Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2001_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA ('� O COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS v I GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 3 FEBRUARY 5, 2001 REGULAR 7:00 P.M. PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS (3-6) 1) Request for City Services in a Portion of Rochester Township (7-8) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (9-10) 2) 2001 Compensation for City Administrator (11-12) 3) Request to Initiate Rezoning of Historical Society Property (13-14) 4) Retention of Consulting Services (15-16) 5) Zumbro Market Parking Lot (17-18) 6) Enter into New Operating Agreements with Northwest, American, Mesaba, and TWE/Chautauqua Airlines (19-20) 7) Allow Rochester Car Rental (Avis) to Transfer Remainder of Lease to Midwest Wheels, Inc. which will Continue to do Business as Avis (21-22) 8) Purchase New Pickup Sweeper and Mower Tractor with Attachments (23-24) 9) Professional Services Agreement for Planning, Engineering & Specifications to Expand General Aviation Ramp & Add New Ramp Lighting (25-26) 10) Professional Services Agreement for Planning, Engineering and Specifications to Construct New General Aviation Arrival and Departure Building (27-28) 11) Professional Services Agreement for Planning, Engineering and Specifications to Expand Lower Level Passenger Gates 3 & 4 (29-30) 12) Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. for Environmental Assessment on Extension of Runway 13-31 (31-36) 13) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action (37-40) 14) Licenses and Miscellaneous Activities (41-42) 15) State Training Grant (43-44) 16) Appointment to Housing and Redevelopment Authority (45-46) 17) Appointment to Police Civil Service Commission (47-48) 18) Appointment to Library Board Council Agenda February 5, 2001 Page 2 (49-56) 19) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 63.222 and 63.224/Banners (57-58) 20) Roadway Name Change/Notting Hill Ln NW to Knotting Hill Lane NW (59-64) 21) Roadway Name Change/Lexington Street NW to Lexington Place NW (65-66) 22) North Broadway Cooperative Construction Agreement with MnDOT (67-68) 23) IBM Development Agreement Amendment #2 (69-70) 24) Development Agreement/South Pointe/All Pointe Development (71-72) 25) Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills South 2nd (73-74) 26) Owner Contract/Basic Construction in South Pointe Sixth Subdivision (75-76) 27) Voiding Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills North Subdivision (77-78) 28) Stormwater Management Agreements (79-84) 29) Professional Engineering Services/Design of Northern Valley Dr. NE, Rocky Cr. Dr. NE, and Pedestrian Path Along Rocky Cr. Dr. NE (85-86) 30) Supplemental Agreement #1/Construction of 11'h Avenue SW: Lone Pine Drive to 60' Street SW (87-88) 31) Supplemental Agreement #3/Construction of 11t' Avenue SW: 48t' Street SW to Lone Pine Drive (89-90) 32) Supplemental Agreement #4/Construction of 11�' Avenue SW: 48t' Street SW to Lone Pine Drive (91-92) 33) Supplemental Agreement #1/Construction of 48'h Street SW: 11" Avenue SW to Scenic Oaks (93-94) 34) Permit Parking Petition from 5"' Street SW/800 Block (95-96) 35) Award of Option Buses for ZIPS/Orion Bus Industries (97-98) 36) Approval of Accounts Payable E) HEARINGS (99-128) 1) Incentive Development Preliminary Plan by Rochester Development, Inc. for a 26-Story Building to Consist of Long -Term and Short -Term Stay Housing, Retail, Restaurant and a Fitness Center (129-144) 2) Continued Hearing/Land Use Plan Amendment/Amend Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to Des! Rnate Approx. 46 Acres for "Commercial" Land Uses/North Side of 48 Street SW, West of T.H. 63 and East of 11'h Avenue SW (145-150) 3) Continued Hearing/Zoning District Amendment by R.L. Hexum & Associates/Rezone Approx. 46 Acres from R-1 District to M-1 District and Rezone Approx. 36 Acres from R-1 to R-2 (151-180) 4) Continued Hearing/General Development Plan /W' Street GDP by R.L. Hexum & Associates (181-210) 5) General Development Plan by BARCO Development Company to be Known as Plateau Estates Council Agenda February 5, 2001 Page 3 (211-218) 6) Zoning District Amendment by BARCO Development Company/Zone Approx. 32 Acres from R-1 to R-IX District to Allow Development of Townhomes/North of East Circle Dr. & West of Century High School (219-246) 7) Final Site Plan for Carpet One Store in SD-1/Arboretum Special District (247-272) 8) Revised Preliminary Plat by BBB Development, LLC Known as Ridgeview Manor (273-274) 9) Final Plat to be Known as Wedgewood Hills Fourth (275-288) 10) Final Plat to be Known as Manor Woods West Twelfth Subdivision (289-298) 11) Final Plat to be Known as South Pointe Sixth (299-306) 12) Final Plat to be Known as South Pointe Seventh C.I.C. #173 Planned Community (307-314) 13) Vacation Petition by TGH, LLC to Vacate 19.5' Right -of -Way of the Undeveloped Alley in Block 3 of Highland Addition/South of 2"4 Street SW, North of 3 d Street SW and East of 215t Avenue SW (315-320) 14) Vacation Petition by Jason, Stanley and Pamela Bargfrede to Vacate Northerly 3 Feet of the 5 Foot Utility. Easement Running Along Southerly Lot Line of Lot 4, Block 22, Elton Hills 5"' Sub. Except for the Easterly 5 Feet Thereof (321-324) 15) Vacation Petition by K & P Partnership to Vacate West 30' of a 50' Utility Easement on Lot 3, Block 5, Scenic Oak First Addition (325-336) 16) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 63.225 and 63.226/Lighting Standards for School and Church Signs and Development Signs in Residential Districts (337-346) 17) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 60.760 - 60.764/Procedure and Scope of Review, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council (347-348) 18) Hearing on Revenue Bonds for Gift of Life Facility (349-354) 19) Project Hearing for Public Sidewalk Abutting Fox Valley Drive and 23rd Street SW (355-356) 20) Special Assessment Hearing for Public Sidewalk Abutting Fox Valley 1 Drive and 23`d Street $VyL C'L;W'"/c F) REPORTS AND RECOMMEND-.ATIONS (357-358) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A M DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this fonun 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. `� S C N JNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �+ DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters and Petitions City Clerk GI / 1 DESCRIPTION: Request for City Services in a portion of Rochester Township PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr A petition was received from Ron Carlsen on behalf of CCM, Inc. requesting the City to provide sewer and water services to unplatted lands in part of the S W 1/4 of Section 34, Rochester Township. CCM, Inc. proposes to develop the property for residential use. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition from CCM, Inc. to the Public Works Department for a feasiblity study. V INCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: q January 31, 2001 Honorable Mayor and Common Council City of Rochester % Ms. Judy Scherr City Clerk 201 SE 4`s St. — Rm. 135 Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Unplatted Lands in a part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Rochester Township (Gluck Property) Dear Mayor and Council: CCM, Inc. proposes to develop approximately 77 acres of land in Section 34 of Rochester Township for residential use with municipal sewer and water service from the City of Rochester. This letter represents our formal petition for utility service from the City of Rochester to the above -described property. A brief narrative of the scope of the proposed project is attached for your reference. If you have any questions, please contact me at 282-8200. Respectfully yours, 'n'61VL Ron Carlsen, General Partner CCM, Inc. Attachment Pc Mr. Stevan Kvenvold Mr. Phil Wheeler Mr. Richard W. Freese, P.E. Project Narrative for Gluek Property (77 acres) in Section 34, Rochester Township January 2001 Introduction: McGhie & Betts, Inc., was retained by CCM, Inc., to provide conceptual designs for residential development on the Gluck property. They are in the process of completion of the alternative concept plans. However, preliminary analysis indicate that the site capacity will be 38 to 40 residential units. Site Analysis: The site lies adjacent to the Willow Creek Reservoir and 60th Street SW. Topography on the site is steep with elevations ranging from 1200 to 1120. The property contains several development constraints that must be taken into consideration with any development plan. They consisted of topography, shoreland restrictions, shallow depth to bedrock, limited access, flowage easements, and single family lot split. Protect Concept: It is anticipated that the project will consist of 38 to 40 single-family units on the buildable portion of the site. It is estimated that there are 32 to 38 developable acres out of the gross area of 77 acres. Because of the above stated development constraints, this site would be a low -density residential subdivision. The roadways within the project are planned to be public and will access to 60a` Street SW. A portion of the property has previously been annexed to the City of Rochester and the balance will be annexed as the project moves forward. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-36 A 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. 2001 Compensation for City Administrator D-3. Request to Initiate Rezoning of Historical Society Property D-4. Retention of Consulting Services D-5. Zumbro Market Parking Lot D-6. Enter into New Operating Agreements with Northwest, American, Mesaba & TWE/Chautauqua Airlines D-7. Allow Rochester Car Rental (Avis) to Transfer Remainder of Lease to Midwest Wheels, Inc. which will Continue to do Business as Avis D-8. Purchase New Pickup Sweeper and Mower Tractor with Attachments D-9. Professional Services Agreement for Planning, Engineering and Specifications to Expand General Aviation Ramp and Add New Ramp Lighting D-10. Professional Services Agreement for Planning, Engineering and Specifications to Construct New General Aviation Arrival and Departure Building D-11. Professional Services Agreement for Planning, Engineering and Specifications to Expand Lower Level Passenger Gates 3 & 4 D-12. Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. for Environmental Assessment on Extension of Runway 13-31 D-13. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action D-14. Licenses and Miscellaneous Activities D-15. State Training Grant D-16. Appointment to Housing and Redevelopment Authority D-17. Appointment to Police Civil Service Commission D-18. Appointment to Library Board D-19. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 63.222 and 63.224Banners D-20. Roadway Name Change/Notting Hill Ln NW to Knotting Hill Lane NW D-21. Roadway Name Change/Lexington Street NW to Lexington Place NW D-22. North Broadway Cooperative Construction Agreement with MnDOT D-23. IBM Development Agreement Amendment #2 D-24. Development Agreement/South Pointe/All Pointe Development INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Request for Council Action Approval of Consent Agenda Items February 5, 2001 Page 2 D-25. Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills South 2nd D-26. Owner Contract/Basic Construction in South Pointe Sixth Subdivision D-27. Voiding Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills North Subdivision D-28. Stormwater Management Agreements D-29. Professional Engineering Services/Design of Northern Valley Dr. NE, Rocky Cr. Dr. NE, and Pedestrian Path Along Rocky Cr. Dr. NE D-30. Supplemental Agreement #1/Construction of 11`h Avenue SW: Lone Pine Drive to 601h Street SW D-31. Supplemental Agreement #3/Construction of 11'h Avenue SW: 48`h Street SW to Lone Pine Drive D-32. Supplemental Agreement #4/Construction of 1 Vh Avenue SW: 48`h Street SW to Lone Pine Drive D-33. Supplemental Agreement #l/Construction of 48a Street SW: 1 Vh Avenue SW to Scenic Oaks D-34. Permit Parking Petition from 5'h Street SW/800 Block D-35. Award of Option Buses for ZIPS/Orion Bus Industries D-36. Approval of Accounts Payable COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 43 DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY COUNCIL D 16k d DESCRIPTION: 2001 COMPENSATION FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: J. HUNZIKER The Committee of the Whole reviewed Mr. Kvenvold's performance at their January 22, 2001 meeting. The Committee expressed their satisfaction with Mr. Kvenvold's performance and the general consensus of the Committee was that due to Mr. Kvenvold's performance and length of service with the City, he should be the top paid City official. The top paid City official is currently the General Manager of Public Utilities, whose 2001 compensation as of 1/1101 is $116,638. Therefore, it would be appropriate to establish Mr. Kvenvold's 2001 compensation at $117,000, Mr. Kvenvold will also receive the same life insurance and personal leave benefits as granted to the department heads. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion establishing the City Administrator's 2001 compensation at $117,000 with the life insurance and personal leave benefits as granted to the department heads. 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Administration D - 3 1 DESCRIPTION: Request to Initiate Re -zoning of Historical Society Property PREPARED BY: S. Kvenvold The Olmsted County Historical Society is requesting that the City Council initiate a request to re -zone the 47 acres of Historical Society property (see attached). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Request a motion initiating the re -zoning as requested and referring the request to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review and recommendation. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to: i OLMSTED COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY January 8,2001 Dear Council Members: I am writing to you to ask you to initiate the re -zoning of the approximately forty (47) acres that comprises the Historical Society property in the Rochester city limits. The society has been working with Phil Wheeler since July to craft a Special Historic District that is modeled after the Mayo Clinic's Special Medical District. There has always been a concern on the behalf of neighbors and members of the society that parts of the property would be sold to make a profit rather than being used to interpret Olmsted County history. The Board of Director's took a formal vote in the Spring of 2000 to not sell the property and to inform prospective buyers that the property would not be sold. The special district allows us the flexibility to pursue our mission without having to go through a variance process each time we want to move a historic building to the property or do an event that would not be generally allowed in an R-1 zoning district. We requested annexation to the city in 1999 and came in as R-1. Your initiating the re -zoning and referring the matter to the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission will save us some money. As we receive funding from both the City of Rochester from time to time and an allocation from the County it seems a prudent way to save the taxpayers spending money on a city funded process. )e rely, — Dave Pemm�gton Board Member 119S WEST CIRCLE DRIVE SOUTHWEST • ROCHESTER, MN 55902 • PHONE 507.282.9447 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �,Z DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR 17 —q N DESCRIPTION: RETENTION OF CONSULTING SERVICES PREPARED BY: G. NEUMANN In conjunction with the City's review of the DEIS for the DM&E Railroad project, there are a number of technical issues that the City staff and consultants need to review. In order to ensure that we effectively analyze major issues that could affect the determination of environmental concerns that the community is faced with, we have discussed and negotiated some consultant service contracts to assist the staff on some issues. The staff is seeking approval of the following consultant services that we need to utilize to prepare the most effective response for the City. 1. Noise Consultant Services. We are seeking approval for noise consultant services of Edward Walter, a noise consultant, that has previously worked on noise issues for the Conrail case for an amount estimated to not exceed $5,000. Dr. Walter is to review the DEIS noise information in comparison to the noise study previously completed for the City by William Kroll. This will provide a second expert opinion to compare the two studies. 2. Geologic Consultant Services. There are some potential issues in the DEIS relating to karst geology and other geologic issues that need to be researched. The staff has negotiated some consultant services with the Short Elliott Hendrickson firm to research these issues for the City response. The total estimated cost is not expected to exceed $15,000. Council Action Requested Approval to retain the consultant services listed above with funding provided from General Fund Reserves. J N C I L ACTION: Motion by: second by. to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING rs ' DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Administration D _ 5 I DESCRIPTION: Zumbro Market Parking Lot PREPARED BY: � r__ Doug Knott The Labor Temple recently sold their property at 405 1/2 South Broadway and purchased the Zumbro Market Building. At their former location their employees leased parking space from U.S. Bank in the lot located south of their drive -up bank facility (north of Fire Station #1). At their new location they would like to lease space from the City in the Zumbro Market parking lot. This parking lot is subject to a development contract between the City and the original developers of the Zumbro Market building. In that contract we agreed to a set of restrictive covenants that require us to maintain the lot as a metered facility with rates consistent with other metered spaces in the City until November 20, 2007. The covenants run with the land. In order to grant the request from the Labor Temple, we have to amend the restrictive covenants so that we can pull the meters and lease a portion of the spaces in the lot on a monthly basis. r'^•-ncil Action Requested 1 ] Exhibit C, Declaration of Covenants, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Zumbro Market Development Contract be amended to read: 2. The Parking Property shall be used for public parking only. 3. The parking rates charged by the City for parking on the Property shall be as established by the City Council and may be amended by the City Council from time to time. 2) The Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute necessary documents. 3) Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing City officials to sign a contract amendment with Republic Parking Systems that would add 50% of the Municipal Lot #13, 'Zumbro Market Lot' to their management contract. 4) Adapt the prepared resolution adding a monthly rate of $48.00 to the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution Book; Chapter K (Municipal Parking System), Section II (Hours and Rate), Paragraph B (Surface Lots), Lot 13 "Zumbro Market Lot' at $48.00/month, limited from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. I NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: iday n t ai1iN et v it G o v e r c= AGENDA SECTION: Consent REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Rochester International Airport ITI ESCRIPTION: Enter into new operating agreements with Northwest, American, Mesaba, and TWE/Chautauqua Airlines. The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 ITEM NO. Z;) -- "iP PREPARED BY: Steven W. Legve Enter into new operating agreements with Northwest, American, Mesaba, and TWE/Chautauqua Airlines. These new agreements will expire on 12/31/03 and represent a 1% increase in space rental per year and a 3% increase in landing fees the first year followed by 1% increases in each of the remaining two years. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the agreements . CC 'IL ACTION: Motion Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 )A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport D - q ESCRIPTION: Allow Rochester Car Rental (Avis) to transfer the remainder of their PREPARED BY: lease to Midwest Wheels, Inc. which will continue to do business as Avis. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: C, Allow Rochester Car Rental (Avis) to transfer the remainder of their lease to Midwest Wheels, Inc. which will continue to do business as Avis Rent A Car. The lease will expire with all other rental car leases on 12/31/05. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Resolution authorizing the Mayor, City Clerk, and the Rochester Airport Company to execute an agreement transferring the lease. "IL ACTION: motion Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport Z> _ g ITI=SCRIPTION: Purchase a new pickup sweeper and mower tractor with attachments. PREPARED BY: Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: l . Purchase a new Elgin Crosswind pickup sweeper off of a State bid from MacQueen Equipment Inc. Purchase price from MacQueen Equipment $123,087.38 Additional equipment -radios required for airfield use $1,144.28 (J6999) Total purchase price for equipment $124,231.66 This purchase is in the current CIP. Funding: 60% State 40% Local 2. Award the bid to Podein's Power Equipment for the purchase a new mower tractor with snow blower, mower, sweeper, utility cart and blade. (J6999) This purchase is in the current CIP. Podein's Power Equipment $15,792.89 Northside Power and Equipment $16,238.63 i Funding: 60% State 40% Local 3. Accept the State Aid Agreement for 60% funding for the sweeper and the mower tractor. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the purchase agreements and the State Aid Agreement. CC :IL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING O DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport 'D _ G, A DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement for planning, engineering and PREPARED BY: specifications to expand the General Aviation ramp and add new ramp lighting. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. for planning, engineering and specifications to expand the General Aviation ramp and add new ramp lighting. (J6937) Agreement not to exceed $85,624.71 This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 60% State 40% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreement. INCILACTION: MuBonby: Sccondby: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport D - ro 11 _._. DESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement for planning, engineering and PREPARED BY: specifications to construct a new General Aviation arrival and departure building. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. and team of consultants consisting of McGhie & Betts, Inc. and Yaggy Colby for planning, engineering and specifications to construct a new General Aviation arrival and departure building at the Rochester International Airport. (J6965) Agreement not to exceed $138,600.00 This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 60% State 40% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreement. CI CIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ; 7 DATE: 2/5101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester Intemational Airport D._ 1' IT ESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement for planning, engineering and specifications to expand lower level passenger gates 3 and 4. PREPARED BY: Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. and team of consultants consisting of McGhie & Betts, Inc. and Architectural Alliance for planning, engineering and specifications to expand lower level passenger gates 3 and 4 at the Rochester Intemational Airport. (J6970) Agreement not to exceed $112,413.00 This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 90% Federal 10% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreement. CC 'AL ACTION: motionny: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a1 DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport D_ t V;L- IT_._. _ESCRIPTION: Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. for an environmental PREPARED BY: assessment on the extension of runway 13-31. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with ACSG, Inc. for an environmental assessment on the extension of runway 13-31. (J6971) Agreement not to exceed $180,000.00 This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 90% Federal 10% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the professional services agreement. Cl..,....CIL ACTION: Motion hy: Second by: Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT �OCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on January 30, 2001 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: - to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with WESCO for cable and conductor. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $36,414.00 and WESCO being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Border States Electric for cable and conductor. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $79,350.00 and Border States Electric being lowest responsible bidder. - to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with WESCO for cable and conductor. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $138,659.30 and RESCO being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Hendrix for cable and conductor. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $96,076.00 and Hendrix being lowest responsible bidder. - to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Siemens Westinghouse, subject to review by the City Attorney, for professional services to upgrade and convert to dual fuel the Cascade Creek Gas Turbine Westinghouse 251B2 with all appurtenances and the installation of controls required as defined in the proposal dated January 15, 2001. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $2,286,140.00. - to approve a resolution to approve payment to the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, for the 2000 water use fee for the Silver Lake Plant. The amount of the payment to be $36,623.24. GENERAL MANAGER: �! OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Sp, Agenda Item # 7.a. SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION: FOR BOARD ACTION Meeting Date: CONSIDERATION OF BIDS CABLE AND CONDUCTOR Steven J. Cook Senior Electrical Engineer 1/30/01 On January 17, 2001, 23 combinations of vendors and manufacturers submitted responsible bids to supply some or all 25 types of specified cable and conductor. Award to the lowest responsible bidder is recommended for all items to be purchased. Items 19 and 21 are not being purchased at this time. Metal escalation is allowed. Specifications allow for manufacturing tolerances of —0/+5% on lengths for items 18, 20, 22, 23, and 24; and tolerances of+/-10% on lengths for other items. Billed cost will be based on actual lengths. Bid amounts do not include sales tax. BID SUMMARY Item Bidder Bid Amount 18,23 WESCO $36,414.00 17 Border States Electric $79,350,00 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 RESCO $138,659.30 22,24 Hendrix $96,076.00 UTILITY BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: 1. It is recommended that the Board reject all bids for items 19 and 21. 2. It is recommended that the Board approve purchase order agreements with: a. WESCO as lowest responsible bidder for items 18 and 23. b. Border States Electric as lowest responsible bidder for item 17. C. RESCO as lowest responsible bidder for items 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20. d. Hendrix as lowest responsible bidder for items 22 and 24. ReQiewed I-27- t3 4 Wv\' - 0� (- 2- 5- o Gerldral Manager Date ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES 93 i FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item# 7.b. Meeting Date: 1/30/01 SUBJECT: Upgrade and Fuel Conversion of Cascade Creek Gas Turbine Westinghouse 251B2 PREPARED BY: Wally Schlink, Manager of Power Production ITEM DESCRIPTION: An integral component of the RPU Power Supply Plan, presented to the Board and Council in August / September of 1999, is the recovery of existing generating assets to meet the demand and energy requirements of our system. The notification to SMMPA to terminate the Peaking Capacity Purchase Agreement for the Cascade Creek Gas Turbine, effective March 31, 2001 was issued to that end. RPU will use that asset as the primary means to meet system requirements effective that date. This unit will be the primary generator of energy for RPU for energy demand above the CROD level of 216 mW. Any disruption in the use of this unit will expose the utility to the volatility of market energy prices. The Cascade Creek Gas Turbine is a mid 1970's vintage, liquid fuel fired machine with no emissions control equipment. Due to SMMPA's minimal use of the unit, very little modemization has been . done. As part of the development and permitting of the Cascade Creek site for the new generation project, revisions to the existing unit have been anticipated and included in the scope and budget of the project. The drivers for the conversion project have been the ability to hedge fuel prices with dual fuel sources and the ability to lock into longer -term fuel price products. Historically the price of natural gas has been 1/2 of the price of liquid fuel. Although we have seen extreme volatility in the short- term market, all indications are that that relationship will continue. Also the value of energy has far exceeded the cost of the fuel, which makes this economically prudent through reduction of exposure to the energy market. This is consistent with the direction defined in the Power Supply Plan. The changes will increase the electrical output of the unit, increase our available capacity and lower operating costs due to reduced maintenance. The changes will also greatly reduce all sources of major pollutants and emissions from the unit at the site, which will increase available capacity from both the existing and the new unit scheduled for installation in 2002. This project will modernize the 25-year-old unit by bringing it up to current industry and equipment standards and increase the efficiency and reliability through system improvements. The basic scope is to convert the unit to fire both natural gas and distillate oil, add NOx emissions controls, upgrade the control system, make revisions to the unit to improve starting and operating reliability and make upgrades to problem areas of the machine including fuel valves, bleed valves, compressor wash, vibration monitoring and cooling systems. Gen6fal Manager Date i FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item# 7. b. Meeting Date: 1/30/01 Staff has been working with Siemens Westinghouse, the original equipment manufacturer of the unit, to develop a work scope and schedule for the upgrades and fuel conversion. Siemens Westinghouse has developed the engineered changes and procedures that are required to properly make these revisions and upgrades. The attached documents define that scope and areas of responsibility for these services. Siemens Westinghouse is the sole source for this professional service. The cost of the project is $2,286,140. Staff will make a presentation on the project. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED: Staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution requesting the Common Council to approve a purchase order agreement with Siemens Westinghouse for professional services to perform the conversion to dual fuel with all appurtenances and the installation of controls required for same as defined in the proposal. General Manager Date ROCHESTER 35 FA FOR BOARD ACTION Agenda Item# 8 Meeting Date: 1/30/01 SUBJECT: MN/DNR Annual Water Use Fee PREPARED BY: Joe Hensel, Manager Environment & Facilities ITEM DESCRIPTION• The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN/DNR) issues permits for surface and ground water appropriation in conformance with Minnesota Statute 103G.271. The statute also provides for the collection of water use fees, to be paid annually by permittees, based on actual volume of surface and ground water used during the year. The Silver Lake Plant (SLP) has two water appropriation permits for plant circulating (condenser cooling) water: one permit covers the three ground water wells and one permit is for river water use. The SLP operated at a very high capacity factor for most of 2000 resulting in significant water use. The water use fees for 2000 are as follows: • Ground water use fee -- $1,081.42 • Surface water use fee -- $35,391.82 • Permit amendment fee -- $150.00 Year 2000 water use reports and fees must be submitted to MN/DNR by February 15, 2001. UTILITY BOARD ACTION REOUESTED• Utility Board and Council approval of the resolution authorizing payment of water use fees for the Silver Lake plant in the amount of $36,623.24 1Zevt'ewed 1— 25-01 WY�?- 0 gSLt� L G eral Manager Date Cfy�1�YYla.9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 37 DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Clerk D _1 T I DESCRIPTION: Licenses and Miscellaneous Activities PREPAREEBY: Judy Sche The following Licenses and Miscellaneous Activities are recommended for approval pending receipt of the required applications, bonds, fees, and departmental approvals. 3.2 BEER —TEMPORARY Olmsted County Fair Board Olmsted County Fair July 31-August 6, 2001 GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT Creative Learning Ideas for Mind & Body, Inc. at Colonial Lanes, 1828 14" Street NW GAMBLING - TEMPORARY Aldrich Memorial Nursery School 855 Essex Parkway NW Raffle on May 5, 2001 Church of the Resurrection 1600 11`s Avenue SE Raffle on February 25, 2001 Request waiver of waiting period John Adams PTA 1524 31't Street NW Bingo on February 23, 2001 Request waiver of waiting period Hiawatha Chapter of National Wild Turkey Federation At Rochester Marriott Hotel Raffle on March 23, 2001 I NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 3 0 Licenses and Miscellaneous Activities Page 2 February 5, 2001 GAMBLING — TEMPORARY (continued) Hawthorne PTA At Mayo Civic Center Raffle May 3,2001 HEATING. VENTILATING & AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS LICENSE Steve Johnson Johnson Electric & Heating, Inc. Lime Springs, Iowa Lohuis Construction, Inc. (renewal) McIntire, Iowa 50455 MASTER INSTALLER Steve Johnson Lime Springs, Iowa Robert D.Lohuis (renewal) McIntire, Iowa SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT Olmsted County Fair Board Olmsted County Fair July 31-August 6, 2001 SIGN INSTALLER Scenic Sign Corporation Sauk Rapids MISELLANEOUS STREET ACTIVITIES American Diabetes Association Bicycling Event Silver Lake East Shelter to South Fork Zumbro Trail June 2, 2001 National Multiple Sclerosis Society National MS Walk at Soldiers Field Memorial April 22, 2001 March of Dimes Walk-A-Thon Use of bike paths from Elks Club and Return April 28, 2001 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D - 14 IA DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: ADDENDUM DONNA J SCHOTT The following ADDENDUM licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING — TEMPORARY National REGAP Network 1235 W Center St Rochester Mn 55902 Raffle 2/27/01 AT Collins Feed & Seed Center 411 2"d Ave NW Rochester Mn 55901 40/8 Honor Society of American Legion 846 10d' St NW Rochester Mn 55901 Raffle 8/12/01 AT Comfort Inn 1625 S Bdwy Rochester Mn 55904 (Please Waiver 30 Day Waiting Perid) ON SALE TEMPORARY LIQUOR Church of St. Pius 1315 12d' Ave NW Rochester Mn 55901 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above ADDENDUM licenses. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Licenses and Miscellaneous Activities 31 Page 2 February 5, 2001 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above licenses and miscellaneous activities. Licenses and Miscellaneous Activities Page 2 February 5, 2001 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l ( � DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT Fire D —t S 111 DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: STATE TRAINING GRANT DC Slavin RFD would like to apply for a state training grant in the amount of $1500. There is no match required. This grant would be used for the Training Division to provide hazardous materials and fire training. Area fire departments as well as RPD will benefit from this training. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Requesting approval to submit state grant application for training. 1NCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0 is DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayors Office D -r 1 DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appointment to Housing and Redevelopment Authority Mayor Canfield I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority: Michael P. Mullen 9178 County Road 139 SE Chatfield, MN Mr. Mullen will fill the unexpired term of George Wilson. The term runs to December 31, 2001. Appointing authority is found in Minn. Stat. 469.006 which allows the mayor and council to appoint a member from outside the city. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: • F�„rs1e1 : hinhG AUGu51~.1 NA?!Z : Mich Mayor Chuck Canfield haw 201 4th Street SE - Room 281 xu.-431ENICd c1Tr Rochester, MN 55904-3782 Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979 CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION ADDR.ESS:_9178 Couppty Road 3-SL Cha iel,_.M5'5qzj PHONE: Bus.284-9228 HOME 867-3834 DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES NO XX PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: Mayo Clinic I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON Olmsted -County Housing Redevelgpment Authority BECAUSE: I work directly.with Rochester area housin¢ shnztage-isaues affecting new employees as part of my responsibilities at the Mho Clinic. -This would be an_ opportu _fi work-dirar_ _rly with nY_hPTgin rho r=munity. �romq�in�the_need for-nna�raffn�.i�l,jg_���.�j,gy,��-}�py}g#�.r PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTEREaT.S, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional information, if desired. B.S. in Medical Technology, 19 years at Mayo Clinic, 11 years in Human Resourtj�a-nt Ma;n- 7n Charfiel,d_'- U;tMQg;GUq-- church committees, boards served 2 terms on the Plann nq nnd_Zaning i'nmmi Ceinn Anti: eS gn ..d..lt unlunfnnr 4a R.. C .tjpg ___-_-fitly �Q�jng_ AC awa�jst,Fj•C,� (`�ai£• DATE SUBMITTED: 1/23/2001 SIGNED: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ,� 5 C/ DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office J — 1% A DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appointment to Police Civil Service Commission Mayor Canfield I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Police Civil Service Commission: Robert Nowicki 802 Northern Hills DRive NE Mr. Nowicki is well known for his work as Chairman of the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Neighborhoods these past five years. t NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a 1 i DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office V -( 8 I DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appointment to Library Board I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Rochester Public Library Board: Steven McMaster 4466 56th Street NW Mr.;_ McMaster will fill the vacancy of Ed Haskell who moved out of the city limits. Mr. Haskell will fill the seat of Susan Lee who resigned. Mr. McMasters term will run to January 2003. C VCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: SANTAr 1. 31 "0©15:11: 22A1 i A MNYO MEDICAL VErJURES 15NO 355973 R''3 n Mayor ,Chuck Canfield ALL-AMIMCA arr 201 sth Sim SE - Room 281 rr Rochesw, MN 55904-5782 V Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979 :'� CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION NAME: V ADDRESS: �L' Ln�=` 4.IIli PHONE: BUS.2�ln-OSS`f, HOME DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCH,EnS�TER CITY LIMITS? YESL NO_ PLACE OE EMPLOYMENT: I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON 04eA2S' BECAUSE: PLEASE PROVIDE TAMMKO D 50RMATION (tuuUArivn, �rrn AcHIEvEM7NTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) A.tach additional iaEortnatiea, if desired. 1Ie DATE SUBMITTED: ! t 0 SIGNED: 7_..� �c I! Return to: .Office of the Mayer .201I19th Street SE 4 Rnehostar. MN 55904-3182 -1f-iia'-i}f-faf-}iLiiii�iii•iiiif iiYifYiiif iifiiifi}fiti I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGEND SECTION: ORIGINATING DA ENNIl: ITEM NO. CONSENT a—lq M DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 63.222 and 63224 - Banners. PREPARED BY: . 7John Harford, Senior Planner February 1, 2001 On January 22, 2001 at the Committee of the Whole meeting the City Council discussed the matter of banner regulations in the zoning ordinance. This matter had last been discussed in November, 1999 at the time of the second reading of the amendment. The matter was tabled at that Council meeting. In September, 1999 the Council had approved language that would allow one banner per business, and no more than 32 square feet in size and attached to a building. A first reading was held by the Council in September, 1999. The City Attorney has drawn up revised language that defines banners and states that they must be attached to the side of a building. This option establishes the minimum acceptable standards based on the Council comments at the Committee of the Whole meeting. Other additions to this language could include addressing 1) size, 2) number, 3) permitted locations in the city, or 4) product banners not permitted. These alternative approaches would need to be discussed further by the Council. City Plannine and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The CPZC at their August 25, 1999 meeting voted to approve the amendment reviewed by the Council in September, 1999 with the addition of a definition for banner. The CPZC has not reviewed the proposal before you at this time. Staff recommended approval of the text amendment acted on by the CPZC in August, 1999. Council Action Needed: The Council can adopt the attached ordinance or wait for the outcome of a council member/staff meeting. Attachments: 1. Memo from Terry Adkins. 2. Proposed Ordinance 3. Language from the September, 1999 Council meeting 4. CUDE letter of January 19, 2001 Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. City Administrator File ACTION: Motion Second E OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: January 31, 2001 TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney I W SUBJECT: Ordinance Concerning Banners At its January 22, 2001, Committee of the Whole meeting, the Council asked me to draft an ordinance concerning the subject of banners. Specifically, the Council wanted to prohibit the installation or maintenance of banners attached to freestanding poles. Instead, they wanted banners to be affixed to the sides of buildings. The Council may wish to see other changes to the temporary/portable sign ordinance. However, the Council wanted to wait and see the outcome of a meeting with Council Member Senjem, John Hanford and myself on this subject. For now, the Council only wanted to address banners attached to freestanding poles. I have drafted the requested banner ordinance. I attach a copy of the draft for your submission to the Council. The ordinance removes banners from the definition of portable signs, further defines banners and prohibits all banners unless they are attached (within 18 inches) to the side of a building. (I had to remove "banners" from the definition of portable signs in order to avoid a conflict between the "attach to the side of a building" requirement of this new ordinance and the permissive "free-standing" provision of the portable sign ordinance.) The ordinance accomplishes nothing else on the subject of banners or other signs. Enclosure ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE CREATING AND ENACTING SECTION 63.2241, AND AMENDING AND REENACTING CLAUSE E of SUBDIVISION 2 OF SECTION 63.222 OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF BANNERS IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 63.2241 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby created and enacted to read as follows: 63.2241 Banners: Subdivision 1. For purposes of this section, the term "banner" shall mean shall mean a strip of cloth -like, vinyl, lightweight or other woven material on which a sign appears. Subd, 2. Notwithstanding any provision in this Code to the contrary, no person may install or maintain a banner unless the banner is mounted parallel to a building facade or other vertical building surface. A banner may not be mounted more than 18 inches from the wall surface to which it is attached. Section 2. Clause a of Subdivision 2 of Section 63.222 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: e) Portable Sign: Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported, including but not limited to: signs designed to be transported by means of wheels; signs converted to A- or T-frames; menu and sandwich board signs; balloons used as signs; flags advertising hours of operation, products or sales; umbrellas used for advertising, except advertising umbrellas used in conjunction with the operation of a restaurant; and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way, unless said vehicle is used for normal day -today operations of a business. A banner is not a portable sign. A portable sign cannot be made permanent. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2001. PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: m CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2001. MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Ord2000163.2241 14 AGENDA PUBLIC and RM "--ST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~` on TING add provisions related to MEETING DATE: 9/20/99 i 5 NO. signs I IoRgRARED BY: This amendment was initiated by the Rochester City Council after considerable discussion about the amount of signage that was being used by various commercial establishments throughout the city. The concerns related to the size and number of advertising devices being used in the form of temporary banners to advertise products and/or services being provided at the establishments. The result of these discussions prompted the following amendment to be considered: 6) Banners: Only one banner, containing an area of not greater than 32 square feet which is attached to a building, may be permitted for each business upon a property within any commercially zoned area. No banners may be are permitted to be attached to any other structures or facilities upon the property. This includes light standards, canopies, trees, other signs, or the ground itself. Planning Commission Action: On July 14, 1999 and on August 25, 1999 the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission heard this proposed amendment. The Commission a result of these hearings, the Commission added to the amendment a definition of "Banner : A strip of clothlike, vinyl, or other ven material on which a sign is painted". The Commission voted 5-1 to support the proposed amendment. Attachments: Staff report dated July 8, 1999 Planning Commission minutes of July 14, 1999 and August 25, 1999 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: i M(f 1.7I NIT second by: I k lo: - 6q January 19, 2001 , j Mayor & Common Council ATTN: Charles Canfield 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN. 55904 Dear Mayor Canfield & Common Council Members: CURE was recently made aware that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to temporary signs and banners located upon commercial properties has not been finalized by approval of a second reading of the ordinance. This matter had been discussed at a Council Committee of the Whole meeting on June 7, 1999, and at that time the Council concurred with the staffs suggestions limiting the number and size of temporary signs and banners. The Council also agreed that banners would need to be attached to a building wall. CUDE members were present at that meeting to speak in support of such ordinance amendments. The Council then initiated a zoning ordinance text amendment. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment was discussed at 2 public hearings before the City Planning & Zoning Commission, who then made a favorable recommendation to support the proposed amendment. The Council then held a public hearing on September 20, 1999 to consider the proposed amendment. The Council voted to approve the proposed amendment by a 5-2 vote at that meeting. The 2nd reading of the ordinance was to be held on November 1, 1999. At that time, it was recommended that this item be referred back to CUDE for further comment, and it was to be placed on the November 15, 1999 Committee of the Whole Agenda for further discussion by the Council. As of yet this item has not been placed on a Committee of the Whole agenda for further discussion. CUDE remains supportive of the proposed amendment as it is drafted and would respectfully request that the Council proceed with the 2nd reading of this ordinance so that it can be administered and enforced by staff. CUDE would also like to request that the Council direct staff to enforce the temporary sign provisions that were approved 6 years ago. At that time, Planning staff, CURE, the CPZC and Council spent many hours working on temporary sign provisions that would help reduce sign blight within the community. Over the last decade, the Council has taken steps (often difficult) related to signage to make Rochester more aesthetically appealing. CUDE would ask you to take a fiuther step by adopting the temporary sign and banner amendment and enforcing the ordinances that have previously been approved. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, Lee Ganske CURE Chairperson C: Stevan Kvenvold Phil Wheeler AVCIVUA.l. %'11VIV: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING MEETING 5-` / DATE: 02-0_ 5-0__ j ITEM NO.IIIIIIII ITEM DESCRIPTION: Roadway name change: Notting Hill Lane N.W. to Knotting Hill Lane Y.W. PREPARED BY. Janice K. Chezick GIS Supervisor The plat for North Park Tenth contains a roadway designated as Notting Hill Lane N.W. The approved designation of Knotting Hill Lane N.W. was misspelled on the recorded final plat. The developer of the plat, Mr. Leslie Lurkin, has requested to change the recorded designation of Notting Hill Lane N.W. to the approved designation and spelling of Knotting Hill Lane N.W. The AddressingIGIS staff of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department have no objections to this request and recommend that this roadway name be changed to reflect the approved roadway name of Knotting Hill Lane N.W. The official assignment and notification of addresses, for this segment of roadway in North Park Tenth, reflect Knotting Hill Lane N.W., based upon the approval of the pre-recorded Final Plat documents. There are eighteen lots that abut Notting Hill Lane N.W., Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of Block 4 in North Park Tenth. A new roadway sign of Knotting Hill Lane N.W. will need to be installed at the intersection of this roadway and Portsmouth Drive N.W. Recommendations of roadway identification changes are covered by Rochester Code of Ordinances, Chapter 31.32. Roadway name changes are covered by Rochester Code of Ordinances, Chapter 75.01. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Adopt an Ordinance to change Notting Hill Lane N.W., platted in North Park Tenth, to Knotting Hill Lane N.W. 2. Direct the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the Ordinance with the County Recorder. 3. Request motion to approve and include 1st and 2n° Reading on February 5, 2001. This request is based on the immediate need to install new roadway signage, as soon as possible, to reflect the official addressing along this segment of roadway and to avoid confusion or delay to emergency responders and the general public. Attachments: 1. Copy of map to identify location of roadway is attached. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney IUNCILACTION: Moloney: Seoondby: m 1^ wn•pyjl �; i 00'Sf[•y •NC, 1 .YZ,[120 1 °otiz-cosiL 1 ) -go-es-so s [y q� f [iifao �e O • `= 3 mot SBS 41 •pF \ �5�p N ./..S �� +;l Oda • ,_y • f o+ qh _ and � �"'L.�- .� %V�,) h / •^ Ay =/ IO •w °`[+[ _„ a yj(/gty,d.n CQ ' '' /• C N ' 'wR+i'v r a _ J N •Yt.l1� N i. � +C q \ .LYy N .