.
The proposed project consists of the installation of an 8-inch sanitary sewer lines, 8-inch watermain
lines, sanitary sewer and water service connections, and 12" trunk watermain lines, throughout the
Elmcroft Subdivision Area.
Public sanitary sewer is currently available in the West Frontage Road of South Broadway and in
Oakridge Drive SW. Sanitary sewer will be extended from these locations to serve Elmcroft Area.
Therefore, an extension of trunkline sanitary sewer is not required to serve the Elmcroft Area.
Watermain is currently available in the West Frontage Road of South Broadway, in Oakridge Drive SW
and in 25th Street SW. Watermain will be extended from these locations to serve the Elmcroft Area. The
West Frontage Road of South Broadway is currently served by the low level water system. Oakridge
Drive and 25th Street are served by the Golden Hill Water Tower and are on the high level water system.
A trunk watermain will be extended in the West Frontage Road to enable the entire Elmcroft Area to be
served by the high level water system.
aq�
Applicable Connection Charge Rates and per Lot Caps
Since the Elmcroft Subdivision Area petition was received prior to August 1, 1999, the date that the
Water Quality Protection Program rates and per lot caps were adjusted by the change in the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area during the preceding
calendar year, the Department of Public Works recommends that the sanitary sewer and watermain
connection charges for this project be based on the connection charge rates and per lot caps in affect at
the time the petition was received by the City as follows:
• Maximum sanitary sewer and water connection charge rate of $66.30 per foot of frontage.
• Maximum sewer and water connection charge per lot cap for a developed lot that contains a
habitable single family dwelling unit shall be as follows:
1) maximum 58,160 per lot for any developed lot 1/2 acre or less.
2) $3,160 per lot, plus $0.19 per square foot for any developed lot greater than
acre up to 1-1/2 acre.
3) maximum $16,320 per lot for any developed lot 1-1/2 acre or larger.
The estimated construction costs and expenses of the project made without completed plans or survev are
as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain S 1,558 075
Trunk Watermain $ 77,000
Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs $750 per service x 91 services $ 68,250
Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 91 services $ 68,250
Estimated Cost of the Project $ 1,771,575
The estimated project costs are proposed -to be funded as follows:
Utility Connection Agreements $ 846,540
Water Availability Charges (Sales Tax supported) $ 68,750
Water Utility for Oversize Watermain Costs $ 8,250
City Share (City Owned Park Land) 1,200 feet x $6630 per foot = $79,560 $ 79,560
Sales Tax Revenue (see below) $ 768,475
Estimated Project Costs $1,771,575
Amount of sales tax revenue required for the Project
Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 655,975
Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) 75 services x $750/sets. $ 56,250
Sales Tax (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances)75 services x $750/serv. $ 56,250
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $ 768,475
ads
Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property
Of the 91 lots within the project area 71 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling and 4 lots
contain a commercial development. These lots are eligible for Allowances through the Water Quality
Protection Program as follows:
Sewer Service Lateral
75 lots x 31,000 per lot
S
75,000
Water Service Lateral
75 lots x $1,000 per lot
$
75,000
Well Closure
75 lots x $1,100 per lot
$
75,000
Septic Closure
75 lots x $ 500 per lot
S
37.500
Estimated Amount of Sales
Tax Revenue Required for Allowances
S
262.500
For Work on Private Property
Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Project and Allowances
Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of the Project $ 768,475
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances S 262.500
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of the Project and $1,010,975
Allowances for Work on Private Property
We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service
connections in the Elmcroft Subdivision Area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's
existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection
Program. Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the
benefits contained therein, are required to:
1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the
City initiates the project.
2. Connect the existing single-family residential dwelling or existing developed commercial
property to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project
initiation.
3. Consent to annexation of their property consistent with the conditions of an Orderly Annexation
Agreement between the City and Rochester Township, or to the City initiated annexation of the
Area as is currently proposed by the City.
Submitted for your consideration:
M.
Protection Program
Project
go
l
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: M1-02
J No: 9746
Date (Orig.) 10/31/2000
Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve Elmcroft Subdivision Area
Construction
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain
Service Connections
Trunk Watermain
Eno ineerino/lnterest/Continaencv
Total Construction & Expense
Cost Distribution
Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements
Water Availability Charges
Water Utility (oversize watermain costs)
City Share (City owned park land)
Sales Tax Funding
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
Project Contract Final
Budget Cost Cost
$1,198, 520
59,230
408,825
$1,771,575
$ 846,540
79,560
WN
$1 771 575
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO.
Public Works Si -/0
I DESCRIPTION: Hearing: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Forest Hills PREPARED BY:
Subdivision Area, J9748 J,,,/ J. Loehr t,
This is a Hearing to consider the construction of sanitary sewer and watermain too serve the Forest Hills
Subdivision Area in a project described as follows:
Project No. M1-04, J9748
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area."
The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain $1,029,945
Service Connections 79,615
Sub -Total $1,109, 560
Engineering/Interest/Contingencies 332,868
Total Estimated Project Cost $1,442,428
The Forest Hills Area sewer and water extension project is included in the proposed 2001 Capital
Budget.