� s N ✓f 7 •1 q rwl C ' W'Kl REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 51 / AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING DATE: 02-05-01 ITEM NO. EM DESCRIPTION: Roadway name change: Lexington Street N.W. to Lexington Place N.W. PREPARED BY: Janice K. Chezick GIS Supervisor The plat for Wedgewood Hills and Wedgewood Hills Second contain a roadway designated as Lexington Street N.W. When the plat for Wedgewood Hills Third was approved it was recognized that Lexington Street N.W. in Wedgewood Hills and Wedgewood Hills Second would need to be renamed to Lexington Place N.W. as the roadway extended into Wedgewood Hills Third. This change is made to comply with roadway alignments of new plats that differ from the original general development plan. The Addressing/GIS Staff of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department would recommend that this segment of Lexington Street N.W. be changed to Lexington Place N.W. There are fourteen lots that abut this segment of Lexington Street N.W.; Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4 located within Wedgewood Hills; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Block 2 located within Wedgewood Hills Second. All lots currently addressed as Lexington Street N.W. will need to be addressed as Lexington Place N.W. A new roadway sign of Lexington Place N.W. will need to be installed at the intersection of this segment of roadway and 52 Avenue N.W. 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. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt an Ordinance to change Lexington Street N.W., platted in Wedgewood Hills and Wedgewood Hills Second, to Lexington Place N.W. 2. Direct the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the Ordinance with County Recorder. 3. Request motion to approve and include 15t and 2ntl Reading on February 5, 2001. 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. Attachments: 1. Copies of three plats that identify location of roadways are attached. (Wedgewood Hills, Wedgewood Hills Second, Wedgewood Hills Third) Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: Lw —_ — w �/�� � - -�'r—AI•P/-3�Y7d 77YAflQ -- �y � � •� A ? W 9� o� � � �'9 � ? N --` C\1 O ! _ 5 ey C a In p !� A co !a - 311N3AY P uZ9— �, rt g 1 as Ap M lWacm N H 11+6 Q z, W liftIto IF o s fill e I ti H1if o�i 9�s0 fie M po iaio N 9 I 3.,li e £ 4 � r ; ! gR ƒ °2 0 p 3a" �t•; ;t� •�Pj,��t¢i;i B3lo i t 1 319 €3Jim.. f / s aL !{ssi jssSe E fffl E j)il 13f.1 �3sF1 t .g�ti jr, 1 11WAIt jt in 0A A • A :n J q F V � F F Oi, 3 <e� • e'n� 9Y Sr xr O 1° li RI n V L a hb = z I N E� I$r rr ra L mm r I.'JS O 4 b N - � - 77/AdO cl R , 1.6Ju.. IR 4 if U R iY: y h 5 ZI fill Jill M11 oo i z Tv$ry 4_ 'M'A' .LE F T- 43/,-- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: l�S ' 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works —a 02 M DESCRIPTION: North Broadway Cooperative Construction Agreement with PREPARED BY:Q40 MnDOT R. Freese/' The Minnesota Department of Transportation has scheduled for 2001 a project that includes pavement milling, surfacing, widening and traffic signal system replacement (Elton Hills Drive intersection) and other associated construction improvements to TH 63, North Broadway, from 4" Street North to Northern Heights Drive. The City has been cooperating with MnDOT on this project and previously agreed to provide the Professional Engineering Services for the design of the Project to assure that the Project could be constructed this year. MnDOT has submitted to the City two Cooperative Construction Agreements for the Project. The first agreement reimburses the City for $81,000 (approximately 90%) of the preliminary engineering and final design costs incurred by the City for the Project. It also requires the City to pay $16,213,61 towards the cost of installing new curb and gutter and resurfacing the road from 4" Street to Northern Heigts Drive. The balance of the Project construction cost, which exceeds an estimated $1,000,000, will be paid by MnDOT utilizing Federal and State Highway funds. The second agreement is a Traffic Control Signal Agreement for the updating and replacement of the Elton Hills Drive / TH 63 signal. The ageement provides for a 50/50 cost share between the City and MnDOt for all costs associated with the construction, equipment and construction inspection of this work. The city's share will be approximately $105,000. These Projects are include in the 2001 CIP. A total of $150,000 of local funds were approved for these Project. The Public Works staff recommends approval of the two agreements with MnDOT for improvements to TH 63 from 4' Street to Northern Heights Drive in 2001. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the following cooperative agreements with MnDOT for improvements to TH 63 from 4'" Street to Northern Heights Drive in 2001: 1. Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 81212R, and 2. Cooperative Construction Agreement no. 81136 City of Rochester NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING V7 DATE: 2/05/01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTAGENDA M DESCRIPTION: IBM Development ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works T)-o?3 andment #2 PREPARED BY: R. Freese The City and IBM entered into a Development Agreement on April 3, 2000 for numerous items related to the sale the property north of IBM to Ryan Companies for development of the Rochester Marketplace project. I BM ttac obligated under the terms of the Agreement to dedicate to the City the right-of-way needed for the future construction by MnDOT and the City of the TH 52 West Frontage Road from 37th Street NW to the south line of IBM's property. The right-of-way dedication was to occur by July 1, 2000. IBM requested and the City approved on August 7, 2000 a request to extend the date for dedicating the frontage road right-of-way to February I, 2000. Yaggy Colby continues to experienced problems obtaining precise right- of-way limits from MnDOT to use in preparing the legal description necessary for the right-of-way dedication. Additionally, IBM and MnDOT have been discussing IBM's interest in preserving the integrity of their park as it relates to the grade separation between the frontage road and the north -south park road. MnDOT proposes to construct a stormwater pond in the southeast corner of the IBM property and the sizing of this pond is being discussed between IBM and MnDOT. The Public Works staff recommends that the City Council approve Amendment 42 to the Development Agreement with IBM to extend the date for dedicating the TH 52 West Frontage Road right-of-way until August 1, 2001. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment #2 to the Development Agreement with IBM to extend the date for dedicating the TH 52 West Frontage Road right-of-way until August 1, 2001 UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I q DATE: 215/01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works E) -a 4 M DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — South Pointe — All Pointe PREPARED BY: Development ys,,. M. Nigbur The Owners of the South Pointe Development area and City Staff have had discussions relating to Platting of the property and impacts on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Right of Way Dedication for 60th Street SW & HWY 63 Interchange • Stormwater Management • Mutual release of a previous 1994 roadway contribution agreement • Construction of pedestrian facilities. • Payment of development/connection related charges including SAC, WAC, connection charges, Substandard Street Charges and participation in the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The developers have executed the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the South Pointe Development with All Pointe Development. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / if DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D a S W DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills PREPARED BY: South Second (J9705) $ � M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council. Michael Younge Development, Inc, (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9705 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills South Second" 3 m J G m 9th St SW m` COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City i Owner Contract for J9705 'Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills South Second" 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �3 DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT! ITEM Nn. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D —12(0 ?M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Basic Construction in South Pointe Sixth PREPARED BY Subdivision (J9740) fir— M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: All Pointe Development (Owner) & Elcor Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9740 consisting of "Basic Construction in South Pointe Sixth Subdivision" QSb COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9740 "Basic Construction in South Pointe Sixth Subdivision" UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 715- AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works M DESCRIPTION: Voiding Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve Hills North Subdivision (J9681) DATE: 2/05/01 ITEM NO. .LT? -a 'ARED BY: M, Baker Background: A City -Owner Contract was approved for J9681 on October 16, 2000, and signed by the City on October 19,2000. The Owner has contacted Public Works staff and indicated that the start of the project has been delayed, and has requested that the Contract be Voided. Public Works has received a written request to void the Contract that has been executed by the Owner & Contractor. It Is the Owner's intent to submit a new request for City -Owner Contract for J9681 at a future date. Staff Comments: The completion date for the existing City -Owner Contract has expired. Staff would concur with the Owner's request to void the current City -Owner Contract with the understanding that no construction of public infrastructure would take place within Orchard Hills North First (J96B1) until after a new City - Owner Contract is executed for this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution Voiding the City / Owner Contract for J9681 "Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills North Subdivision", by mutual agreement of the Owner, Contractor, and City. 1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE I� 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works (� o?g :M DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS PREPARED BY: �v M. Baker The Department of Public Works has received requests on one (1) property, to voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. This department has reviewed the information for this property and has determined that there is support for participation. Owner of the following property has requested voluntary participation in the City's Plan, with the applicable participation fee as follows: • Norlight Telecommunications (SDP#00-101) (p/o Lot 4, Block 2 Eastgate Commercial Park 1st Subd) $ 634.15 The Owner of this property has already provided payment for its respective charges. These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the property to participate in the City's Plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted property, in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I7 / DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works EM DESCRIPTION: Professional Engineering Services: Design of Northern Valley ppEPARED BY: Drive NE, Rocky Creek Drive NE, and Pedestrian path along r D. Nelson�>1 Rnnkv r.raok nr NF The following projects have been proposed for construction in 2001 and are included in the 2001 - 2006 Capital Improvement Program. Project: Construction of Rocky Creek Drive NE connecting the ends in Glendale Hills 3`d and Northern Heights 2nd (J-9716). Project: Construction of Northern Valley Drive NE from the north line of Northern Heights East to the south line of Glendale (J-9364). Project: Construction of a bituminous pedestrian path along Rocky Creek Drive NE from TH 63 to Northern Valley Dr NE. McGhie & Betts, Inc. proposes to provide Preliminary Design Analysis for $18,000.00, plus optional final design plan and specification preparation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. for Preliminary Design Analysis services in an amount not to exceed $18,000.00. UNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: I Project: Construction of Rocky Creek Drive NE connecting the ends in Glendale Hills 3'd and Northern Heights 2"d (J-9716). Project: Construction of Northern Valley Drive NE from the north line of Northern Heights East to the south line of Glendale (J-9364). Project: Construction of a bituminous pedestrian path along Rocky Creek Drive NE from TH 63 to Northern Valley Dr NE. L _1 1 — — r nps"x. Woe ��� �'\��r%i�iex�io Nam'`• - JJ i �,`[�,f �r _ a � - :, ,�;,7�� •j". "' � �IAMt�M6lxwanx CR xi� � �� �� Rochester Minnesota Land Surveying Urban - Land Planning Consulting - Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Construction Material Testing Landscape Architecture 1648 Third Avenue S.E. ochester, MN 55904 49 Tel. 507.289.3919 Fax. $07,289,7333 January 19, 2001 Department of Public Works Attn: Doug Nelson 201 4`s Street SE Rochester MN 55904 Re: Proposal for Services Rocky Creek and Northern Valley Drive Completion Dear Mr. Nelson: McGhie & Betts, Inc. is pleased to present a proposal for professional services. This proposal will define our scope of work and provide you with an estimated cost for the project services requested. Thank you for considering McGhie & Betts. Proiect Information We understand the City of Rochester is considering extension of Rocky Creek and Northern Valley Drive in the northeast part of Rochester, Minnesota. Both of these roadways are developed through the valley and the hilltop portions of northeast Rochester, however an additional 1200 to 1600 lineal feet of roadway needs to be constructed to connect these two streets. You have requested a proposal for the preliminary engineering work necessary to begin completion of this project. In addition, bituminous path from Highway 63 to the Rocky Creek/Northem Valley intersection is to be studied as part of this work. Scope of Services Based upon understanding of the project, we offer the following scope of services for your review: Subsurface Exploration We propose to complete a subsurface exploration along the proposed roadway alignments. We have estimated fifteen (15) borings will be put down along the roadway alignments. A report would be completed addressing subsurface conditions as well as representing recommended pavement sections for the roadway alignment. Wetland Delineation McGhie & Betts proposes to complete a wetland delineation along the proposed corridors. A report will be completed along with a field review by the local LGU authority. At this time, we have not provided a cost estimate for any permitting which may be needed. e-mail. mcghiebetts.com Established 1946 r. Scope of Work/Cost Estimate January 19, 2001 - Page 2 Preliminary Layout and Profiles We will prepare preliminary layouts for the roadways and pedestrian path. This includes a layout and proposed centerline grade and a preliminary grading plan. These layouts will also be used to determine the construction limits for this project. Right -of -Way Plat We propose to complete a right-of-way plat depicting the right-of-way needed for the roadway as well as the construction easement limits. This plat could be used for acquiring property to prepare for construction. Fees Our fees for these services will be charged on an hourly basis. For the work outlined, we estimate the following fees: Subsurface Exploration = $2,600.00 Wetland Delineation = $3,700.00 Layouts = $8,700.00 Right-of-way Plat = $3,000.00 Total $18,000.00 The above estimate represents an hourly estimate. You should be aware that actual fees will be charged in accordance with our current Schedule of Hourly Rates and that actual hours would be used for billing purposes. Should the scope of work change in nature or be expanded to include additional services, we reserve the right to renegotiate the fees with you. Invoicing will be monthly in accordance with our Schedule of Hourly Rates and Charges and payment for services shall be made every thirty (30) days as charges are incurred and billed. A finance charge at the rate of 1- 1/2% per month on the unpaid balance shall be charged on all accounts over 30 days past the statement date. Acceptance Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by endorsing a copy of this proposal and returning it to us. Please retain the original for your records. 83 / Scope of Work/Cost Estimate January 19, 2001 - Page 3 McGhie & Betts appreciates the opportunity of being considered for this project and we look forward to providing our services to you. Very truly yours, McGHIE & BETTS, INC. W LUG cl� David L. Morrill, P.E. DLM/b Accepted by: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Authorized Signature Typed Name & nae Date REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works —3D M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 6311-3-00 (J2270) PR�PARED BYVF , Construction of 11th Ave. S.W.: Lone Pine Dr. to 60th St. S.W. M. Easley The plans provide for the reconstruction of 11" Avenue S.W., including the installation of a 60" Reinforced Concrete Pipe Culvert beneath a large embankment. The plans further provided that the 60" culvert be of Class 2 design. Further review of the culvert and the depth of the embankment show Class 2 pipe to be of inadequate strength to support the embankment. The Engineer has determined it necessary to provide for a Class 5 pipe culvert. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1; project 6311-3-00 (J2270) in the amount of $14, 088.00 to cover the cost of: 1. The Upgrade of the pipe to 60" RCP culvert Class 5. Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with the pipe upgrade and find the cost in line with the pipe manufactures published price list. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1; In the amount of $14,088.00; Project 6311-3-00 (J2270) 111h Avenue S.W. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 97 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works �3 IM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #3; Project 9711 (J9432) p PARED BY: Construction of 11thAve. S.W.:48th St.S.W. to Lone Pine Dr. M. Easley The plans provide for the construction of a rural section on 111h Avenue S.W., from 48'h St. to Lone Pine Drive S.W. The plans further provide for placement of a crushed rock shoulder along the edges of the roadway. The Engineer deems it necessary to further provide for the placement of topsoil and seed along the roadway to minimize the risk of erosion of the roadway edge. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #3; project 9711 (J9432) in the amount of $13,978.80 to cover the cost of 1. Furnishing and placing topsoil. 2. Seed and Mulch. Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work and find these costs typical to topsoil and seeding work on similar projects. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #3; In the amount of $13,978.80; Project 9711 (J9432) 11th Avenue S.W. JNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works EM DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #4; Project 9711 (J9432) Construction of 11th Ave. S.W.: 48th St. S.W. to Lone Pine Dr MEETING 8q , DATE: 2/5/01 ITEM NO. Z) - 319, PARED BY: ,� M. Easley'"p The plans provide for the construction of 111h Avenue S.W., from 481h St. to Lone Pine Drive S.W. The plans further provide for the grading of a street intersection with Southern Hills Lane S.W. and 11th Ave. The Engineer has found the existing road grade of Southern Hills Lane to be inconsistent with the new elevation of 11th Ave. S.W. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #4; project 9711 (J9432) in the amount of $1,852.00 to cover the cost of: 1. Removing existing Pavement. 2. Excavating and grading to new elevation Southern Hills Lane. Public Works has reviewed the equipment and labor cost associated with the Extra Work and find these costs typical to industry standards. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #3; In the amount of $1,852.00; Project 9711 (J9432) 11th Avenue S.W. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 6248-3-99 (J9545) Construction of 48th St. S.W.; 11th Ave. S.W. to Scenic Oaks MEETING 91 / DATE: 215/01 ITEM NO. -A D-33 BARED BY:r" , M Easley\`cy„ The plans provided for the reconstruction of 481h St. S.W.From 11In Ave. S.W. to the West Addition line of Scenic Oaks Subdivision. During the course of construction it was brought the attention of the Engineer that future development on the north side of 481h St. would require placement of a sanitary sewer crossing under the roadway of 481h St. S.W. Plans were then amended to include installation of a sewer crossing to save the cost of roadway restoration and traffic inconvenience, in the future. Funds to cover this work are to be drawn on the Sewer Utility Enterprise account. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1; project 6248-3-99 (J9545) in the amount of $18,022.50 to cover the cost of : 1. Furnishing and installing a 15" sanitary sewer crossing. 2. Dewatering the trench area for pipe installation.* * Dewatering of the trench was not required, therefore, the final amount of Supplemental Agreement #1 (J9545) is $11,137.50. Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work and find the equipment and labor costs consistent with rates for other local projects. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1; In the amount of $11,137.50; Project 6248-3-99 (J9545) 48"' St. S.W. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2-5-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 0-34 M DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from 5" Street S W / 800 block PREPARED BY ,.yy �, D. Rossma The City has received a petition from the residents of 5" Street SW / 800 block requesting the City to establish Permit Parking on their street, to control all day parking during weekdays. The area is shown on the attached map. This petition is from within the Edison Neighborhood where Permit Parking has already been established on six blocks. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. #138 and staff finds that all conditions are met. The petition is to add a street to an existing zone. The street requested is impacted heavily by all day parking Monday thru Friday from a source outside the neighborhood. There are two "No Parking" restrictions inplace. The notes explain what is recommended for each of these. The petition has signed by the following percentage of abutting property owners or residents: Block street/row width # of signers # of owners % signing Notes 5'" Street SW / 800 block 24/75 10 10 100 % (1)(2) (1) There is a "No Parking At All Times" Restriction inplace on the north side due to width. This is to remain. (2) There is a "No Parking 9am to loam" Restriction inplace on the south side to control all day parking. This is to be removed. Staff would recommend in favor of the petition and would request a Public Hearing to be scheduled for March 51", 2001. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution calling for a public hearing on March 5, 2001 to consider establishing Residential Permit Parking Zone #6 (Edison Neighborhood) on 5th Street SW 800 block. UNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: q 1 I 7-1 O O O CD W et i to of o 0 � <c N a jv to v �m I a € O O N N w �, a d 4 �u11 IO g J a `Il O $ N O I O! N 'a gg IAVESW Y � Y �I AVE m (V rn a. mMo 6 AVE 9W ...ii. M. -� N. U12 O� Yw OOK Z $(n CL 6AVESW tl � d a q ' \ N mx r . z m" O (ll cn..1 3 o G) `° U Q m v W z _X o (Q cc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: AGENDA :M ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC WORKS D -3S AWARD OF OPTION BUSES FOR ZIPS / ORION BUS PREPARED BY: INDUSTRIES/ FEDERAL PROJECT # MN-90-X 131 1 A KNAUER 1k This is a request to execute a contract with Orion Bus Industries (OBI) for the purchase of two option buses. Federal funding for these option buses was approved on January 29, 2001. In February 2000 bids were awarded to OBI for the purchase of up to six (6) buses for the cities of Rochester and Mankato. This bid included two option buses for Rochester. The options were good for one year. Four buses (two for Rochester and two for Mankato) were delivered in October, 2000. The original award was made based on the following bid prices. Orion Bus Industries Rochester buses $210,000 w/ tires Mankato buses $209,000 w/o tires Optional electronic destination sign $7,796 The specifications note that if the options buses are awarded beyond 90 days of the bid opening that the Producer Price Index for Truck and Bus Bodies will be used to calculate any price change. Based on this formula a 2% increase has been calculated through December, 2000. Total cost and funding for this project is shown below. Buses ($210,094 x 1.02 x 2) $428,591.76 State $ 22,400.00 State Sales Tax 27,858.46 Federal $358,400.00 Total $456,450.22 City $ 75,650.22 Total $456,450.22 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution awarding a contract to Orion Bus Industries for the purchase of two buses at $210,094 plus adjustments based on the Producers Price Index per the City's specifications. INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. D,3(o 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 $2,641,374.96. Less: Any exceptions INCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (.� 2-5-01 111 AGENDAS CTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING G _ I :M DESCRIPTION: Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 by Rochester PREPARED BY: Development, Inc. for a 26 story building to consist of long-term and short-term stay Mitzi A. Baker, housing, retail, restaurant and a fitness center. The property includes the former Senior Planner library, Open Table and Christmas Shoppe at 1't St. SE and Broadway. January 30, 2001 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application at a public hearing on January 10, 2001, The Commission recommends approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. The Final Development Plan application shall include: • Revised building elevations that identify dimensions, building materials, colors and type of glass; • Additional details for the canopies and awnings, including materials, colors and elevations; • Details for exterior lighting, on the building and in the right-of-way; • Additional details for the streetscape, including materials, colors and elevations; • A sign plan, if signs will be proposed; • Additional detail for the decks and terraces, Including materials, colors and conformance with the Building Code; • Revised building and site plans that Identify recessed doors, final location for the skyway system within and adjacent to this project, and removal of ventilation shafts/grates within the right-of-ways for 1" St. SE or Broadway; • Modifications to the first floor loading docks and below grade parking to eliminate conflict points and comply with Ordinance standards, unless a Variance Is approved; The Walker Parking Study does not represent the current supply of parking available to serve this project. The applicant shalt coordinate with the City to resolve issues related to the supply of and demand for parking, prior to submitting the Final Development Plan application. 3. The applicant shall provide modifications to the water system, as identified in Items 2 and 3 from RPU Water Division comments dated December 21, 2000. 4. The site plan Indicates a potential conflict with a RPU underground duct and manhole system in the alley on the east side of this project. Any RPU-owned facilities that need to be modified or relocated to accommodate this project will have to be done at the developers expense. In addition, the developer will need to supply RPU with adequate area to place a pad -mounted transformer if they wish to have electric service at secondary voltage. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with drainage and capacity calculations of the surrounding stormwater system to address sheet draining from the building, and provide additional details regarding the street drainage patterns necessitated by the drop-off lane on f" Street. 6. Any needed sidewalk panel repair and/or replacement work shall be done concurrent with this project at the Owner's expense. T. The cost of any needed utility and/or street modifications will be the responsibility of the Owner/Developer. Any such work must be performed under a City/Owner Contract. S. The applicant will need to modify the plans to comply with Ordinance regulations for on -site parking design, or fife for variances to be considered at a future date. JNCIL ACTION: Moron by. Second by. to: STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: January5, 2001 �Ida+aD �II�a►� QfcoMEa�f+� '. . ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADOREssING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Type III, Phase 11 Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc. to allow the development of building that exceeds the permitted floor area ratio. The applicant is proposing to develop a 26 story building to consist of long-term and short-term stay housing, retail, restaurant and a fitness center. The property is located north of 1$' Street SE and east of Broadway on three parcels known as the former Public Library, the Christmas Shoppe, and the Open Table. Planning Department Review.- Applicant/Owner: Rochester Development, Inc. 7611 Little River Turnpike, #304 W Annandale, VA 22003 Consultant: Ellerbe Becket Michael Bjomberg 800 LaSalle Avenue MPLS, MN 55402-2014 Yaggy Colby Associates Chris Colby 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Doug Knott, City Administration; Rochester Public Works; RPU Water Division; RPU Electric Division, Rochester Fire Department; Rochester Park and Recreation Division; Planning Department Addressing Staff (see attached). Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER F ON Page 2 11 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 2. Project Narrative 3. Site Plan and Elevations 4. Referral Comments (7 Letters) Development Review. - Location of Property: The property is located north of 15� St. SE and east of Broadway. This project includes the former Library, Christmas Shoppe and Open Table. Zoning: The property is in the Central Development Core (CDC) — Central Business District (CBD). Summary of Proposed Development: The applicant is proposing to re -develop property within the Central Development Core Central Business District (CDC-CBD). Within this zoning district, a floor area ratio of 6 is permitted. The total site area for this development is 15,400 sq. ft, which would allow for 92,400 sq. feet of development. The applicant is requesting approval for a floor area ratio of up to 23 (23 X 15,400 = 354,200 maximum sq. ft.). This project proposes a mixed -use development to include retail, restaurant, office, fitness center and multi -family residential uses within approximately 335,000 sq. ft. of space. The proposed building would be 26 floors and approximately 336 feet to the top of the building. In addition, this project proposes to include below grade valet parking, with a drop off lane along 1" St. SE. Access to the parking garage and the service/loading dock would be from the alley. The building is proposed to be comprised of a 3-story granite, stone and glass base, with a brick masonry and glass exterior rising above the base. Multiple door openings are proposed along Broadway and I" Street. Canopies will be located above the doorways. Retail, restaurant, lobby and loading space will be located on the first floor. The second floor will include retail/office space and the skyway system. The third floor will include a fitness center. Above the base three stories, the building will be setback 20' from the north and 10' from the east property lines for the 4th to the 25r' floors, and steps back additionally at the top. This part of the project includes 143 for -lease housing units that will have terraces, balconies and large windows within living areas. A penthouse is proposed on the 261' floor. Please see the attached narrative report provided by the applicant for additional details. 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 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, procedure which requires a review before the Commission and hearing before the Council. The Council does have the authority to waive the final plan. 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 considers the suitability of the area and Page 3 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 the site design. The preliminary plan may addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, interest can be incorporated into the design. be approved if it is found that the development has or that a practical solution consistent with the public Density bonuses are granted in exchange for the incorporation of features determined to be of public benefit. Features to be considered are listed in Paragraphs 62.651-62.659 of the Ordinance. The sections applicable to this project are attached for your information. Proposed Development: Within the CBD-CDC zoning district, a floor area ratio of 6 is permitted. The total site area for this development is 15,400 sq. ft, which would allow for 92,400 sq. feet of development. This project proposes approximately 335,000 sq. ft. of space. The applicant is requesting approval for a floor area ratio of up to 23 (23 X 15,400 = 354,200 maximum sq. ft.). The bonus categories that apply in this case are: Density Bonuses: Section 62.656 Bonuses in the Central Development Core: #1 Architectural Treatment: This development proposes to include high quality building materials, with a pedestrian friendly base. Above the third floor the building will be set back from the north and east property lines. #3 Protection to Pedestrian Traffic: Extension of the skyway system is proposed with this project, which will provide connection to a public parking ramp. Canopies and awnings are proposed over the sidewalk. The applicant also intends to provide heated sidewalks adjacent to this project. A passenger loading zone is proposed along to St. SE. Doorways on Broadway are currently shown to open into the right-of-way. The building design will need to be modified to recess the doors to avoid conflict with pedestrians. #4 Streetscape Improvements: incorporated into the site plan are improvements, within the public right-of-way including benches, planters, landscape materials, paving patterns with varying materials and exterior lighting. This development proposes to continue the character of the existing streetscape pattern for Broadway through the project while upgrading this pattern by integrating higher quality materials adjacent to this site. Section 62.657 Bonuses in All Residential Development: #1 Proximity to Neighborhood Facilities: This project is located within % mile of an elementary school, Y. mile of a junior high and % mile of a neighborhood shopping or a convenience retail use. #3 Proximity to Bus Shelter: This project is proposed within X mile of an existing bus shelter. #4 Site Planning: Residential units are designed to incorporate private outdoor spaces and individual unit privacy. #7 Storm Shelter: The applicant will need to coordinate with the Rochester Building Safety Department to determine whether the below grade garage space meets the Building Code requirements for a storm shelter. if this space qualifies, this should be recognized as contributing toward bonus density. /6Z / loqPage 4 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 Section 62.658 All Development #4 Street Improvements: This project will include improvements to Is' St. SE. These improvements include rebuilding the roadbed, realignment of the curb and gutter, new sidewalks and street lighting. Although the applicant's narrative outlines bonuses for High Density Residential Development, those bonuses are only considered in the CDC -Residential zoning districts. The CDC-CBD is not a residential district. Criteria & Findings: 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 considers 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. Staff suggests the following findings: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Suitability of the Area: The proposed site is suitable as the location for an Incentive Development. The proposed use should be compatible with the existing land uses in the area. b) Site Design Criteria: 1) Capacity of Public Facilities: Utilities exist adjacent to this project. Some utilities will need to be modified (i.e. water and electric) to accommodate this development. The applicant will need to coordinate these modifications or improvements with the appropriate agencies. 2) Geologic Hazards: Not applicable. 3) Natural Features: Not applicable. 4) Traffic Generation Impact: The applicant will need to work with the City to resolve issues related to the Walker Parking Study and the supply of and demand for parking, prior to submitting the Final Development Plan application. This project proposes a pedestrian loading zone within the f" St. SE right-of-way. In addition, off-street parking and truck loading areas are proposed within the project. 5) Height Impacts: This project proposes 26 floors with a total building height of approximately 336 feet. Due to the slender design of this building, shadows will be minimized. The applicant has submitted shadow impact diagrams. The structure is not expected to destroy views from the primary exposures of nearby residential dwelling units. 6) Setbacks: The provisions for the "Multi -Family Residential" use category within the CDC-CBD require conformance with standards and setbacks applicable to multi- family dwellings in the R-4 (Nigh Density Residential) district. Through the Incentive Development application, the applicant is requesting to exceed the floor area ratio allowed in the CDC-CBD. in order to achieve the additional floor area on this relatively small site, the building will not comply with those setbacks. Page 5 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 7) Internal Site Design: This project is designed to orient retail and restaurant uses on the first two floors toward Broadway and is' St. SE. The building is setback from the north and east property lines above the first three floors. B) Screening and Buffering: Residential units are designed to incorporate private outdoor spaces and individual unit privacy. 9) Ordinance Requirements: Below grade parking proposed with this project does not meet Ordinance requirements. The applicant will need to revised plans or seek a variance to these standards. Also, see #6 above. Staff Recommendation; Based on the above findings, the Planning staff recommends approval of this incentive development Preliminary Development Plan, Subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. The Final Development Plan application shall include. - Revised building elevations that identify dimensions, building materials, colors and type of glass; • Additional details for the canopies and awnings, including materials, colors and elevations; • Details for exterior lighting, on the building and in the right-of-way; • Additional details for the strestscape, including materials, colors and elevations; • A sign plan, if signs will be proposed; • Additional detail for the decks and terraces, Including materials, colors and conformance with the Building Code; • Revised building and site plans that identify recessed doors, final location for the skyway system within and adjacent to this project, and removal of ventilation shafts/grates within the right-of-ways for 15r St. SE or Broadway; • Modifications to the first floor loading docks and below grade parking to eliminate conflict points and comply with Ordinance standards, unless a Variance is approved; 2. The Walker Parking Study does not represent the current supply of parking available to serve this project. The applicant shall coordinate with the City to resolve issues related to the supply of and demand for parking, prior to submitting the Final Development Plan application. 3. The applicant shalt provide modifications to the water system, as identified in Items 2 and 3 from RPU Water Division comments dated December 21, 2000. 4. The site plan indicates a potential conflict with a RPU underground duct and manhole system In the alley on the east side of this project. Any RPU-owned facilities that need to be modified or relocated to accommodate this project will have to be done at the developers expense. In addition, the developer will need to supply RPU with adequate area to place a pad -mounted transformer if they wish to have electric service at secondary voltage. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with drainage and capacity calculations of the surrounding stormwater system to address sheet draining from the building, and provide additional details regarding the street drainage patterns necessitated by the drop-off lane on Is'Street. 165" VW / Page 6 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 6. Any needed sidewalk panel repair and/or replacement work shall be done concurrent with this project at the Owner's expense. 7. The cost of any needed utility and/or street modifications will be the responsibility of the Owner/Developer. Any such work must be performed under a City/Owner Contract. 8. The applicant will need to modify the plans to comply with Ordinance regulations for on -site parking design, or file for variances to be considered at a future date. NOTE. Any private construction work associated with this project, within a public street or alley right-of-way will require an obstruction permit and a revocable permit for permanent fixtures in the right-of-way. i Page 7 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 EXCERPTS FROM THE ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL 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: 2) 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 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; too) (08 Page 8 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 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. BONUS DENSITY 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. Page 9 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 6) When the development does not abut an alley, the provision of other means for off-street loading and deliveries. 62.657 All Residential Development: The criteria in this paragraph may be considered for granting bonus density in all residential developments districts. 1) Proximity to Neighborhood Facilities: The development is designed with a minimum of two bedrooms per unit and meets three of the following locational criteria in relation to neighborhood facilities. a) it is within 1/4 mile of a nursery school b) within 1/2 mile of an elementary school c) within 3/4 mile of a junior high school d) within 1/4 mile of a neighborhood playground e) within 112 mile of a neighborhood shopping center or 1/4 mile of a convenience retail use. 2) Dedication of land for public recreation use which is in excess of any ordinance requirements for usable recreation space. Facilities to be considered include playlots, neighborhood parks, community parks, special use parks, city squares or triangles, parkways or trail systems providing access to major public facilities or along environmental corridors. 3) Development within one -quarter mile of a bus shelter or the provision of a new bus shelter along an existing transit route. 4) Installation of noise buffers where the development is exposed to traffic -generated or industrially -generated noise exceeding the permitted residential noise level of this ordinance. The buffer shall reduce the level of noise to a level no more than five decibels above the permitted noise level. 5) Site Planning: Integrated design of the site, individual lots and floor plans so as to provide 1) a varied streetscape (through varying garage and dwelling unit entrance location, landscaped front yards designed as part of initial project, or building variations that create identity through the use of features such as setback variation, archways, chimneys or recessed areas) and 2) individual unit privacy, (through orientation of major indoor areas to private outdoor spaces or window placement in such a manner so as not to create sightlines into neighboring units or private outdoor areas). 6) Housing for Low Income Households: Aside from the other provisions of this section, any unit constructed for low income families shall earn a bonus of one (1) additional dwelling unit, up to the maximum density with bonus permitted. The units shall meet one of the following three requirements: a) They are provided under a contract with a governmental housing authority which provides assurance that the units will be made available to low income families for at least twenty-five (25) years; b) The units are subsidized by either the federal, state or local government; 101 J Page 10 l l Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 c) The development application is accompanied by covenant documents or other adequate documents guaranteeing the use of those dwellings for low income families. The documents shall not be accepted until approval by the City as to legal form and effect, providing that the use restriction be for at least 25 years. In no event shall this bonus be permitted where subsidized or guaranteed units constitute more than thirty (30%) percent of a development, except where the development consists of less than ten (10) dwelling units. 7) Storm Shelter: The providing of storm shelter space in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 62.266(3). 62.658 All Development: The criteria in this paragraph may be considered for granting bonus density in all developments: 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. Page 11 Royal Management, Broadway Plaza January 5, 2001 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. REFERRAL COMMENTS City of Rochester City Administration Memo To: Mitzi Baker From: Douglas A. Knott Date: 12/22/00 Re: Broadway Plaza Incentive Zoning Application The Development District office supports the incentive development application for Broadway Plaza for the reasons outlined below: 0 The Broadway Plaza project addresses the following objectives listed In the adopted development district program: Achieve a concentration and intensification of the Central Business District and make it pedestrian oriented. Encourage development of high -density residential uses at or above the second level which complement existing and proposed new uses within the central business district and adjacent area. Complement and supplement the medical complex. Provide for easy and convenient pedestrian crossings of streets in a manner consistent with the needs of the area for traffic movement and circulation. Minimize the adverse effects of harsh weather. & The Broadway Plaza site is currently occupied by buildings that are substandard and are in need of substantial renovation or clearance. 0 Broadway Plaza's small footprint leaves space for other large scale development projects on the balance of the block. if Development of the Broadway Plaza building will permit extension of the skyway system across First Street SE to the old Library block. The redevelopment contract between the City and Royal Management will require the dedication of pedestrian easements through the second level of Broadway • Page 1 Plaza. The corridor layout in the second Boor of the building will be designed to allow the skyway system to extend to the north and/or across Broadway to facilitate future development. 0 There are a number of high rise residential structures in or near the central business district including Fontaine Towers at 17 stories, Park Towers and Holiday Inn at 16 stories each, Central Towers at 14 stories, and Charter House at 22 stories. Broadway Plaza will add to the CBD's residential base helping make downtown more than a Monday through Friday, 9 to 5 business center. 0 The zoning ordinance does not require developers to provide off-street parking in the CBD. Broadway Plaza will take care of at least pan of its parking needs on -site. �P Placing the on -site parking underground with access from the alley allows the prime street frontage to be used for commercial purposes. This supports the goal of developing an attractive pedestrian corridor on First Avenue SE between the downtown and the Civic Center. P The City's land use ordinances do not require off-street loading in the central business district. Broadway Plaza plans include two truck docks with access from the alley. Provision of an off-street loading area will reduce traffic congestion on the adjacent streets. 0 The project will extend streetscaping improvements on First Avenue SE. P The awnings projecting from the building will provide protection for pedestrians on the sidewalks. 0 The use of stone on the lower levels of the building, brick on the upper levels, and the roof design represents a very high level of quality and detail. The City's zoning ordinance does not require developers to provide off-street parking for their projects. For TIF assisted redevelopment projects, we have generally used a portion of the tax increments to pay for municipal parking system improvements Intended to address the demand created by the project. At this point staff and Royal Management have different perspectives on Broadway Plaza's parking needs and the availability of space in the municipal system. Staff will recommend that at least a portion of the tax Increment generated by the project be used to expand the First Street Ramp. c: Stevan E. Kvenvoid 0 Page 2 ROCHESTER Minnesota 1 /2/01 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur l!S 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 #00-35 Preliminary Plan,on the Rochester Development, hic. property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Drainage & capacity calculations of the surrounding stormwater system are needed to address sheet draining from the building. Street drainage patterns necessitated by the drop-off lane on I" St must also be addressed. 2. Any private construction work associated with this project, within a public street or alley right-of-way will require an obstruction permit and a revocable permit for permanent fixtures in the ROW. 3. Any needed sidewalk panel repair and/or replacement work shall be done concurrent with this project at the Owner's expense. 4. The cost of any needed utility and/or street modifications will be the responsibility of the Owner/Developer. Any such work must be performed under a City/Owner Contract. 5. The location of ventilation shafts/grates will not be permitted within the rights -of - way of Broadway Ave or 1" St SE. 6. The doorways should be recessed so that they do not protrude into the rights -of -way abutting this property. 7. The Walker Parking Study does not represent the current supply of parking available to serve this project. More information is needed to show how this development will meet the parking requirements. 8. The City should provide the light fixtures, to ensure they are the same as in stock. C:ITEMPNncenbveDev #D0-35 Rochester Dev 12-OO.doc ub ROCHESTER Minnesota 1/2/01 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4m Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 9. The Parking Agreement should include validation of short term parking for customers and a Trip Reduction Plan for employees, and group monthly parking. 10. It appears that the vehicle turning radius' in the underground parking facility and in the first floor loading docks may be insufficient. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: ❖ Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1653.67 per acre. <• Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per acre C:ITEMP%IncentiveDevt100-35 Rochester rev 12-OO.doc rpu '. we pledge, we deliver December 21, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Incentive Development, Preliminary Plan #00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc. to develop a 26 story building to consist of long-term and short- term stay housing, retail, restaurant and a fitness center. The property is the former Public Library, the Christmas Shoppe and the Open Table. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced Incentive Development Request 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. The existing 16" lead caulk joint cast iron water main within 1st St. SE is approximately 10' to 12' south of this property and must be relocated further south by the developer to accommodate the construction of this building. This water main can be downsized to a 12" and we are currently working with the applicant's civil engineering firm on the alignment and timing of this water main relocation. 3. The existing domestic and fire service connections to the 2 buildings along North Broadway that are no longer to be used must be abandoned properly per our requirements. The existing service to the former Public Library will be abandoned as a part of the water main relocation. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06"vt 1 � Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Michael Bjornberg, Ellerbe Becket Rochester Development, Inc. Ir? Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 " PU we pledge, we deliver 507/280-1579 December 27, 2000 TO: Jennifer Gayness, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv, of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Addendum to Type III, Phase II, Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc. The additional plan sheets show the existing conditions, utility plan, and the site plan. The applicant is proposing to develop a 26-story building to consist of long-term and short-term stay housing, retail, restaurant, and a fitness center. The property is located north of 1st Street SE and east of Broadway on three parcels known as the former Public Library, the Christmas Shoppe, and the Open Table. RPU's Operations Division has an underground duct and manhole system in the alley on the east side of this project. The site plan indicates a potential conflict with the duct. Any RPU-owned facilities that need to be modified or relocated to accommodate this project will have to be done at the developer's expense. The developer will need to supply RPU with adequate area to place a pad -mounted transformer if they wish to have electric service at secondary voltage. Sincerely, Michael J. Engle ks Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.org OIANESO;, O a� tiF Minnesota Department of Transportation a District 6 2900-48th St. N.W. OF 'TRPX4� Box 6177 Rochester, Minnesota 55903-6177 (507)280-2913 January 9, 2001 Jennifer Garness Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Subject: Proposed Broadway Plaza Development TH 63, CS 5510 Planning Log #00-12.02 Dear Ms. Gamess: Thank you for giving the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Plan for the proposed Broadway Plaza development. Our comments will pertain to that portion of the proposed development that fronts along the T.H. 63 right-of- way (Broadway). Within its right-of-way jurisdiction, Mn/DOT will not allow doorways which jut or swing out into the right-of-way. No part of the building foundation should be located beneath the sidewalk. Other design features must conform to Mn/DOT guidelines. Contact Mark Trogstad-Isaacson (507) 280-5545 for an application from Mn/DOT for a limited use permit to allow these features: Horizontal intrusions such as canopies, which may be permitted if attached to the building, at least 2 feet back of the curb line and of sufficient height. Visual and pedestrian amenities within the right-of-way such as benches, trees, planters, etc. You may contact Lee Gierok, our pernrits specialist, at (507) 285-7362 for the necessary procedures in obtaining a permit for any lane closures, sidewalk closures, or utility hookups. Mn/DOT will restrict lane closures on Broadway. Closures must be temporary and only one -lane during off-peak hours, such as emergencies, or for installing utilities, and two -lanes must remain open for traffic on Broadway during peak hours. These are in addition to requirements by the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department or other agency reviews which may identify design, parking needs, and other issues such that they are appropriate and sufficient for the proposed use. For any other questions you may have, please contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner at (507) 285-7369. VeceEryY Planning Director An Equal Opporturu y Employer -- . . w __. I-- . -- pYJ l L.D>G 0/4 fJ_ Jmo Date: 1/10/01 To: Mitzi Baker for 1/10/01 Rochester Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, by fax From: CUDE, Urban Design Subcommittee, part of CUDE/DDAB Joint Task Force on "Draft Development Framework Principles for Downtown" Re: Royal Management's "The Broadway Plaza," Incentive Development application, Preliminary Development Plan On 12/21 /00 Michael Blomberg and Nancy O'Brien of Ellerbe Becket presented The Broadway Plaza project to CUDE and DDAB members of the joint task force, invited, who were present. Mr. Michael Bjornberg, Ellerbe Becket, gave a history of the project and stated that they have been using the joint task force's "Draft Development Framework Principles" in creating this project and hope to begin construction in the spring of 2001. Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Ellerbe Becket, presented the design boards for this mixed -use project, summarizing uses and locations, scales, materials, entries, skyway locations, parking and parking studies and building volume. CUDE voiced support and appreciation for the care with which the project is being developed and felt that many points made in the "Draft Development Framework Principles" are being successfully incorporated in the project. CUDE briefly discussed the Incentive Development application: CUDE has confidence that the applicant will proceed in keeping with efforts to date, but noted that there are areas of incentive development criteria review of interest to CUDE, on which few details have yet been provided for review. For example, streetscape design and amenities Is an important area. * The Preliminary Development Plan is before you tonight. We recommend approval, with Final Development Plan submittal to follow, preceded by timely review by CUDE, DDAB, city staff and review agencies, to work through details benefiting the City and the Broadway Plaza. It was moved, and approved, that the Joint Task Force handle this project from here on in, rather than the CUDE group as a whole. It was also suggested and approved that as much material as possible be e-mailed. submitted by Christine Schultze, CUDE ��1'Ltil tw• member CUDE Subcommittee on Urban Design, and Chair, CUDE/DDAB Joint Task Force copies by e-mail: Jeff Allman, Chris Colby, Andy Masterpole, Bob Suk, Gary Turk, Mike Podulke, Dennis Hanson and John Kruesel, members of Joint Task Force; Sandi Goslee, CUDE Planning & Zoning staff member, and Doug Knott, City Administration * Some Items Discussed 1) Openness of building to streetscape, at comer and along street fronts; window and/or entry glazing cannot be closed, but tenant will choose whether openings are windows or doors. 2) Street level and skyway pedestrian visibility and connections. 3) Streetscape scale, materials and amenities. 4) Continuation of Rochester streetscape standards, which have been a maintenance problem; site specific variations; or new streetscape standards. S) Outdoor lighting by standards or illumination from canopies and building. 6) Outdoor dining opportunities, on First and Broadway. 7) Coordination with Public Works on 1 st Street SE ROW — might be narrower? 8) Care with scale and detail of building crown; care with how wind, rain and snow impact crown design. 9) Roofscape and building edge details of rooftop penthouse, which is stepped back from building perimeter' and roofscape. 10) Roofscape plantings or details @ building's setbacks, both for ecologic/energy reasons and because, as the city grows taller, our roofscapes are part of our urban environment. (see "Green rooftop technology saves energy, cools air" - Environmental News Network http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/ 12/ 12312000/roaftops_40979.asp), 11) Dwelling unit's open terraces, details. 12) Parking, and complexity of comparing studies and estimates. 13) Coordinating development, TIF and incentive development criteria for best/workable results for city and applicant. 14) Consideration of height and slender size of tower — not precedent, but might suggest review of existing FAR standards in CDC. MINUTES FROM JAN UARY 10, 2001 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Conunission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 infrastructure. !a3 temporary turn -around at the westerly end of "Middlebrook Driv and "Florence NW" is indicated on the revision of the Revised prelimin plat. Easements for these narounds, as well as for any utilities located outsid f the plat boundary must be cuted with the City prior to recording of the F' I Plat documents. 4. Since reconstr tion of 501" Ave. NW is proposed i e near future, the developer must execute a P strian Facilities Agreement the City prior to the recording of the final plat. Saida ement will address the veloper's responsibility to provide pedestrian facilities alo the west side of 5 Ave. NW and pedestrian facilities including pedestrian ramp long both si of all new roadways in this plat. 5. Storm water management facilitl m ded to serve this subdivision must be constructed concurrent with the in' stages of development. 6. An Ownership 1 Maintenance reement f utlot A shall be executed and filed with the City. 7. Parkland dedication re irements for this plat shal met via deferred land dedication with ded' tion to occur when the 6.0 acre rk shown on the GDP is deeded to the Cit Such dedication of land will occur w n the park is accessed via road or the Par epartment wishes to begin development the park. 8. The Owne hall execute a Contribution Agreement, drafted by City, to address the Ow s proportional cost share of the reconstruction of 50a' A ue NW. The Cont ' ution Agreement must be signed by the Owner before the Ci ill initiate a pu c project to reconstruct 50'" Avenue NW. Commission took a break. Type III, Phase II Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc. The applicant is proposing to develop a 26 story building to consist of Iona -term and short-term stay housing, retail, restaurant and a fitness center, The Property is located north of I" Street SE and east of Broadway on three parcels known as the former Public Library, the Christmas Shoppe, and the Open Table, Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated January 5, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker stated that she received refined calculations, from the applicant's consultant prior to the meeting, on the building's square footage. She explained that the original calculations took into account the gross square footage of the building. According to the Ordinance, there are certain things within the building that get subtracted (ex. storage areas and underground parking). Ms. Baker explained what the applicant could do to obtain density bonuses (page E61 of the staff report). IR Page 14 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Ms. Baker stated that staff would need additional details, at the final plan stage, regarding streetscape improvements. Ms. Baker referred to two additional referral comments that were handed out at the meting from Mn/DOT and from Christine Schultze, as a representative of CUDE. These comments are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker stated that the underground parking is not designed in compliance with the Ordinance. The applicant has identified an intent to use the space for valet parking. Staff is concerned that some of the stalls do not meet the minimum dimensions for stall widths and lengths. She explained that the Ordinance does not have any provisions related to valet parking. Therefore, she explained the applicant would be filing a request for a variance to the criteria. She indicated that staff would ask for documentation on how the underground parking space would be utilized and how they would restrict their guests from using it freely. Ms. Petersson asked where employees would park. Ms. Baker stated that it would not be underground. She indicated that, within the current zoning district, they are not required to provide on site parking. A determination needs to be made as to what the base availability of parking is and what percent of that base availability they are demanding parking for. She indicated that a parking study was done by Walker Consultants that the City has had correspondence back and forth with them. She indicated that it appears that there is some additional refinement needed to the study. She explained that the City is not satisfied that the study correctly reflects the current parking availability. Once the additional information is submitted and the final plan process begins, staff would be able to comment more firmly on the parking issue of the development. Mr. Quinn asked if the letter from Mn/DOT is part of their process or if it should be included in staffs conditions. Ms. Baker responded that it would be used as part of the process that the applicant would need to go through, because they would be working within Mn/DOT right-of-way. She pointed out that they did have concerns with regard to doorways swinging out into the right-of-way. Mr. Slaver stated that it appeared that there would be a parking deficit of 60 spots. He questioned if some of the TIF money may be used to expand the First Street ramp. Ms. Baker deferred the question to Doug Knott. Discussion ensued regarding how bonuses are granted. Mr. Kevin Mullen, a representative of Rochester Development, Inc., addressed the Commission. He introduced his design team, which consisted of Dave Kippin and Nancy O'Brien of Ellerbe Becket and Chris Colby of Yaggy Colby Associates. Mr. Mullen stated that the project would consist of 142 apartments. He indicated that they would consist of about 30 percent of long-term unfurnished apartments, which they hope will be attractive to residents of Rochester who want to live in the downtown area. The balance of the apartments would be devoted to short-term visitors. They would be fumished apartments. Page 15 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 lob 5� 11 Mr. Mullen stated that they are planning to get TIF financing, in the amount of about 3.8 million dollars, on a pay as you go basis. He explained that it means that they would front the cost and would hope to get credit on their real estate taxes towards those costs from the increment that the project generates over the years. He explained that the project would be very low risk, if any, to Rochester. Mr. Dave Kippin, of Ellerbe Becket, addressed the Commission. He indicated that the following would be on each level: 1 at level: restaurant and retail 2nd level: small retail agencies (ex. travel agencies) 3ro level: functions of the apartments (ex. business office, health club, swimming pool, and mechanical and electrical spaces) 4th & 5th level: one bedroom units (there are 12 units per floor) 6-24"i levels: two bedroom units 251h level: four bedroom units (4 units) 26'h level: penthouse unit (undefined at this stage) top: mechanical penthouse below curves Mr. Werven asked what percentage of apartments would be designated as handicapped accessible. Mr. Kippin responded that building code requires them to provide handicapped units. He indicated that the building would be defined as transient housing. He indicated that the market segment, for long-term, would be for one year leases. He indicated that 9 handicapped units (6 percent) are required. However, due to the unit stack, there could be as many as 19 handicapped units. Ms. Petersson asked how the development would be different than an extended stay hotel. Mr. Mullen responded that their clients would at least stay for 30 days and potentially up to three months. He explained that most extended hotels do not give clients the ability to make their own meals. Their units would have fully stocked kitchens so it would create a feeling of being at home. Mr. Kippin explained what types of stone, colors, and textures would be used for the building. He explained that the building would be visible from Highway 52. Mr. Kippin showed the access points where a skyway system could be attached. Mr. Only asked what type of lighting is planned for the top of the building. Mr. Kippin stated that the FAA requires them to have strobe lights. He explained that the lighting would be under the canopy and would give a soft glow in the sky. Ms. Wiesner asked where the snow and icicles would fall from the curved roof. Mr. Kippin responded that a troth would be constructed, along the sloped surfaces, which would be two feet wide and one to two feet deep. Also, it would be heated so that it would not freeze. In addition, they plan to put ice and snow guards on the standing slam so that the snow that (; T Page 16 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 accumulates on the flattest portion would break into pieces. It would then land in the gutter and melt. Discussion ensued regarding wind and the curved roof. Mr. Werven asked what an approximate fee would be for leasing. Mr. Mullen responded that the market study indicated that the market would bear anywhere from $1,000 to $4,500 a month depending on the unit. He indicated that he was not sure exactly what the cost would be. Mr. Mullen pointed out that the City would be proud of the signature building, once finished. He stated that he would be working with Doug Knott regarding parking and access. Mr. Quinn asked if the staff -suggested conditions were okay. Mr. Mullen stated they are concerned about the pad monitored electrical transformer for the main building electrical service. He explained the difficulties in locating it in the basement of the building. Ms. Petersson asked if he would be willing to work it out with RPU. Mr. Mullen responded yes. Mr. Brede asked what the timeline would be for the project. Mr. Mullen responded that they would suggest breaking ground in July or August of 2001. He explained that it would be a 22 month construction plan. Mr. Staver asked if the construction would mean extended street closure. Mr. Mullen responded that they have not studied that issue in detail. However, he doubted it would result in street closure. He indicated that temporary lane closure could occur. Discussion ensued regarding the Incentive Development application process. Ms. Nancy O'Brien, of Ellerbe Becket, addressed the Commission. She explained the amenities, landscape, and quality of materials used. She explained how the project could be a benefit to the City. Mr. Doug Knott, of City Administration, addressed the Commission. He stated that it is his understanding that they are not obligated to provide parking. He indicated that the City has the primary responsibility downtown. He indicated that it is their practice that they provide assistance to projects, when they know a project will create a parking demand. Therefore, their practice has been to take at least a portion of the tax increment generated by the project and use it to pay for additional parking. In this case, one option would be to put another level on the First Street ramp (what is commonly called the Radisson ramp). Mr. Knott explained that they have had some disagreement between consultants. He indicated that the City's consultant shows a need of 140 additional spots. The developer's consultant has indicated 94 spots. He explained that they do not know what percentage of people would have I Page 17 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 ray cars during their stay. Also, they are not sure how many vehicles would be generated for the restaurant and retail businesses. He indicated that is where the disagreement lies between the two parking consultants. He indicated that it is an issue that would be worked out with the developer. Ms. Petersson expressed concern of where people would get groceries, as they would have their own cooking facilities but no car. Mr. Knott stated that there are specialty restaurants and van service operations available. Mr. Hodgson asked how many employees would be working in the building. Mr. Knott stated that they raised the same question as part of the parking analysis. He indicated the crunch times for parking in the downtown area. Mr. Slaver asked if there is excess space in the First Street ramp. Mr. Knott stated that there is a little room. He explained that they manage the ramps so that, when it reaches 90 percent capacity, they turn the "full' light on for turnover space. He indicated they try to manage the Center Street and Radisson ramps for short-term parking. He indicated that they intentionally limit the number of monthly spaces rented. Ms. Baker explained that it is not a requirement, in the Central Development Core Central Business District, that they provide parking. However, it is typically looked at as part of the TIF financing. She explained the Ordinance thresholds for when a Conditional Use Permit is required in the CDC-CBD, relative to parking. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase 11 Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #00-35 by Rochester Development, Inc., with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. Mr. Werven expressed disappointment that a percentage of apartments would not be designated for a people who want to live and work in downtown Rochester. He indicated that he would support the project, however, it is a missed opportunity for doing smart growth development. Mr. Staver stated that he is supportive of the development, but is uncomfortable with the parking issues. The motion carried 9-0. CONDITIONS: 1. The Final Development Plan application shall include: • Revised building elevations that identify dimensions, building materials, colors and type of glass; • Additional details for the canopies and awnings, including materials, colors and 1;9 Page 18 City Planning and Zoning Comm scion Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 • Details for exterior lighting, on the building and in the right-of-way; • Additional details for the streetscape, including materials, colors and elevations; • A sign plan, if signs will be proposed; • Additional detail for the decks and terraces, including materials, colors and conformance with the Building Code; • Revised building and site plans that identify recessed doors, final location for the skyway system within and adjacent to this project, and removal of ventilation shafts/grates within the right-of-ways for 1' St. SE or Broadway; • Modifications to the first floor loading docks and below grade parking to eliminate conflict points and comply with Ordinance standards, unless a Variance is approved; 2. The Walker Parking Study does not represent the current supply of parking available to serve this project. The applicant shall coordinate with the City to resolve issues related to the supply of and demand for parking, prior to submitting the Final Development Plan application. 3. The applicant shall provide modifications to the water system, as identified in items 2 and 3 from RPU Water Division comments dated December 21, 2000. 4. The site plan indicates a potential conflict with a RPU underground duct and manhole system in the alley on the east side of this project. Any RPU-owned facilities that need to be modified or relocated to accommodate this project will have to be done at the developers expense. In addition, the developer will need to supply RPU with adequate area to place a pad -mounted transformer If they wish to have electric service at secondary voltage. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with drainage and capacity calculations of the surrounding stormwater system to address sheet draining from the building, and provide additional details regarding the street drainage patterns necessitated by the drop-off lane on I` Street. 6. Any needed sidewalk panel repair and/or replacement work shall be done concurrent with this project at the Owner's expense. T. The cost of any needed utility and/or street modifications will be the responsibility of the Owner/Developer. Any such work must be performed under a City/Owner Contract.' - 8. The applicant will need to modify the plans to comply with Ordinance regulations for on -site parking design, or file for variances to be considered at a future date. The Commission reconsidered staff findings for Variance #00-40 by Olmsted Medical Center, with regard to setback standards and access spacing standards. A motion was made and is located under the appropriate heading above. The Commission took a short break to change tapes. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2-5-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. A((Ih1Ug,D PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING (�,7 ,a M DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08. The applicant is proposing to PREPARED BY: amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 46 Mitzi A. Baker, acres of land for "commercial" land uses, the property is currently designated for "low Senior Planner density residential" and "medium density residential" types of uses. The�roperty is located along the north side of 48'" St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11 Ave. SW. January 30, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 27, 2000. Slaver moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08, with staff suggested findings. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3, with Werven, Schultze and Petersson voting nay. Council Action Needed. 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use Plan (as included in the staff report). Of the Council wishes to proceed with the land use plan amendment as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated December 22, 2000 2. Minutes of December 27, 2000 CPZC Meetings Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Kane & Johnson 6. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday February 5, 2001 in the Council / Board Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building IdIlk CIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: 31 130a, W TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: December 22, 2000 Ia.c.anAt■■•.1'� a aiCIV ANEW ya�ryi�•,p��,I ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/2B7-2275 RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08. The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 46 acres of land for "commercial" land uses, the property is currently designated for "low density residential" and "medium density residential" types of uses. The property is located alongq the north side of 48th St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11 h Ave. SW. Planning Department Review. Petitioner: R.L. Hexum & Associates 2640 North Highway 63 Rochester, MN 55906 Property Owner: Graham Properties Limited Partnership 20 2 Avenue SW, Room 219 Rochester, MN 55902 Consultant: Kane & Johnson Architects, Inc. 2460 Highway 63 North Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55906 Location of Property: The property is located north of 481h St. SW between T.H. 63 and 11th Ave. SW. Requested Action: The petitioner is requesting to amend the land use plan designation from "low density residential" and "medium density residential" to the "Commercial" designation on 45.66 acres of land. Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped agricultural land that includes pasture, crop land and a farmstead. �Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 LUP 00-08 December 22. 2000 The property is designated for "low density residential' and "medium density residential" types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Proposed Land Use: A petition to amend the zoning district for this property is being reviewed concurrently with this application. The applicant is proposing M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) zoning for this property, which would allow for mixed commercial and industrial development. Adjacent Land Use and North: Undeveloped land zoned M-1 (Mixed Zoning: Commercial -Industrial), in the City. Conditional Use Permits have been approved for a portion of this property to be utilized for mining/extraction activities. This property was re -zoned in 1998 from R-1. South: Across 481h St. SW is property zoned t3-4 (General Commercial) at the intersection with T.H. 63 S. The rest of the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). A public park is located adjacent to 11N Ave. SW. East: The east boundary of this site is adjacent to T.H. 63. The property lying east of T.H. 63 is currently zoned R-1. West: Property located west of 111h Ave. SW is currently outside of the City. There area several residential lots in the RA Rural Residential) District along the west side of 11 Ave. SW. Transportation Access A portion of this property is included in Official Map #12, which identifies right-of-way limits for a future interchange at 48'h St. Access to this property will be limited to one access along 48'h St. SW, as shown on the General Development Plan for this property. Access is also proposed along 11'h Ave. SW. Thoroughfare Plan: ROCOG completed a Corridor Study of the TH 63 corridor from TH 52 to Interstate 90 in 1995. The purpose of the study was to identify the preferred long-term facility design for the corridor. The adopted plan suggests that the long-term goal should be to move towards eventual development of a freeway, with access to TH 63 provided via interchanges. Locations that were identified for future interchange development include 40`h and 48'h Streets South. In addition, the Currently Valid Thoroughfare plan identifies a future north -south collector street between 40U' Street SW and 48'h Street SW. is3 t 3�Page 3 LUP 00-08 December 22, 2000 Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Criteria & Suggested Findings: 1. Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division 2. See comments attached to GDP #159 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of Land Use Plan Map The petitioner is proposing a Land Use Plan Amendment from the "low density residential" and "medium density residential" designations to the "commercial' designation on 45.66 acres of land located north of 48th Street SW and west of T.H. 63 S. There are several different "commercial' land use categories within the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. They include: {• Neighborhood Shopping centers (4-8 acres) • Community Shopping centers (15-25 acres) Regional Shopping centers (40+ acres) Highway Commercial (on major highway approach) In evaluating this application, it appears as though the property falls within two of these categories, Regional Shopping Centers and Highway Commercial. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies location criteria for "Regional Shopping Centers", defined as including one or more major department stores, or several specialty stores, best suited in areas with the following characteristics: a) Located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets. Finding T.H. 63 is designated as a Freeway on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, 49' Street is designated as an Upgrade Arterial. This property is located at the intersection of a planned Arterial and a higher order roadway. An interchange is planned for this intersection, which is slated for construction in 2003. The Thoroughfare Plan also identifies a ftaure Collector roadway to be located between 48' St. SW and 40" St. SW. b) Having level terrain. Finding: The easterly portion of this site, adjacent to TH 63 is relatively level to gently rolling. Moving westerly, the property ascends to the top of a hill. Elevations range from 1070 adjacent to TH 63 to 1178 at the top of the hill. The criteria requiring level terrain is not met for over halfof this site. Otherfactors that will change the character of this area, and the topography of this site, should be given consideration. Access to this property from 4e St. SW will be limited to one location that isfixed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 4e St.. The fixed location of access to 48`" St is located at the southern base of a hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 4e St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 48' St. SW and TH 63 and upgrading 04 St. SW io a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography ofthis site and the area. Lastly, the abuttingproperty to the north was designatedfor "industrial" uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain of less than 6%slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. FA Page 4 LUP 00-08 December 22, 2000 c) Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. Finding: Planned improvements for this area include an interchange at 48ff' St. and TH 63, upgrading 48'h St. to an arterial road with pedestrian facilities along both sides of the road, and a future collector road between 4V St. SW and 40r8 St. SW. In addition, II' Ave. is designated a collector on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan. Upon completion of the planned improvements, this property will have goad vehicular and pedestrian access. d) Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. Finding: The portion of the property included in this petition includes 45.66 acres of land. Access to this property from 484 St. SW will be limited to one location that is fixed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 48" St.. The fixed location of access to 48 h St. is located at the southern base ofa hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 40h St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 4e St. SW and TH 63 and upgrading 48"St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the north was designated for "industrial" uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain ofless than 6% slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan also includes criteria for Highway Commercial uses. 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). Finding: This property is located at the intersection of 48i8 St. SW and T.H.63. The ROGOC Thoroughfare Plan identifies a future interchange at this intersection with a future collector road providing access between 4811 St. SW and 401h St. SW. This collector road would function as a frontage road between the two roadways. In addition, 481 St. SW is designated as a future upgrade arterial road. Since the improvements are not in place at this time, it may be necessary to phase development of this property. b) Having relatively level terrain. Finding: The easterly portion of this site, adjacent to TH 63 is relatively level to gently rolling. Moving westerly, the property ascends to the top of a hill. Elevations range from 1070 adjacent to TH 63 to 1178 at the top of the hill. The criteria requiring level terrain is not met for over halfof this site. Ocher factors that will change the character of this area, and the topography of this site, should be given consideration. Access to this property from 4e St. SW will be limited to one location that is fixed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 48`h St. SW. The fixed location of access to 4e St. SW is located at the southern base ofa hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 40 St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 4e St. SW 135, " I ✓� Page 5 LUP 00-08 December 22, 2000 and TH 63 and upgrading 48`h St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the north was designated for "industrial " uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain of less than 6% slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. c) Providing for a concentration of similar uses. Finding: In 1998 the abutting property owner to the north petitioned the City to amend the Land Use Plan designation for that property from the "low density residential" designation to the "industrial" designation and also petitioned to re -zone the property from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). Those petitions were approved in June 1998, resulting in approximately 54.66 acres of land located east of Willow Creek, north of this property, being designated for "industrial" uses and being zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). Property included in this petition is proposed to be designated "commercial". A petition to re -Zane this property to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district is being considered concurrent with this petition. Amending the land use plan designation for this property from "low density residential" to "commercial" could provide for concentration of similar uses. d) Not detrimental to the safety or appearance of the surrounding area. Finding; Amending the land use plan designation for this property will likely affect the general appearance of this area and the natural topography. There are, however, other factors that will contribute to changing the appearance of this area. The fixed location of access to this property from 48' St. SW, to some degree, dictates a need to alter the landscape to provide access to and through this site. This access location is at the southern toe of the hill on this property. Future construction of an interchange at 48r° St. SW and TH 63, a collector road between 48'" St. SW and 49" St. SW and upgrades to 48' St. SW will also change the character of this area. Additionally, approval to amend the land use plan designation and zoning for the abutting property to the north to an " industrial" land use designation and M-1 zoning district in 1998 will contribute to a change in the appearance of the surrounding area. The hill located on the property included in this petition extends north onto the abutting property. With the infrastructure improvements planned for this area, approval of this land use plan amendment is not expected to be detrimental to the safety of the surrounding area. Since the roadway improvements are not currently in place, this development may need to be phased. Staff Recommendation: It appears as though this development meets most of the criteria for a "commercial" land use plan designation under the "regional shopping center" and/or "highway commercial" categories. Since infrastructure improvements are not currently in -place, it may be necessary to phase development of this property to coincide with the improvements. The criteria requiring level terrain is not met for over half of this site. Other factors that will change the character of this area, and the topography of this site, should be given consideration. Access to this property from 48th St. SW will be limited to one location that is fixed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 48ei St. SW. The fixed location of access to 481h St. SW is located at the southern base of a hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 40h St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 48 h St. SW and TH 63 and upgrading 48th St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the Page 6 LUP 00-08 December 22, 2000 north was designated for "industrial' uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain of less than 6% slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. Based on the recommended findings and with consideration for outside factors that will impact the natural topography of this site, staff suggest that the request to amend the land use plan to designate 45.66 acres for "commercial" uses, as petitioned for, is reasonable. IS? r (39 pqt- ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING DATE: December 20, 2000 HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE FROM: Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Divisian/SEPTIC FAX RE: LUP 0-08, Rezone 0-16, RL Hexum & Associates 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 507/285-8345 507/287-2275 The proposed site is bordered on three sides by roadway corridors designated as higher level streets on the ROCOG Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. These include: — TH 63 on the east, a corridor designated for long term upgrading to a freeway on the Thoroughfare Plan; — 48s' St. on the south, a corridor designated as a future arterial street on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. 4EP St. will be the primary east -west street in the north Willow Creek area, planned to extend from the TH 52/Marion Rd interchange on the east to CSAH 8 and possibly CR 104 on the west — 111h Ave. SW on the west, designated as a collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan The development of a highway improvement project to upgrade TH 63 to a freeway facility from TH 52 south past 48`h St. has been in the planning and design stages since 1994. In 1995 the TH 63 South Corridor Study was completed which reaffirmed the historic Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway, and identified the need for two interchanges at 40"' and 48'h Streets in order to provide adequate capacity to provide for local access to/from TH 63 from what was expected to be a significant area of commercial/industrial zoning. In fact much of the area has now been zoned for these uses, including the lands to the north of the site as well as the area east between TH 63 and St. Bridget's Road. In 1998 MnDOT, the City of Rochester and Olmsted County agreed to begin the next phase of project development activities that would lead to the eventual construction of the planned Interchanges by undertaking the TH 63 Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project. In 1999 funding for the first interchange was secured through MNDOT's annual project selection process, and this year the remaining funding for construction of the second interchange and reconstruction of connecting roads was secured through supplemental funds appropriated by the Legislature for upgrading of High Priority Interregional Corridors. The Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project has evaluated capacity needs, interchange and roadway design options, and a range of social, environmental and economic impacts. A preferred design has been identified which includes a diamond interchange at the intersection of 48s' St. and TH 63. As part of the design process the following access and cross section design features affecting the property under consideration are included in the preferred design alternative: AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 131 — One access along the 4h St. frontage which is intended to serve as the location for a public collector street that will extend between 401h and 48'" St. on the west side of TH 63. No individual lot access will be accommodated off of 48 h St. The access location will jointly serve the property on the south side of 48" St. as well as serve as the intersection for the planned collector street. The spacing of the intersection from the interchange ramps is dictated by the needs for queue storage at both the ramp and the frontage road intersections. With the expected high intensity of development, a distance of approximately 650 feet was identified as the recommended spacing. This is approximately double the distance found between the ramp and frontage roads at locations such as the 41" St. and 55'h St. NW interchanges. Those interchanges provide good examples of inadequate spacing between ramps and frontage roads, particularly during peak hour conditions. — The plan indicates the necessary right of way for the off -ramp as well as right of way needs along 4eh St. SW. Based on long term traffic capacity needs, 4Bw St. will be constructed as a four lane divided roadway with right and left turn bays provided at all intersections. Additionally, sidewalk will be provided along the north side of the corridor and a trail facility along the south side of the corridor. Staff would note that in terms of the proposed collector street (Commercial Drive) the element that has been fixed as part of the TH 63 design process is the location of the intersection with 4e St. The actual alignment of the road north of 48'h St. could be varied if there was agreement between the abutting owners for an alternative location for the road. In reviewing the proposed plan, staff would note that additional right of way above that shown on the GDP will be needed for 11 Ave. SW, consistent with its designation as a collector street corridor. Consistent with city policy, substandard street and capacity charges will apply to the property, and in lieu of preparing a Traffic Impact Study (which essentially has been completed as part of the TH 63 Preliminary Design study) a prorated contribution towards completion of that work by the consultant for MNDOT will be expected. Ir o Page 2 "� City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 CONTINUED ITEMS: Eastwood Bank Building. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff repo ed 3be4Vber 22, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Roche -Olmsted Planning artment. Mr. erede move able Arboretum Special District Amendment ite Plan #00-02 to Janu 2001. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated December 22, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that staff struggled with the finding regarding level terrain, as it is not level. She described the terrain on the property. Ms. Baker showed several maps of the proposed diamond interchange. She also directed the Commission's attention to Charlie Reiter's memo, in the staff report, regarding the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Staver asked when the roadway improvement would begin. Ms. Baker responded that the construction would begin within the next three years. Mr. Slaver asked if the funding is presently available. Ms. Baker responded yes. Mr. Burke asked if the applicant intended on removing the hill. Ms. Baker deferred the question to the applicant's representative, Tom Hexum. Discussion ensued regarding the frontage road. Ms. Baker explained that the alignment of roadways is generally discussed when referring to the general development plan. Mr. Werven asked if certain criteria weighed heavier on staff than others. He questioned if having level terrain would be more important than having an access to the highway. i Page 3 • (�� / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Ms. Baker responded that staff did not discuss whether or not certain criteria were more important than the others were. She explained that the traffic considerations were significant in the analysis. Mr. Werven questioned if there was anything in the Ordinance stating that a certain percentage of terrain could or could not be considered. Ms. Baker responded no. Mr. Werven expressed concern regarding staffs recommendation, as he did not believe it was a strong recommendation. He questioned if having level terrain wasn't more important than indicated in the staff report. Ms. Baker responded that there were significant discussions among staff regarding the application. She indicated that they did struggle with the terrain, as there is a definite hill on the property. She explained that they came up with their recommendation by looking at outside factors and the Thoroughfare Plan. She explained that any development of the property would have a significant impact on the hill. Ms. Schultze asked if Commercial Drive was a collector road. Ms. Baker responded yes. Mr. Burke asked if, in order to get a collector road in place, would there need to be major grading on the property. Ms. Baker responded yes. She indicated that gaining access to the property, in general, would have a significant impact on the hill. Ms. Schultze asked if access could go farther east. Ms. Baker responded no. Ms. Schultze stated that, when the Council rezoned the parcels to the north a couple years ago and with consideration of the current accesses, they predetermined that the hill would be changed. Mr. Quinn stated that the applicant would need to do a lot of grading on the property, due to elevation. Mr. Brede asked if the people who plot the roads have criteria as to how much grading can occur. Ms. Baker responded that the alignment was not fixed. She explained that the Thoroughfare Plan indicates that the roadway must go through the property to 40t' Street. Ms. Baker stated that the applicant would need to come back to the Commission with an application for an excavation or substantial land alteration permit in the future. I (�� Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Mr. Tom Hexum, representative of R. L. Hexum and Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the access to 48`" Street and the frontage road have been predetermined by lawsuits. He explained the different disputes between himself and neighboring property owners. He indicated that there are certain expectations that they need to meet, as the property is located at the south entrance to the City of Rochester. He also explained how they needed to match grades at access points. Mr. Hexum stated that the City Council officiated Official Street Map #12, which indicates where the frontage road will be located, what the width would be, and where the specific access points should go. Mr. Hexum explained the process he would need to go through before construction would commence in the spring of 2003. Mr. Hexum stated that they did not have any users identified for the parcel. They are only reacting to circumstances evolving around them. He explained that the use of the property should be used commercially, due to nature of the area. He discussed a possible plan for the property. Discussion ensued regarding the elevation needed for the road to reach the overpass. Mr. Hexum stated that the next application he would be submitting to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department would be a substantial land alteration application to go through the mining process. Mr. Quinn asked if there was a big grade difference between the proposed M-1 zoning district and R-2 zoning district. Mr. Hexum replied yes. He explained that the original application was for the entire property to be zoned M-1. However, staff pointed out that they could still create ponds along the river in the R-2 zoning district. He explained that the change reflected what they intended to accomplish in the end. Therefore, they revised their original application as indicated. Mr. Hexum explained how they came up with the cut off between the M-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Mr. Werven asked if a neighborhood meeting was held. Mr. Hexum replied yes. He indicated that Mr. Gary Swanson, Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Nastier, and Mr. Kellner attended. He stated that they did not have any specific concerns about the project. He indicated that they were just curious about what was happening. Mr. Harvey Ratzloff, who owns property to the west of the property, addressed the Commission. He stated that the hill is solid rock and, if Mr. Hexum's zoning request was not approved, the State could possibly condemn it. He stated that he believes Mr. Hexum has provided a good plan. He explained what the surrounding properties look like around Mr. Hexum's property. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Werven moved to recommend denial of Land Use Plan Amendment#00-08 b R. Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Hexum & Associates based on the finding that it does not meet the criteria of level terrain. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Mr. Staver moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08 by R.L. Hexum & Associates with staff -suggested criteria and findings, particularly with the idea that the character of the area is changing and the potential future use seems more in concert with what is being planned for that area. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. Mr. Werven expressed concern regarding ground water and natural resources. Mr. Staver stated that he agreed with Mr. Werven, to a point. He stated that he did not like seeing hillsides leveled. However, the Council set the tone for the area, in terms of how they intend on using the land. Also, Mr. Ratzloff commented that the State could potentially condemn the property and he would like to keep control. Ms. Schultze asked, if the property was not in the M-1 zoning district and the property to the north was in the M-1 zoning district, would a collector road be needed from 48th Street to 40'h Street. Ms. Baker responded that it was on the Thoroughfare Plan before either of the properties were designated for industrial uses. The motion carried 5-3, with Mr. Werven, Ms. Schultze and Ms. Petersson voting nay Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment 000-16 by R.L.. Hexum &Associates based on staffs recommendation and findings. Mr, Stayer seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Me. Werven and Ms. Schultze voting nay. _ Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the report, dated Qetember 22, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rocheste stet. nning Depart gity-caDepartment. Ms. Baker explained what a site capalc ion was. Ms. Baker stated that she woul Ake to add the followr ondition as number 9: "Parkland dedication requirements for tCtis development shall be me ' cash in lieu of land. The internal trail system should cony dwith public trails along 11'" Avenu W to 48th Street SW.' Ms. Baker statedlKi there are internal trails shown within the reside area and flood plain area that coul a connected to future trails on 48' Street and into 11" A ue. She stated that the access rnt at 48`h Street, in which the collector roadway will intersect, is d. She I �3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: PUBLICHEARINGS 943VULTIL-ILWI 9 DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #00.16 by R.L. Hexum & Associates. The applicant is proposing to re -zone approximately 46 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district and to rezone approximately 36 acres of land from R-1 to R-2 (Low Density Residential). The property is located along the north side of 48 h St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11t° Ave. SW. A Land Use Plan amendment and General Development Plan are being considered concurrent with this application. MEETING I DATE: 2-5-01 ITEM NO. �-3 REPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner January 30, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 27, 2000, to consider this petition. Motion by Quinn, seconded by Staver to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #00-16, with the finding suggested by Staff. Motion carried 6-2 with Werven and Schultze voting nay. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated December 22, 2000. Council Action Needed: „. Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision on this zone change. If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the Zoning for the property. Distribution: �j,-�; 1. City Clerk t %� 2. City Administrator lz�` 3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Kane & Johnson 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday February 5, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. NCIL ACTION: m By: Seconded By: Action: FA ig(,o TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: December 22, 2000 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-16 by R.L. Hexum & Associates. The applicant is proposing to re -zone approximately 46 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) district and to rezone approximately 36 acres of land from R-1 to R-2 (Low Density Residential). The property is located along the north side of 48'h St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11th Ave. SW. A Land Use Plan amendment and General Development Plan are being considered concurrent with this application. Planning Department Review: Petitioner: R.L. Hexum & Associates 2640 North Highway 63 Rochester, MN 55906 Property Owner: Graham Properties Limited Partnership 20 2 Avenue SW, Room 219 Rochester, MN 55902 Consultant: Kane & Johnson Architects, Inc. 2460 Highway 63 North Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55906 Location of Property: The property is located north of 481h St. SW between T.H. 63 and 11`hAve. SW. Requested Action: The applicant requests 45.66 acres be re -zoned from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) and that 36.32 acres of land be re -zoned from R-1 to R-2 (Low Density Residential). Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped agricultural land that includes pasture, crop land and a farmstead. The property is designated for"low density `-'Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ..w... Page 2 December 22, 2000 residential" and "medium density residential" types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Proposed Land Use: A petition to amend the Land Use Plan for 46 acres of this property is being reviewed concurrently with this application. The applicant is proposing "commercial" land use designation for this property, which would allow for mixed commercial and industrial development. Adjacent Land Use and North: Undeveloped land zoned M-1 (Mixed Zoning: Commercial -Industrial), in the City. Conditional Use Permits have been approved for a portion of this property to be utilized for mining/extraction activities. This property was re -zoned in 1998 from R-1. South: Across 481h St. SW is property zoned B-4 (General Commercial) at the intersection with T.H. 63 S. The rest of the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). A public park is located adjacent to 111h Ave. SW. East: The east boundary of this site is adjacent to T.H. 63. The property lying east of T.H. 63 is currently zoned R-1. West: Property located west of 11'h Ave. SW is currently outside of the City. There area several residential lots in the RA Rural Residential District along the west side of 111h Ave. SW. Transportation Access: A portion of this property is included in Official Map #12, which identifies right-of-way limits for a future interchange at 48`h Street and TH 63 and reconstruction of 48s' Street. Access to this property will be limited to one location along 48'" St. SW, as shown on the General Development Plan for this property. Access is also proposed along 11`h Ave. SW to serve a portion of the property proposed for residential/townhome development. The development of a highway improvement project to upgrade TH 63 to a freeway facility from TH 52 south past 48'h St. has been in the planning and design stages since 1994. In 1995 the TH 63 South Corridor Study was completed which reaffirmed the historic Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway, and identified the need for two interchanges at 40'h and 48'h Streets in order to provide adequate capacity to provide for local access to/from TH 63 from what was expected to be a significant area of commercial/industrial zoning. in fact much of the area has now been zoned for these uses, including the lands to the north of the site as well as the area east between TH 63 and St. Bridget's Road. �g Page 3 December 22, 2000 i In addition, the Currently Valid Thoroughfare plan identifies a future north -south collector road between 401h Street SW and 481h Street SW. Wetlands: It appears as though Wetlands exist, or may exist on this property, particularly within the areas adjacent to Willow Creek. The owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information to the LGU. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on December 1, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. at the Gardens Clubhouse. Staff expects to receive a summary of the meeting prior to the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on this item. Referral Comments: 1. Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division 2. See comments attached to GDP #159 Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Zoning Map Analysis for Zoninq District Amendment: Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. Finding for Pronosed R-1: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "low density residential" types of uses. Uses within the R-1 zoning district would be consistent with the current land use designation. Rezoning this property would help further the policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, which encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. This will also help to further goals and policies found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan to increase the supply of housing. Page 4 December 22, 2000 Finding for Proposed 81-1: A Land Use Plan amendment is being considered concurrent with this application. If the request to designate 45.66 acres of this property for "commercial" uses is approved, re -Zoning 45.66 acres of this property to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district would be consistent with the land use designation jor this property. Additionally, this area is changing. Future construction of an interchange at 48ff' St. and TH 63, a collector road between 48's St. SW and 4ds St. SW and upgrades to 4ff' St. SW will change the character of this area. Additionally, the City approved a land use plan amendment and zoning district amendment in 1998 for the abutting property to the north to designate that property as appropriate for "industrial" uses to rezone the property M-1. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and Finding for Proposed R-2: Uses within the R-2 Zoning District would be appropriate on the property and compatible with adjacent properties. Finding for Proposed M-1. In 1998 the abutting property owner to the north petitioned the City to amend the Land Use Plan designation for that property from the "low density residential" and "medium density residential" designations to the "industrial" designation and also petitioned to re -Zone the property from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). Those petitions were approved in June 1998, resulting in approximately 54.66 acres of land located east of Willow Creek, north of this property, being designated far "industrial" uses and being zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). The easterly portion of this site, adjacent to TH 63 is relatively level to gently rolling. Moving westerly, the property ascends to the top of a hill. Elevations range from 1070 adjacent to TH 63 to 1178 at the top of the hill. The criteria requiring level terrain is not met for over half of this site. Other factors that will change the character of this area, and the topography of this site, should be given consideration. Access to this property from 48's St. SW will be limited to one location that is fixed No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 4e St.. The fixed location of access to 48'" St is located at the southern base of a hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 40's St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the all nment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 48' St. SW and TH 63 and upgrading 48 St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the north was designated far "industrial" uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain of less than 6% slopes. The hilllocated on this property extends north onto the abutting property. b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Proposed R-2: Uses within the R-2 district would be appropriate on the subject property and would be compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood Compatibility between the R-1 and M-1 land included in this petition could be improved through buffering and lqq' (60 Page 5 December 22, 2000 screening. Topographic changes between the zoning districts will contribute to providing a buffer between the uses. The amendment to R-2 would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, and would not be considered spot zoning. Proposed M-1: A Land Use Plan amendment is being considered concurrent with this application. If the request to designate 45.66 acres of this property for "commercial" uses is approved, re -zoning 45.66 acres of this property to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district would be consistent with the land use designation for this property, and would not be considered spot zoning. Staff Recommendation: Proposed R-2: Based on the recommended findings, the petition to re -zone approximately 36.32 acres of land to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district could be approved. Proposed M-1: Based on the recommended findings and with consideration for outside factors that will impact the natural topography of this site, the request to amend the land use plan to designate 45.66 acres for "commercial' uses, as petitioned for, could be approved if Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08 is approved. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2-5-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Coj4- 4UfL> PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MDESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #159,48 Street GDP by R.L. Hexum LPREPAMRED Associates , January30, 2001 NOTE : After the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Planning and Public Works staff discussed recommended condition #7, related to contribution towards a traffic study and also discussed the alignment of the northlsouth collector road (e bullet under condition #1). It appears as though condition #7 could be deleted, if condition #8 is re -worded to include preparation of a traffic study or contribution towards a study as part of the Development Agreement. Staff recommended medications to these conditions are identified as strikethrough text for text to be deleted, and underlined text for text to be added. Also, Official Map #12 does delineate the alignment for the northlsouth collector roadway to be located between 40'" St. SW and 494 St. SW. This GDP identifies an alignment consistent with the Official Map. There may be some benefit in realigning this roadway, which -could require an additional amendment to Official Map #12. At this time, the applicant requests approval of the alignment shown on the GDP. Planning staff contacted John Arnold, representing the property owner to the north, to determine whether that property owner prefers the proposed alignment or an alignment that would shift the road to the west to allow for buildable land on both sides. Mr. Arnold informed us they are not in a position to identify a preference at this time. The Council may wish to discuss this alignment further. The requirement to realign the roadway (4`4 bullet under condition #1) could be removed, with the understanding the alignment could change in the future, iffurther communication supports realignment. City Plannina and Zoning Commisslon Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on December 27, 2000 and recommends approval ect to conditions and modifications. Schultze moved to recommend approval of GDP 159 with staff suggested findings conditions and modifications, with #7 to be clarified prior to the Council meeting and with #1 modified to require realignment of the northlsouth collector road. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay. 1. The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department. :• Additional right-of-way shall be Identified along 11'" Ave. SW consistent with the requirements for a collector road, including pedestrian facilities. :• Access openings on the roadway labeled "Commercial Drive S W" shall be corrected to line up across from other openings. • The southerly access to 11'" Ave. SW shall be eliminated. :• The northlsouth collector road shall be realigned to provide for buildable land on both sides of the road and to better work with the topography. Z At the time of platting, controlled access will need to be dedicated along Tit 63, 48'" St. SW and 11'" Ave. SW and the frontage road, except fore the streetldriveway openings approved with the plat(s). in addition, right-of-way shall be dedicated for 11'" Avenue and 48'" St. S W consistent with the requirements for those roadways. Any right-of-way in excess of dedication requirements shall be reserved as right-of-way. 3. At the time of platting, the developer shall dedicate their proportional amount of right-of-way for the 48'" St. SW/TH 63 interchange. Any right-of-way needed in addition to the area dedicated shall be platted and reserved with the first phase of this development. Terms of the conveyance shall be outlined in the Development Agreement. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Page 2 (�a RCA January 30, 2001 4. Prior to platting this property, the applicant shall complete a Wetland Delineation and submit it to the LGU for review and approval. 5. Development of this property shalt be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of planned roadway improvements. 6. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 5o developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance and ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of the development. Studr, theapplicantshall- provide-a-prora Gompletion of that by the consultant for MNDOT-, 8. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, phasing this development, substandard street reconstruction charges and/or traffic improvement district charges including 11a' Ave. SW and 48s' St. SW, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic Improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, extension of utilities, contributions for public infrastructure and obligations for preparing a traffic study or providing contribution towards completion of a study. 9. Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be met via cash in lieu of land. The internal trail system should connect with public trails along 110 Avenue S W to 4e St. SW. Council Action Needed: If the Council wishes to proceed with the General Development Plan and Design Modification, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval. 7(, Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Kane and Johnson Architects, Inc. 7. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday February 5, 2001 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. (5q TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: December 22, 2000 III MINIMUM rwiI'm Mii�As it a ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: General Development Plan #159 to be known as 481h Street GDP Planning Department Review: Petitioner: R.L. Hexum & Associates 2640 North Highway 63 Rochester, MN 55906 Property Owner: Graham Properties Limited Partnership 20 2 Avenue SW, Room 219 Rochester, MN 55902 Consultant: Kane & Johnson Architects, Inc. 2460 Highway 63 North Suite 100 Rochester. MN 55906 Location of Property: The property is located north of 48'h St. SW between T.H. 63 and 11'h Ave. SW. Proposed Use: The General Development Plan includes approximately 81.9 acres of land. The easterly 45.66 acres is shown as being developed with commercial - industrial uses, while the westerly 36.32 acres being developed with residential uses. Also included on the plan is a future off -ramp from Trunk Highway 63 and future right-of-way for 48th Street SW. Serving the commercial area, there is a north/south collector roadway that will continue to the north, eventually connecting with 40" Street SW. The westerly 36.32 acres is shown for residential development. Also included in this area is Willow Creek and possibly future wetland restoration areas. The applicant is also requesting approval to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan �Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER +wd. i Page 2 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 and Zoning Map. Those applications are being considered concurrent with this GDP. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates most of this property as suitable for "low density residential" types of development, with a portion adjacent to TH 63 shown for "medium density residential" types of uses. The applicant has filed a petition to amend the Land Use Plan to designate the eastern 45.86 acres of this property for "commercial" uses. The westerly 36.32 acres would remain designated for "low density residential" types of uses. That application is being considered concurrent with this GDP. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). A petition to amend the zoning district for this property is being reviewed concurrently with this application. The applicant is proposing M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning for the eastern 45.66 acres of this property, which would allow for a mixed commercial and industrial development. The applicant is proposing R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning for the westerly 36.32 acres of this property. Streets: The GDP proposes to take access from 48"' Street SW and 11th Avenue SW. A portion of this property is included in Official Map #12, which identifies right-of- way limits for a future interchange at 48'h St. Access to this property will be limited to one access along 48th St. SW, as shown on the General Development Plan for this property. This access point is approximately 650 feet from the TH 63 off -ramp. This distance should provide the needed queue area. The plan identifies a north/south collector roadway through the property, which is consistent with the Currently Valid Thoroughfare plan. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required along all roadways within the development. Sidewalk facilities will be required along the north side of 48'" Street SW and along 11'h Avenue SW. Drainage: According to the applicant, storm water management for this area could be self-contained within the site by constructing on -site facilities, or could be handled through participation in the City's storm water management plan. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to development. Wetlands: A wetland delineation will need to be completed for this property and submitted to the LGU. It appears as though wetlands exist on this property, primarily within the floodplain area. IS-57 (15W Page 3 General Development Plan December 22. 2000 Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer is located along TH 63 at the east side of this property. W atermain will need to be extended from approximately 700 feet south of 48t" Street. Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department has recommended that the parkland dedication requirements for the R-2 zoned property be in the form of cash in lieu of land. If the easterly portion of the property is developed with commercial uses, no parkland dedication is required for that portion. Environmental Review: This GDP does not trigger a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Dept. Transportation Division 2. John Harford, Planning Department LGU 3. Rochester Public Works 4. Rochester Park & Recreation 5. Olmsted County Public Works 6. RPU Water Division 7. Rochester Fire Department B. Olmsted County SW CD Report Attachments: 1. Copy of General Development Plan 2. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative 3. Referral Comments (8) Summary: This GDP proposes to develop 82 acres of land located between TH 63 and 11t" Ave. SW, north of 48t" St. SW. The eastern 45.66 acres is proposed for mixed commercial -industrial development in the M-1 zoning district. The western 36.32 acres is proposed to be zoned R-2, and developed residentially, potentially with townhomes. Much of the western portion of the property includes Willow Creek and it's floodplain and would remain open space. Roadways abutting this project will need to be upgraded in the future. Eleventh Ave. SW is designated a "collector" on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, 481" St. is designated an "arterial" and TH 63 is a "freeway". The Thoroughfare Plan also identifies a future "collector' roadway between 480" St. SW and 40t" St. NW, This GDP accommodates the future upgrades, with the exception of 11"Ave. SW. Additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated for 11 Avenue consistent with the requirements for a "collector" road. The topography of the site varies, with relatively flat floodplain adjacent to Willow Creek in the west to steep side slopes and a hill in the central portion of the property, with the eastern portion gently rolling to relatively flat. Future construction of an interchange at 480' St. and TH 63, a collector road between 48t" St. SW and 401" St. SW and upgrades to 48t" St. SW, and eventually 11t" Ave. SW, will change the appearance and character of this area. Additionally, the City approved a land use plan amendment and zoning district amendment in 1998 for the abutting property to the north to designate that property as appropriate for" industrial" uses to rezone the property M-1. It is likely that development of this property will require an Excavation permit under Section 62.1100 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. i Page 4 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings: 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 and Zoning District amendment are being considered concurrent with this GDP. If the amendments are approved, the land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the land use designation and toning for the property. 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. If the Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendments, being considered concurrent with this application, are approved, the density will be consistent with permissible uses of the property. The proposed site is bordered on three sides by roadway corridors designated as higher level streets on the ROCOG Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. These include: — TH 63 on the east, a corridor designated for long term upgrading to a freeway on the Thoroughfare Plan; — 48"St. SW on the south, a corridor designated as a future arterial street on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. 48`" St. SW will be the primary east -west street in the north Willow Creek area, planned to extend from the TH 51/Marion Rd interchange on the east to CSAH 8 and possibly CR 104 on the west — 11'" Ave. SW on the west, designated as a collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan The development of a highway improvement project to upgrade TH 63 to a freeway facilityfrom TH 51 south past 48 St. SW has been in the planning and design stages since 1994. In 1995 the TH 63 South Corridor Study was completed which reaffirmed the historic Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway, and idea lifted the need for two interchanges at 40`" and 48" Streets in order to provide adequate capacity to provide for local access to/from TH 63 from what was expected to be a significant area of commerciaVindustrial zoning. In fact much of the area has now been zoned for these uses, including the lands to the north of the site as well as the area east between TH 63 and St. Bridget's Roar. In 1998 MnDOT, the City of Rochester and Olmsted County agreed to begin the next phase ofproject development activities that would lead to the eventual construction of the planned interchanges by undertaking the TH 63 Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessmentproject. In 1999 fundingfor the first interchange was secured through MNDOT's annual project selection process, and this year the remaining funding for construction of the second interchange and reconstruction of connecting roads was secured through supplemental funds appropriated by the Legislature for upgrading of High Priority Interregional Corridors. rGe2' (59 Page 5 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 The Preliminary Design and Envirottmental Assessment project has evaluated capacity needs, interchange and roadway design options, and a range of social, environmental and economic impacts. A preferred design has been identified which includes a diamond interchange at the intersection of 48`" St and TH 63. As part of the design process the following access and cross section design features affecting the property under consideration are included in the preferred design alternative.