On October 2, 2000 the City Council adopted an Ordinance and approved the first reading of the
Ordinance to annex the Forest Hills Area and other lands in Rochester Township 100% surrounded by
the City.
On November 20, 2000 the City Council approved the second reading of the Ordinance for the
annexation. The City Clerk forwarded the Rochester Township annexation to the Minnesota Planning
Commission for their consideration and final approval.
The annexation must be finalized prior to the City constructing a sewer and water project to serve the
Forest Hills Area.
The project is proposed to be funded from sewer and water connection charges (Utility Connection
Agreements) and Sales Tax revenue.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since
the project is petitioned by greater than 50% of the owners of property affected by the project, a simple
majority vote of the Council is required for adoption.
Condition of resolution: annexation of the Rochester Township 100% surrounded area must be
finalized prior to the construction of the proposed project.
Attachment: Feasibility Report ter'
VCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
CL
Me College o
Project No. M1-03, J9747 SuLrTrunkline Sewer
Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to
Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area
Sub-Trunkline Sewer
a
Project No M1-04, J9748
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to
Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area
Sewer & Water
Water Only
3
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED �7
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
TO SERVE FOREST HILLS SUBDIVISION AREA.
October 31, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A petition for sanitary sewer and watermain to serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area was forwarded by
the City Council at their meeting of April 5, 1999 to the Public Works Department for the preparation of
a Feasibility Report. The petition was checked and found to be in proper form and was signed by 39 of
63 property owners of lots containing a single-family residential dwelling. This represents 61.9 percent
of the single-family residential lots within the Forest Hills Area that are eligible to participate in the City
of Rochester, Water Quality Protection Program adopted by the City Council on December 21, 1999.
The Forest Hills Area also includes 6 undeveloped single-family residential lots.
Feasibilitv Report
We report that the above referenced project is feasible and recommend its construction. The location of
this project is within an area of existing single-family residential development that currently lacks public
sanitary sewer and an adequate public water system. A majority of the septic systems this Area were
constructed prior to the State of Minnesota and Olmsted County having any requirements or standards
for construction of septic systems and wells. The lots are typically under %, acre in size and are unable to
absorb the nitrates created from the septic systems. There is an increasing threat of contamination to the
City of Rochester's ground water supply as the existing septic systems and wells begin to fail. This
project would allow property owners of lots containing existing single-family residential dwellings to
connect to public sanitary sewer system rather than replacing their old systems when they fail. This
project also allows the undeveloped single-family residential lots to develop with public sewer and
watermain
The costs of this project are proposed to be recovered through sanitary sewer and watermain connection
charges (Utility Connection Agreements), sales tax revenue appropriated to the City of Rochester, Water
Quality Protection Program, for existing single-family residential lots that contain a dwelling.
The proposed project consists of the installation of an 8-inch sanitary sewer lines, 8-inch watermain
lines, and sanitary sewer and water service connections throughout the Forest Hills Subdivision Area.
Public sanitary sewer is currently available on the Bible College property that is located north of the
Area, and in Woodcrest Lane SW that is located west of the Area on the west side of TH52. The
extension of sub-trunkline sanitary sewer from the Bible College southerly to 20th Street SW is required
to serve a majority of the Forest Hills Area. The extension of sub-trunkline sanitary sewer from
Woodcrest Lane SW easterly under TH52 is required to serve lots along Edgewood Court SW located on
the west edge of Forest Hills Subdivision.
Water service is currently available from the Golden Hill Water Tower and from a trunk watermain
located in 20th Street SW. Therefore, the construction of a now water tower or the extension of trunk
watermain is not required to serve the Forest Hills Area. However, some looping of watermain may be
required to serve the Forest Hills Area.
MR
Forest Hills Privately Owned Water System
-The Forest Hills Subdivision was previously served by a private water system. The private water system
was in poor condition and was unable to provide the Forest Hills property owners with dependable water
service. After the City Council accepted the Forest Hills Subdivision Area petition, Rochester Public
Utilities, purchased the private water system. RPU connected the water system to the 20th Street SW
trunk watermain and assumed the maintenance responsibilities of the water system.
This project requires that the water system be replaced with a new public watermain. Each property
owner in the Forest Hills Area is subject to a watermain connection charge consistent with the Water
Quality Protection Program policies.
The Water Quality Protection Program requires that property owners that have individual private wells
and septic systems must connect to both the city water and sewer to receive the Program benefits.
However, since the Forest Hills property owners do not have individual private wells, but rather a private
water system that needs to be replaced, the City will not require Forest Hill's property owners to
immediately connect to city sewer if and when the City replaces the private water system. The benefits
of the Water Quality Protection Program only extend for 3 years from the date the City Council initiates
the project. Property owners who do not signup for city sanitary sewer in that 3-year period will loose
the opportunity to receive the Program benefits and allowances related to the installation of city sewer.
When individual septic system fails in the future the property owner will be required to connect to city
sewer that has been installed to serve their property.
Applicable Connection Charge Rates and per Lot Caps
Since the Forest Hills Subdivision Area petition was received prior to August 1, 1999, the date that the
Water Quality Protection Program rates and per lot caps were adjusted by the change in the Engineering
News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area during the preceding
calendar year, the Department of Public Works recommends that the sanitary sewer and watermain
connection charges for this project be based on the connection charge rates and per lot caps in affect at
the time the petition was received by the -City as follows:
• Maximum sanitary sewer and water connection charge rate of $66.30 per foot of frontage.
• Maximum sewer and water connection charge per lot cap for a developed lot that contains a
habitable single family dwelling unit shall be as follows:
1) maximum $8,160 per lot for any developed lot 1/2 acre or less.
2) $8,160 per lot, plus $0.19 per square foot for any developed lot greater than
acre up to 1-1/2 acre.
3) maximum $16,320 per lot for any developed lot 1-1/2 acre or larger.
The estimated construction costs and expenses of the vroiect made without completed plans or survev are
as follows:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain S 1,338,928
Sewer Service Connection Stub -Outs S750 per service x 69 services $ 51,750
Water Service Connection Stub -out $750 per service x 69 services $ 51.750
Estimated Cost of the Project $ 1,442,428
0
'I
The estimated project costs are proposed to be funded as follows:
Utiliry Connection Agreements $ 572796
Sales Tax Revenue (see below) S 869.63)
Estimated Project Costs $1,442,428
Amount of sales tax revenue required for the Proiect
Sales Tax (Rate Cap and per Lot Cap) $ 775,132
Sales Tax (Sewer Service Connection Stub -Out Allowances) 63 services x $750/serv. S 47,250
Sales Tar (Water Service Stub -Out Allowances)6' services x $750/serv. $ 47,250
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Funding Required for Construction of Project $ 869,632
Estimated additional sales tax revenue required for work on private property
Of the 69 lots within the project area 63 lots contain a single-family residential dwelling. These lots are
eligible for Allowances through the Water Quality Protection Program as follows:
Sewer Service Lateral 63 lots x $1,000 per lot $ 63,000
Septic Closure 63 lots x $ 500 per lot $ 31,500
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances S 94,500
For Work on Private Property
Estimated sales tax revenue required for construction of Proiect and Allowances
Estimated Amount Sales Tax Revenue for Construction of the Project $ 869,632
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Allowances $ 94 500
Estimated Amount of Sales Tax Revenue Required for Construction of the Project and S 964,132
Allowances for Work on Private Property
We recommend that the necessary funding to construct sanitary sewer, watermain and service
connections in the Forest Hills Subdivision Area be done so in accordance with the City of Rochester's
existing sanitary sewer and watermain connection charge policies and the Water Quality Protection
Program. Property owners that desire to participate in the Water Quality Protection Program and the
benefits contained therein, are required to:
1. Enter into a Utility Connection Agreement with the City within three (3) years of the date the
City initiates the project.
2. Connect the existing single-family residential dwelling or existing developed commercial
property to the public sewer and water systems within five (5) years of the date of project
initiation.
3. Consent to annexation of their property consistent with the conditions of an Orderly Annexation
Agreement between the City and Rochester Township, or to the City initiated annexation of the
Area as is currently proposed by the City.
Submitted for your consideration:
JaAes IN . Loehr,
ater quality Protection Program
Project Manager
asa
i
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: M1-04
J No: 9748
Date (Orig.) 10/31/2000
Description: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Extension to Serve Forest Hills Subdivision Area
Project Contract Final
Budget Cost Cost
Construction
Sanitary Sewer & Watermain $1,029,945
Service Connections
Engineering/interest/Contingency
Total Construction & Expense
Cost Distribution
Anticipated Utility Connection Agreements
Sales Tax Funding
TOTAL
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
79,615
332,868
$1,442,428
$ 572,796
869,632
$1,442,428
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a53
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
0 DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING: (J9734)
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31 st St NW
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6304-4-00 (J9734)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31st St NW
Project Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1972.
ITEM NO.
I& - It
PREPARED BY:
Y R. I krrj p,
At the request of the property owners an informational meeting was held on October 26, 2000. Their support for a
rehabilitation project resulted in this request for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report.
Estimated Proiect Costs
Project
Cost
Constructlon:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$119 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5 700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$5 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$129,700.00
Er ineerin . Interest. Contingencies 30%
$38910.00
TOTAL
$166.610.00
Pro-ect Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$28,605.68
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$6,136.88
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer U11lity Funds
$0,00
City Street Share
$133867.45
TOTAL
$168,610.00
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 un aid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:
to:
asy
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
PROJECT NO. 6304-4-00 J9734
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
4TH AVE NW FROM ZUMBRO DR TO 31ST ST NW
November 2, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from lumbro Dr l0 31 st Sl Mk, was referred to
the Public Works Department on Septcmber'_000 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 1972.