- - One access along the 48'h St. SW frontage which is intended to serve as the location for a public collector street that will extend between 400 and 48`" St. on the west side of TH 63. No individual lot access will be accommodated off of 48`" St. The access location will jointly serve the property on the south side of 48`" St. as well as serve as the intersection for the planned collector street. The spacing of the intersection from the interchange ramps is dictated by the needs for queue storage at both the ramp and the frontage road intersections. With the expected high intensity of development, a distance of approximately 650 feet was identified as the recommended spacing. This is approximately double the distance found between the ramp and frontage roads at locations such as the 41' St. and 55" St. NW interchanges. Those interchanges provide good examples of inadequate spacing between ramps and frontage roads, particularly during peak hour conditions. — The plan indicates the necessary right of way for the off ramp as well as right of way needs along 48`" St. SW. Based on long term traffic capacity needs, 48`" St. will be constructed as a four lane divided roadway with right and left turn bays provided at all intersections. Additionally, sidewalk will be provided along the north side of the corridor and a trait facility along the south side of the corridor. Staff would note that in terms of the proposed collector street (Commercial Drive) the element that has been fixed as part of the TH 63 design process is the location ofthe intersection with 48`" St. The actual alignment of the road north of 48`" St could be varied if there was agreement between the abutting owners for an alternative location for the road In reviewing the proposed plan, staff would note that additional right of way above that shown on the GDP will be needed far 11'h Ave. SW, consistent with its designation as a collector street corridor. Consistent with city policy, substandard street and capacity charges will apply to the property, and in lieu ofpreparing a Traffic Impact Study (which essentially has been completed as part of the TH 63 Preliminary Design study) a prorated contribution towards completion of that work by the consultantfor MNDOT will be expected Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. This development will help to further the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan and also those found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan to increase the supply of housing. 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 Page 6 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 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. See response to Criteria "B" above. 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. See response to Criteria "B" above. This development may need to be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of the planned improvements. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Sanitary sewer is located along TH 63 at the east side of thisfroperty. Watermain will need to be extended from approximately 700 feet south of 48' Street SW. 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. See response to Criteria "B" above. This development may need to be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of the planned improvements. 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. 160 ' Page 7 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 According to the applicant, storm water managementfor this area could be self- contained within the site by constructing on -site facilities, or could be handled through participation in the City's storm water management plan. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to development. 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. See response to Criteria 'B" above. The residential portion of this development appears as though it will be served with private roadways. The GDP identifies two accesses to 11'" Ave. SW to serve residential units west of Willow Creek. The southerly access is very close to the intersection with 4e St. SW and may need to be eliminated in order to meet access spacing standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, This portion of the site will be developed at a low enough density that one access should be adequate. The commercial -industrial portion of the site makes accommodations for a collector roadway connection between 48" St SW and 40" St. SW. The location at which this roadway intersects with 48' St. SW is fixed, however the alignment is not. To more efficiently utilize the investment of constructing this road, the applicant should consider an alignment that would provide for developable land on both sides of the road on this and the adjacentproperty. Access locations shown off of the north -south collector road ("Commercial Drive SW'J will need to be aligned across from each other. The off -set alignment of the northern accesses will need to be corrected. Recommendation: *** If the Commission and Council conclude the north/south collectorroad should be re- aligned to provide for buildable land on both sides of the road and to better work with the topography, condition #1 should be modified to require this modification to the GDP. Staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable criteria: The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department: Additional right-of-way shall be identified along 11"' Ave. SW consistent with the requirements for a collector road, Including pedestrian facilities. Access openings on the roadway labeled "Commercial Drive SW"shall be corrected to line up across from other openings. 1p The southerly access to 11v' Ave. SW shaA be eliminated. 2. At the time of platting, controlled access will need to be dedicated along TH 63, 48t° St. SW and 11 t° Ave. SW and the frontage road, except fore the street/driveway openings approved with the plats). In addition, right-of-way, shall be dedicated for 11`' Avenue and 480' St. SW consistent with the requirements for those roadways. Any right-of-way in excess of dedication requirements shall be reserved as right-of-way. Page 8 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 3. At the time of platting, the developer shall dedicate their proportional amount of right- of-way for the 48'h St. SW/TN 63 interchange. Any right-of-way needed in addition to the area dedicated shall be platted and reserved with the first phase of this development. Terms of the conveyance shall be outlined in the Development Agreement. 4. Prior to platting this property, the applicant shall complete a Wetland Delineation and submit it to the LGU for review and approval. 5. Development of this property shall be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of planned roadway improvements. 6. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development_ Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a longterm maintenance and ownership agreement will be required. All required private starmwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of the development. 7. In lieu of preparing a Traffic Impact Study, the applicant shall provide a prorated contribution towards completion of that by the consultant for MNDOT. B. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, phasing this development, substandard street reconstruction charges and/or traffic improvement district charges including 11t8 Ave. SW and 480' St. SW, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, extension of utilities and contributions for public infrastructure. r�I I Ida T DATE: December 20, 2000 M ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE FROM: Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation DivisiarvsEPTIC FAX RE: LUP 0-08, Rezone 0.16, RL Hexum & Associates 507/285-8232 5071235-8224 507/285-8213 507/285-8345 5071287-2275 The proposed site is bordered on three sides by roadway corridors designated as higher level streets on the ROCOG Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. These include: — TH 63 on the east, a corridor designated for long term upgrading to a freeway on the Thoroughfare Plan; — 48th St. on the south, a corridor designated as a future arterial street on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. 481h St. will be the primary east -west street in the north Willow Creek area, planned to extend from the TH 52/Marion Rd interchange on the east to CSAH 8 and possibly CR 104 on the west — 111h Ave. SW on the west, designated as a collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan The development of a highway improvement project to upgrade TH 63 to a freeway facility from TH 52 south past 481h St, has been in the planning and design stages since 1994. In 1995 the TH 63 South Corridor Study was completed which reaffirmed the historic Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway, and identified the need for two interchanges at 40th and 48th Streets in order to provide adequate capacity to provide for local access to/from TH 63 from what was expected to be a significant area of commercial/industrial zoning. In fact much of the area has now been zoned for these uses, including the lands to the north of the site as well as the area east between TH 63 and St. Bridget's Road. In 1998 MnDOT, the City of Rochester and Olmsted County agreed to begin the next phase of project development activities that would lead to the eventual construction of the planned interchanges by undertaking the TH 63 Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project. In 1999 funding for the first interchange was secured through MNDOT's annual project selection process, and this year the remaining funding for construction of the second interchange and reconstruction of connecting roads was secured through supplemental funds appropriated by the Legislature for upgrading of High Priority Interregional Corridors. The Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project has evaluated capacity needs, interchange and roadway design options, and a range of social, environmental and economic impacts. A preferred design has been identified which includes a diamond interchange at the intersection of 48th St. and TH 63. As part of the design process the following access and cross section design features affecting the property under consideration are included in the preferred design alternative: V AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Rx.n. /�s — One access along the 481h St. frontage which is intended to serve as the location for a public collector street that will extend between 40'0 and 481h St. on the west side of TH 63. No individual lot access will be accommodated off of 48'h St. The access location will jointly serve the property on the south side of 481h St. as well as serve as the intersection for the planned collector street. The spacing of the intersection from the interchange ramps is dictated by the needs for queue storage at both the ramp and the frontage road intersections. With the expected high intensity of development, a distance of approximately 650 feet was identified as the recommended spacing. This is approximately double the distance found between the ramp and frontage roads at locations such as the 41" St. and 551h St. NW interchanges. Those interchanges provide good examples of inadequate spacing between ramps and frontage roads, particularly during peak hour conditions. — The plan indicates the necessary right of way for the off -ramp as well as right of way needs along 48`h St. SW. Based on long term traffic capacity needs, 481h St. will be constructed as a four lane divided roadway with right and left turn bays provided at all intersections. Additionally, sidewalk will be provided along the north side of the corridor and a trail facility along the south side of the corridor. Staff would note that in terms of the proposed collector street (Commercial Drive) the element that has been fixed as part of the TH 63 design process is the location of the intersection with 48`h St. The actual alignment of the road north of 481h St. could be varied if there was agreement between the abutting owners for an alternative location for the road. In reviewing the proposed plan, staff would note that additional right of way above that shown on the GDP will be needed for 11 plan, SW, consistent with its designation as a collector street corridor. Consistent with city policy, substandard street and capacity charges will apply to the property, and in lieu of preparing a Traffic Impact Study (which essentially has been completed as part of the TH 63 Preliminary Design study) a prorated contribution towards completion of that work by the consultant for MNDOT will be expected. WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: wP-400-05 tl- ZC4' 00-16 4,%_ "W No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. _ A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. Other or Explanation From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative ROCHESTER Minnesota 12/12/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur REVISED APPLICATION 12/12/00 r �s .11 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 General Development Plan #159, LUPA#00-08. & ZONE#00-16 on the R.L. Hexum & Associates (48th St SW) vroperty. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Note: New comments are indicated in BOLD. 1. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, substandard street reconstruction charges & Traffic Improvement District charges, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. The use of on -site detention is discussed in the narrative for the GDP plan. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance & ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 3. Controlled access is required along the T.H. 63 ROW, along 48d St SW, l ls' Ave SW, & Frontage Road, except for street / driveway openings approved on the plat(s). The Frontage Road access spacing / openings shall line up across the street from other access openings. 4. A Traffic Impact Report is required, or the Owner may amend the current Traffic Analysis in the T.H. 63 Environmental Assessment documents.. 5. Traffic Improvement District contribution, and/or Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge will be applicable for Southwest Traffic Improvements, including 11 s, Ave SW & 48"' St SW. C:\TEMP%GDP159 REVISED 12-7-OO.doc (W ROCHESTER Minnesota 12/12/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael I Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4 h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 6. Developer agrees to dedicate their proportional amount of right of way for the 48 b St SW / T.H. 63 interchange. Any ROW needed in addition to the area dedicated shall be platted and reserved with the first phase of this development. Terms of the conveyance shall be outlined in the Development Agreement. 7. The Owner needs to address long term maintenance and ownership of the floodway. 8. Pedestrian facilities will be required along all new public roads within this property, and along the north side of 48 St SW. 9. Specific routing of sanitary sewer lines will be reviewed further during the platting stages. 10. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure. 11. A substantial Land Alteration Permit will be required for the grading of this property. 12. It appears that the proposed R-1 development west of Willow Creek may have an impact on the floodway and wetlands. Shoreland Zoning requirements may limit development along 11t6 Ave. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): ❖ Sanitary Sewer Availability (SAC) and Connection Charges for J8989. •:• Water Availability Charge (WAC) for J8868 •:• A proportional share contribution to the SW TID. M Q\TEMPIG0P159 REVISED 12-7-00.doc TV /61 we pledge, we deliver December 13, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: AMENDED APPLICATION: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08 and Zoning District Amendment #00-16 by R.L. Hexum & Associates to amend the land use plan designation from low density residential to commercial and re -zone from R-1 to M-1 on 82 acres of land and General Development Plan #159 for the same property. Dear Ms. Baker: Our review of the referenced (Amended Application) land use plan amendment is complete and our comments follow: 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. This area is serviceable from the Intermediate Level Water System that was developed from the Airport High Level Water System and is available for connection approximately 700' south of 48 h St SW (approximately 150' north of Southern Woods Circle SW). This water main must be extended through the developable portion of the commercial area designated on the approved Southern Woods General Development Plan. 3. Pressures will range from the mid 80's PSI to mid 90's PSI from this system depending on the final site elevations. 4. The water mains in the proposed cul-de-sacs must be properly looped and stub -outs to adjacent properties must be made. 5. Due to the complexity of creating an adequate water system in this general area, information on the proposed use and finished grade for the adjacent property to the north must be taken into account in the final water system layout for this property. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop this layout. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06.jA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention R.L. Hexum & Associates Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 1.! park & recreation DATE: December 8, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning SUBJECT: General Development Plan #159 R L Hexum & Associates The commercial / industrial zoned property is not subject to parkland dedication requirements. The R2 zoned property will be subject to parkland dedication requirements. The dedication should be in the form of cash in lieu of land. The internal trail system should connect to pedestrian facilities along 48`h Street and 11 Avenue. \\ CITY_OF_ROCHESTER\ CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\GDP 159 HEXUM.DOC December 18, 2000 Jennifer Gayness Planning Department Dear Jennifer: The Public Works Department has reviewed Zonino District Amendment #00-16 by R.L. I• M PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 5071285-8231 n Amendment #00-08 and ciates and has the following • South access onto 11th Ave. S.W. appears very close to the 4e St. intersection. Sincerely, Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:bw t%engindoclplanzane.dac AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks 6 Agriculture Solid Waste him RICHESTERveo i✓crce�a�cz DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief Rochester Fire Department 201 4th Street SE, Room 10 Rochester, NIN 55904-3726 (507)285-8072 FAX #(507)285-8256 DATE: November 30, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief SUBJECT: 1. Land Use Plan Amend.#00-08 and Zoning District Amend.#00-16, by R.L. Hexum & Assoc. 2. General Development Plan #159 by R.L Hexum & Assoc., located north of 48th St SW, west of TH 63 and east of 11th Ave SW. This project is presently beyond the 4 minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire Department and is adding 82 acres of commercial 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. 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 street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy. 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 R.L. Hexum & Assoc., 2460 Hwy 63 North, Rochester, Mn. 55906 Yaggy Colby Assoc., 717 3rd Ave. SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904 rj OLMSTED SOIL AND ATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1485 Industrial Drive NW Roam 102 Rochester, Minnesota 55901 (507)280-2850 Fax (507) 280-2858 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Date: December 1, 2000 To: Jennifer Garness From: Tony Hill RE: General Development Plan #159— R.L. Hexum & Associates General Development Plan Review Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area: Is present within the GDP. It appears that the Decorah Edge Recharge Area underlies commercial lot areas 1,2, and 4. This assessment is based on the Olmsted County Geological Atlas and bedrock mapping using ArcView coverages of the two -foot contour lines. More accurate geologic information regarding the elevation of the Decorah edge contact may be available from borings completed near the site. General development recommendations for the Decorah Edge setting should be considered for this site. Decorah Edge Recommendations 1. Delinatation of the high water table conditions be completed. 2. Limit the extent of grading that can occur where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. 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 disturb, require that intercepted recharge water be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of recharge processes. 5. Clay plugs be installed in utility trenches as means of maintaining dispersed groundwater recharge flows. 6. Preserve the unique hydric features of the site. If some areas of the site become altered due to regrading we recommend preserving the lower Glenwood shale formation. The Glenwood formation is a low conductivity unit that is well known to function as a confining bed for the St. Peter sandstone formation. Preserving the Glenwood shale formation will allow for some natural protection of the groundwater system. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Soils Information: Erodible Soils: There appears to be highly erodible soils (Lindstrom silt loam-401 B, Channahon loam-472C, Brodale flaggy loam-488F, and Brodale-Sogan complex-973D) within the proposed plat. Erosion control and runoff measures must be installed and maintained during all phases of construction. . Hydric Soils: Review of the Olmsted County Soil Survey indicated that hydric soils (Maxfield silt loam-378, and Littleton silt Ioam477B) are present within the plat. Wetlands: National Wetland Inventory Maps indicated that wetlands are present within the plat. Further delineation is required. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 280-2850. El b N b A Z� (D I r L U) 0 LYE DE j, 12/05/00 Mrritz M_1 t DESCRIPTION That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter lying westerly of the westerly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No.63, all in Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, Except the west 1200.00 feet thereof. Said tract contains 45.66 acres, more or less. Land Use Densitv Area 1 24.55 acres+ Gross acreage 492,080 sq. ft. Net commercial lots (Highway Commercial) 246,040 sq. ft. Max. building area (0.5 FAR) Area 2 21.45 acres t Gross acreage 934,362 sq. ft. Net commercial lots (Highway Commercial) 467,181 sq. ft. Max. building area (0.5 FAR) R-2 DESCRIPTION The west 1200.00 feet of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said tract contains 36.32 acres, more or less. Land Use Densitv Area 3 36.00 acrest Gross acreage 19.27 acres` Open space/floodway 13.09 acrest Net residential/ town home lots 91 units. Max. numbers of units (7/acres) ern r #7101 Mfritz I 1 /O 1/00 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SOUTH BROADWAY PARTNERS The proposed development is an approximate 82-acre parcel located at the northwest comer of State Highway 63 and 48`s Street SW. The existing site topography ranges from relatively flat floodplain along the western portion of the site, to a rolling hilltop with steep side slopes along the middle to northern portion of the site. Storm water management for this area could be self- contained within the site by construction of on -site retention facilities, or could be handled by participation in the storm water management plan. Existing City sanitary sewer is located along TH 63 at the east side of the property. Existing City water main is located approximately 700' south of 48`s Street at the center of the property. The national wetland inventory maps show several possible wetland areas in the west central portion of the site. A branch of Willow Creek crosses the western portion of the site, and adjoining this creek are areas in Flood Zone AE. The lower portions of the site along Willow Creek and along the easterly edge are generally silt loam soils with a high water table. The upper portion through the central part of the site is generally silt loam soils with shallow limestone bedrock. The developer is requesting that the west 1,200 sq. ft. of the site be zoned for low -density residential and the balance of the site be zoned for mixed commercial/industrial use. The eventual use for the property may be either industrial or business related. The floodplain area along Willow Creek would be developed as a site amenity such as wetland restoration, storm water ponds, pedestrian walkways, recreation, etc. It is also possible that this floodplain area could be somewhat minimized by modifications within the floodplain or by constructions within the floodplain or by construction of retention facilities. Modifications to the floodplain and any related development would require separate approvals. The phasing of the development would generally proceed from east to west, with the more visible and accessible areas along Highway 63 being developed first. The existing topography will be significantly altered to by the proposed north -south service road, which is part of the current official street map for this area. As a result of this alteration, the adjacent land will required re -shaping in order to provide erosion control, access and economic use. r 1 { W Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Associates based on the finding that it does not meet the criteria of level to The molten failed due to lack Mr. Staver mo d to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amen rfient #00-08 by R.L. Hexum & Assoc es with staff -suggested criteria and findings , articularly with the idea that the character kthe area is changing and the potential ure use seems more in concert with what is in planned for that area. Mr. Qu' seconded the motion. Mr. Werven expressed con n regarding ground watg-r'and natural resources. Mr. Stover stated that he agree ith Mr. Werveef,'to a point. He stated that he did not like seeing hillsides leveled. However, a Council set the tone for the area, in terms of how they intend on using the land. Also, Mr. R laff commented that the State could potentially condemn the property and he would li keep control. r,. Ms. Schultze asked, if the prope was not in a M-1 zoning district and the property to the north was in the M-1 zoning dis rif ct, would a colle r road be needed from 48'h Street to 40`n Street. Ms. Baker responded -that it was on the Thoroughfare designated for ind rial uses. either of the properties were I The motion carried 5-3. with Mr. Werven. Ms. Schultze. and MNPetersson votina nay. I ( .e. VIYI t1111V �GY LV IrrYV111ttIG11Y C'JF/IVYOI VI LVI111ll-F ✓Ibll l4l l^UIIG'l1 Ytt R fIVV-IV Yy 1\.t