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 13, 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:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$119,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5,700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$5,000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watenmain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$129.700.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$38,910.00
TOTAL
$168,610. 00
2 - NOVEMBER 2, 2000� j
.assessment Distribution:
The cast of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones.............$15.45 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones ...........$23.18 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
2001
feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.45
1,851.50
05.68
Commercial Zones
$23.18
f$28.605.68
Subtotal
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)................................................. $5.15 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$5.92 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.70 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) ..............$7.21 per square foot
6" Conc. Drive Approach (residential)...........................$30.90 per square yard
Residential corner lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2001
sq. ft
sq. It
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk (residential)
$5.15
1,084.14
$5.583.32
5' Sidewalk (commercial)
$5.92
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches)
$6.70
82.62
$553.55
T' Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$7.21
Subtotal
$6,136.88
credit for long side
Subtotal
$6,136.88
Protect Distribution:
Dlstributlon:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$28,605.68
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$6,136.88
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sankary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
Ci Street Sham
$133,867.45
TOTAL1
$168,510.00
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
I':\PROIFCTs\1-ra ol\y9734\D<:sign\Dort\feasibil icy Rrpart.DOC
Douglas Nelson, PE
— 4— NOVE\IBER 1, 2000„
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Description: Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW
from Zumbro Dr to 31 st St NW
Project
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
'Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$119,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5,700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upqrades
$5 000.00
Watermaln Replacement
$0.00
W atermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$129,700.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$38,910.00
TOTAL
$168,610.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$28,605.68
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$6,136.88
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
lCity Street Share
$133,a67.45
TOTAL 1$168,610.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
I':V'RUIL/a'S\j-Flit 1)',i97};�;IhsUnW�,U\Fc:uibilitp Repoa.DUC
Alhcdo &.Georgians CAJla=$ 2909 41° Ave.N
Ro ha , Mn. 55901
(507) 280-9m
NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION TO HAVE CURB AND GUTTERS INSTALLED ON 4Tx AVE.
N.W. BETWEEN ZUMBRO DR. AND 315T. N.W.
Dear Dave Nelson,
These are the names and addresses of all the neighbors interested in getting the curb, gutters and
resurfesed street between Zumbro Dr. and 3Is Street North West.
Name Address
V-)35 — aft 1 L�469� e )Jt�J ,3 q"
a f�
�jy
v—
S�iu�rs.. CLnnin� �r�r.
j Cj 6 q 4q fill �"LJ
�Sa.-6v`OC� 1
J GSS. cJ(o�
r�
m,
ere/s�� Z � tz -ArefJ�
Sincerely,
............................
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
as9'
12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works
M DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: (J9734)
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31st St NW
ITEM NO.
S- /;`-
PREPARED BY:
R. F
This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement
project:
Project Number
6304-4-00 (J9734)
Proiect Name
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31st St NW
Estimated Proiect Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Gradinu & Pavinq, Curb & Gutter
$119 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$5700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$5 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanila Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$129.700.00
En ineerin Interest, Contin encies 30%
$38910.0o
TOTAL
$168,61070
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$28 605.68
Special Assessmens- Sidewalk
$6,136.88
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0,00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
0.00
City Street Share
$133867.45
TOTAL
$/66.610.00
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 the owners of the property abutting the project at that time.
Ve COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments.
NCIL ACTION: Motion
Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
12/11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
M DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
EARING: (J9723)
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 19th Ave NW from 19th St NW to
Valley High Drive
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6319-4-00 (J9723)
Proiect Name
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 19th Ave NW from 19th St NW to Valley High Drive
Project Background
The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1957 and 1963.
ITEM NO.
9-13
PREPARED BY:
R. Kelm
At the request of the property owners an informational meeting was held on October 25, 2000. Their support for a
rehabilitation project resulted in this request for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report.
Estimated Project Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Pavinq, Curb & Gutter
$212 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$11 800.00
Storm Sewer RepairslUpgrades
$9 000.00
Walermain Replacement
$0.00
Walermain Service Re lacemenl
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$232,800.00
Engineering,Interest. Contingencies 30%
$69,840.00
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Project Cost Distribution
0iatribution:
Special Assessments - Fronta a
$8596.38
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$5 708.89
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
Cttv Street Share
$288 334.73
TOTAL
$302,640A0
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 un aid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
r-r)UNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second by: to:
— 3 — NOVEMBER 1, 2000
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY ON
19TH AVE NW FROM 19TH ST NW TO VALLEY HIGH DRIVE
Y.`,PRU�I!Clti'.,�.PRf1J'�,�97_3\,Unyn\,11x'z`,irixibil�tr licFx.n.l)Uf:
&43
— 4 — NOVEMBER 1, 2000
BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project No: 6319.4-00 Date:1 November 1, 2000
J No: 9723
Description: Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 19th Ave NW
from 19th St NW to Valley High Drive
Project
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving,Curb & Gutter
$212,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$11,800.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$9 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$232.800.00
En ineerin , Interest, Contingencies 30%
$69,840.00
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$8,596.38
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$5,708.89
Special Assessments -Service Relace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
Cit Street Share
$288,334.73
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
P.`,PR!)ILCTS'.•I-1'RU�"�,.19;^t'•.,Un:,.� .2.1?.,e.+''�. t_:>iF.iii�r }apor:. UI.7(:
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVENIENT PROJECT FOR:
' PROJECT NO. 6319-4-00 J9723
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
19TH AVE NW FROM 19TH ST NW TO VALLEY HIGH
DRIVE
November 2, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb. Gutter. &:Overlay on I00i Avc NW from IQih SI NW to Vallcti I Ii_L- Ihi\,_, was
referred to the Public Works Department 011.4111C _3. _000 for preparation of the
Engineers Feasibility Report.
Feasibilitv 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 1957 and 1963.
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 25-35, 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:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$212,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$11,800.00
Stone Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$9,000,00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watenmain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$232,800.00
,Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$69,840.00
TOTAL 1
$302,640.00
- 2 - NOVEMBER 2, 200G 40
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones.............$15.45 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones ...........$23.18 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
2001
feet
Total
Cast
Residential Zones
$15.45
556.40
$8,596.38
Commercial Zones
$23.18
Subtotal
$8,596.38
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)................................................. $5.15 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$5.92 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.70 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) ..............$7.21 per square foot
6" Cone. Drive Approach (residential) ........................... $30.90 per square yard
Residential comer lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2001
sq. ft
sq. ft
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk (residential)
$5.15
2.022.20
$10,414.33
5' Sidewalk (commercial)
$5.92
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches)
$6.70
149.77
$1,003.46
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$7.21
Subtotal
$11,417.79
credit for long side -
($5,708.89)
Subtotal
$5,708.89
Project Distribution:
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$8,596.38
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$5,708.89
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
ICity Street Share 1
$288,334.73
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
P:\PROJECT$\J-PROJ\j9723\Design\Does\fcasibiliq Repon.DOC
Douglas Nelson, PE
Engineering Manager
PETITION TO HAVE REPAIR AND UPGRADE TO 19th AVENUE NW
BETWEEN 19th STREET NW AND VALLEY HIGH DRIVE. '
Due to heavy traffic flow, 19th Avenue Northwest is deteriorating and is in need
of repair. There are a number of potholes developing and the avenue is degrading
rapidly.
We the undersigned would like to see the following done to 19th Ave NW:
1) Resurfaced between 19th Street NW and Valley High Drive.
2) Curb and gutter installed on same.
Per City Engineer Doug Nelson the cost to have this done will be:
A) For those lots bordering 19th Ave which have had the street past the
'residence resurfaced, plus curb and gutter installed, the first 120 1 a2fs s
feet will be free. Anything over 120 lineal feet would be assesse $15.00 CkK �P
per lineal foot. (This includes installation of a concrete drive appro
between 19th Ave and the sidewalk, if required.)
B) For those lots bordering 19th Ave which have not had the street
resurfaced or curb and gutter installed past the residence, the cost will be:
a) $15.00 per lineal foot for the short side of the lot if it fronts 19th Ave.
OR
b) If the long side of the lot fronts 19th Ave, the assessment will be
based on the short side of the lot plus the long side in excess of 120
lineal feet. (This cost includes installation of a concrete drive
approach between 19th Ave and the sidewalk, if required.)
When, in the future, the street past the residence is upgraded, $15.00
per lineal foot (up to 120 lineal feet) will be deducted from the cost
of the street upgrade. There will not be a double charge for both
the avenue and street upgrades.
_ �NAME o//n
0171�;7 �►.X`l
,$6 -7 z7 2 _sz C&.
.Z 2 /7-'/ ST lUe
/fo,�- If rl�, <-)
4- s
NAIME ADDRESS
RwrqAjz-,,n 7
J� 4,A0 - N_W.
/j,031/(o2 /9'-/d 4'-e tj kJ
) BGC� l ,/T/ ,5T 4. W .
1br� I�t ' x .�v4 N •�.`1.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETINGI
'
DATE:
12/11/00
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works
N DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: (J9723)
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 19th Ave NW from 19th St NW to Valley High
Drive
ITEM NO.
rG —lq'
PREPARED BY:
4 R. Kelm
Iner' F-r-
This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement
project:
Project Number
6319-4-00 (J9723)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 19th Ave NW from 19th St NW to Valley High Drive
Estimated Project Costs
Project
Construction:
sCost
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$212 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$11 800,00
Storm Sewer RepaiWUpgrades
$9 000,00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Walermain Service Replacement
Sanita Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$232,800.00
Engineering. Interest. Contingencies 30%
$69840,00
TOTAL
$302,640.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution
Special Assessments - Frontage
$13,596.38
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$6708.89
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0oo
Sanitaw Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
City Street Share
$268 334.73
TOTAL
$302,640.00
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 the 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:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING p? ?'
DATE: 12/11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
M DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
EARING:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1 st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE
(J9724)
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Project Number
6201-2-00 (J9724)
Proiect Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE
ITEM NO.
� - t 5
PREPARED BY:
p� elms
Proiect Background
The existing street was constructed with concrete curbing in 1955. The age and deterioration of the concrete curb
and gutter dictate replacement.
At the request of the property owners an informational meeting was held on October 17, 2000. Their support for a
rehabilitation project resulted in this request for preparation of the Engineer's Feasibility Report.
Estimated Project Costs
Protect
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$101 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$9700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4 000.00
Walermain Replacement
$0.00
W alermain Service Re lacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$114,700.00
En ineenn Interest. Contingencies 30%
$34410.1
TOTAL
$149,110.00
Proiect Cost Distribution
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
S21 137.30
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$7 190.42
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
City Street Share
120782.28
TOTAL
$149,110.00
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.
�.L
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second by: to:
4
•�a�a
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
PROJECT NO. 620 1 -2-00 J9724
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
1ST ST SE FROM 13TH AVE SE TO 15TH AVE SF
November 2, 2000
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay cu1 I st St SE from 131h Ave SF. to 15th Avc SF; was referred to
the Public Works Department 011.41110 1999 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 concrete curbing in 1.955.
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 32, 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:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curti & Gutter
$101,000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$9,700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4,000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watennain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$114,700.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$34,410.00
TOTAL
$149,110.00
a13
- 2- NOVEMBER 2, 2000
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be
used for this project as follows:
Residential Zones.............$15.45 per assessable foot
Commercial Zones ...........$23.18 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 Oveday Rates
Year
2001 feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.45 1,368.11
$21,13T30
1$21,137.30
Commercial Zones
$23.18
Subtotal
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).................................................$5.15 per square foot
5" Sidewalk (commercial) ............... ................................ $5.92 per square foot
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.70 per square foot
7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches) ..............$7.21 per square foot
6" Conc. Drive Approach (residential)...........................$30.90.per square yard
Residential comer lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side
of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. The long side credit
reflects the half dollar amount for all long side quantities.
Sidewalks
2001
sq. ft
sq. It
Total
Cost
4" Sidewalk (residential)
$5.15
1,399.67
$7,208.30
5' Sidewalk (commercian
$5.92
6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approachesF
$5.70
107.13
$717.77
T' Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)
$7.21
Subtotal
$7,926.07
Long side credit
($73,5,65)
Subtotal
$7,19D.42
Project Distribution:
olstrlbution:
Special Assessments - Fronts a
$21,137.30
Special Assessments - Sldewalk
$7,190.42
Special Assessments - Service Re lace
Water Utilfty Funds
$0.00
SanBa Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
City Street Share
$120,782.28
TOTAL
$149,110A0
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
P:\PROJECTS\)-PRC)J\j9724\Design\Does\frasibilicy Rcpon.DOC
Douglas Nelson, PE
- 3 - NovEMBER 1, 2000
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY
1 ST ST SE FROM 13TH AVE SE TO 15TH AVE SE
p:`,YRUI15(:1'S��•PRUJ\j9%�Wr�y�n`;ll.xsitcuibiGtT Rcpoc[1)UC
a-2s-�'
— 4 — No\'H\IBGR t, 2000 Mi
BUDGET AND ASS ESSM ENT SCHEDULE
FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Project NO: 6201-2-00 Date: November 1, 2000
J NO: 9724
Description: Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1st St SE
from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE
'
Project
Cost
Contract
Cost
Final
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$101 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$9,700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4,000.00
Watermain Replacement -
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$114,700.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$34,410.00
TOTAL I 1
$149.110.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$21,137.30
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$7,190.42
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
CI Street Share
$120,782.28
TOTAL
. $149,110.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
1':'�PI:CIp!C!'S��r-PILUJ\177_.1'';Ucai3n ;llou'�, Fcu:itilig Rcp< r.DOC
pv'
Form I
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
Rochester, Minnesota ._.._-____-_k_h 19�7
To the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota:
We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 per cent in frontage of the real property abutting on the
streets designated below, hereby petition for the following local improvement(s) pursuant to Chapter 429. Min-
nesota Stalutes, as amended:
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
1.
SIGNATURE
I LOT
I BLOCK
B,DIVI,�SIOCNnOR ADDITION
I FRONTAGE
{�SU1IV
PfFtRvG Y y)IV P cb dlil
•a3
a
��c� s��o�:se�
I
a>
sr�rJos o
I h
I
"Apwef Spv,/ e�5 Oni
! 5
I
F4RRv�Y SPrr�D�vnJ
/
l9
HAeVeY s8ivQ9,s utJ
3
1
N WMEY SA WD6F'Isaj
a-r1
rt/E�f SA�✓Dt�2^�vfj
I
6 kVEY SAPJL�- Solt)
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 02 7 / /
DATE: 12/11 /00
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO.
Public Works !�;—Ito
:M DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: PREPARED BY:
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1 st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15t1h Ave SE ( R. Kelm
(J9724) �' a— b 'L-
This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement
project:
Proiect Number
6201-2-00 (J9724)
Project Name
Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1 st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE
Estimated Project Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving,Curb & Gutter
$101 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$9700.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
$4 000.00
Watermain Replacement
$0.00
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanita Sewer
$0.00
Sub Total
$114,700.00
En ineerin , Interest. Contingencies 30% 1
$34 41100
TOTAL 1$149.110.00
Proiect Cost Distribution
Distribution
Special Assessments - Frontage
$27 137.30
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$7,190.42
Special Assessments - Service Re lace
Water Utility Funds
$0.00
Sanllary Sewer Utility Funds
$0.00
Citv Street Share
$120 782.28
TOTAL
$149 J 10.00
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 the owners of the property abutting the project at that time.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
M
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING a-71
DATE: 8/16/99
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Public Hearings
City Administrator
9 -' /1
DESCRIPTION Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Business Subsidy for MDC
PREPARED BY:
Rochester, LLCI Airborne Freight Corporation Project
T. Spaeth
As the Council may recall, as part of the negotiations related to construction of the Airborne Freight facility at the
Rochester Airport property, it was proposed that the City would issue a $1,000,000 revenue bond (the "Bond"),
which would not be a debt or obligation of the City but would instead be payable solely by or on behalf of MDC.
The Bond would finance a facility leased to Airborne Freight Corporation. Because the City would be issuing the
Bond in order to achieve airport development, transportation and tax base goals, no specific job and wage goals
would be required under the Business Subsidy Law.
In this instance, the "business subsidy" is the principal amount of the Bond. The public purposes of the subsidy are
to further airport and transportation development, along with increasing the City's tax base.
In order to comply with the "business subsidy" statutes, an Agreement outlining the parties' responsibilities and
obligations is required. This is referred to as a "business subsidy agreement", which is similar to a development
assistance agreement.
The bond and loan agreement documents are being prepared at this time, in anticipation of a bond closing in the near
future. Council approval of a bond resolution and loan agreement will be needed at that time. The actival business
subsidy approval will be incorporated into the bond resolution documents.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Close the public hearing on the proposed "business subsidy" at this time. The business subsidy approval will be
part of the bond resolution and loan agreement approval. At that time, it would be appropriate for the Council to
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Business Subsidy Agreement on behalf of the City of Rochester.
C NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
U
Business Subsidy Agreement
This Business Subsidy Agreement (the "Agreement") is dated as of December 1, 2000, and
is between the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), and MDC Rochester, LLC, a Kansas
limited liability company (the "Borrower"). The City and MDC Rochester, LLC recognize and agree
that the City assistance to MDC Rochester, LLC under that certain Loan Agreement (the "Loan
Agreement"), dated as of December 1, 2000, between said parties, and specifically the City's issuance
of the S 1,000,000 revenue bond thereunder (the "Bond"), is a "business subsidy" under Minnesota
Statutes, Sections I I6J.993 through I I6J.995, as amended (the "Subsidy Law"), and is subject to the
provisions thereof, including without limitation reporting requirements and five year commitment
by the Borrower.
The basic terms and description of the subsidy under the Loan Agreement are that the City
would issue to Bond to enable the Borrower to finance airport facilities for lease to Airborne Freight
Corporation (the "Project").
1228228.1
Accordingly, it is agreed:
(a) The amount of the subsidy is the principal amount of the Bond. The type of
the subsidy is the issuance of the Bond in the anticipation that the interest thereon would be
tax-exempt and thereby constitute a loan at rates below those commercially available to the
Borrower. The subsidy relates to the Borrower's construction of Project and lease thereof to
Airborne Freight Corporation. ("Airborne") and the issuance of the Bond to assist the
financing thereof.
(b) The public purposes of the subsidy are to further airport and transportation
development and to increase the City's tax base.
(c) For purposes of Section I I6J.994, Subdivision 3, of the Subsidy Law, the
goals of the subsidy are the Borrower's completion of the Project and operation thereof for
at least five years after the "Benefit Date" of the subsidy, as defined in the Subsidy Law,
which is hereby determined to be the date of the actual closing on the Bond.
(d) The subsidy is a loan but it is not a grant or a forgivable loan to the Borrower.
The fair market value of the subsidy is the difference between the assumed tax-exempt rates
of interest on the Bond and the rates of interest which the Borrower would otherwise incur
in borrowing to finance the Project. The Borrower covenants that it will continue its leasing
operations at the Project for at least five years after the Benefit Date.
(e) The Borrower represents that it has no parent corporations.
(0 The Borrower represents that the following are all of the State of Minnesota
and "local government agency" grants (other than the subsidy hereunder) to the Project:
Grantor
Value (S)
Grantor Value (S)
(g) The Borrower represents that it is not in default on the date hereof on any
subsidy agreement entered into by the Borrower under the Subsidy Law.
(h) The Cityhas determined after public hearing that, forpurposes of the Subsidy
Law and this Agreement, creation or retention of jobs is not a goal of this subsidy, and
therefore no specific wage and job goals are required under this Agreement.
(i) The Borrower shall complete and file with the City from time to time the
report in the form of the attached Exhibit A. The Subsidy Law provides that if the Borrower
does not make such reports, when due, the Citymust mail the Borrower awaming within one
week of the required filing date, and if, after 14 days after the postmark date of that warning,
the Borrower continues to fail to report, then the Borrower is required to and shall pay the
City a penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is filed, up to a maximum of
$1,000. The Borrower shall file these reports with the City, in care of its Assistant
Administrator, (1) on March 1 of each year, beginning with the March 1 immediately
following the Benefit Date, and (2) within 30 days after the "Compliance Date," hereby
defined to be the date which is two years after the Benefit Date. Each March 1 report shall
report on the prior calendar year, and each other report shall report on the period since the
last reporting period.
0) This Agreement is intended to be the "subsidy agreement" required by Section
116J.994, Subdivision 3, of the Subsidy Law. In the event that any provision of this
Agreement in inconsistent or in conflict with any provision of the Subsidy Law, and in the
event that anyprovision of the Subsidy Law provides additional requirements, the provisions
of the Subsidy Law shall apply and govern. In addition, the Borrower agrees to provide the
City with any additional information which may be required in order for the City to comply
with its reporting requirements, as they may exist or be amended from time to time, under
the Subsidy Law.
(k) Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the terms of the Loan
Agreement. To the extent that provisions herein are more extensive or restrictive than any
related term in the Loan Agreement and to the extent said terms herein are required by the
Subsidy Law, the provisions hereof shall govern. The above commitment of the Borrower
to continue its operations respecting the Project for at least five years from the Benefit Date
is a requirement of the Subsidy Law (subject to procedures therein allowing relaxation or
waiver of said requirement) and shall apply and govern. If by repeal or express amendment
thereof, the Subsidy Law shall not apply to the Bond, e.g., if the Subsidy Law is amended
1228228.1 2
Urful
� , i
retroactively to include the Bond as an exception to the definition of a subsidy thereunder,
then this Agreement shall thereafter be of no force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and MDC Rochester, LLC, have duly executed this
Agreement by their duly authorized representatives.
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
By
Its Mavor
By
Its City Clerk
(SEAL)
1228228.1
MDC ROCHESTER, LLC,
a Kansas Limited Liability Company
Managing Partner
CZ?J
Exhibit A
Report by MDC Rochester, LLC, as Recipient of Business Subsidy
This report is required by that certain Business Subsidy Agreement, dated as of December
1, 2000 (the "Agreement"), between the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), and MDC
Rochester, LLC (the "Borrower"), and as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.994,
Subdivision 7, as amended. Capitalized terms which are used but not otherwise defined in this report
have the meanings given to those terms under the Agreement.
The City has granted a certain business subsidy to the Borrower consisting of the issuance
of the Bond, as defined in the Agreement.
Under the Agreement, the Borrower is required to file reports with the City's Assistant
Administrator (1) on March 1 of each year, beginning with the March 1 immediately following the
date of the Agreement, being referred to herein as the Benefit Date, and (2) within 30 days after the
Compliance Date, namely, the date which is two years after the Benefit Date. Each March 1 report
is required to report on the prior calendar year, and each other report shall report on the period since
the last reporting period.
There are no Jobs and Wage Goals under the Agreement.
The Borrower hereby certifies to the City the following:
(1) As provided in the Agreement, the amount of the subsidy is the principal
amount of the Bond. The type of the subsidy is the issuance of the Bond in the anticipation
that the interest thereon would be tax-exempt and thereby constitute a loan at rates below
those commercially available to the Borrower. The subsidy is a loan but it is not a grant or
a forgivable loan to the Borrower. The fair market value of the subsidy is the difference
between the assumed tax-exempt rates of interest on the Bond and the rates of interest which
the Borrower would otherwise incur in borrowing to finance the Project. The Borrower
covenants that it will continue its leasing operations at the Project for at least five years after
the Benefit Date. The public purposes of the subsidy are airport and transportation
development and increase in the City's tax base.
(2) The Borrower's completion and operation of the Project does not involve the
relocation by the Borrower of any of its facilities located elsewhere but did involve
Airborne's relocation from elsewhere in the City due to space limitations at that previous site.
(3) The Borrower has no parent corporations.
(4) Other than the subsidy provided by the City under the Agreement, there are
no other State of Minnesota or "local government agency" grants of subsidy to the Borrower
for the Project, except for:
1228228.1 A-1
any
Grantor Value (S)
Grantor Value (S)
(5) The Borrower hereby agrees to provide upon request such other information
as the Commissioner of the Department of Trade and Economic Development of the State
of Minnesota may request the City or the Borrower to provide or as may be required by the
Subsidy Law.
(6) The Borrower represents that it has continuously leased the Project to
Airborne since its completion, that Airborne has continuously used and occupied the Project,
and the Borrower expects said lease and occupancy to continue for the foreseeable future.
(7) The Borrower is not in default on the date hereof of its obligations under any
subsidy agreement under the Subsidy Law.
MDC ROCHESTER, LLC
0
Its Managing Partner
This report is to be filed with:
City Rochester
Rochester City Hall
210 4' Street SE
Rochester, Minnesota 55904-3708
Attn: Assistant Administrator
1228228.1
A-2
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 0
DATE: 12/11/00
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NABY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
AIL
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
I
G
M DESCRIPTION:
PREPASOLUTIONS
AND ORDINANCES
TERRY
r
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate.
G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
Vo
�a) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 17, 18 and 21, Marion
Township, from County Zoning Districts to the Respective City Designations, and Amending
Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota.
OPb) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Subdivisions 2, 3, and 6 of Section 1.02, and Section
3.08 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Rochester Relating to the Redetermination of
Boundaries and Residency Requirements for Elected and Appointed Officials.
G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS
0 1 / �
�NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: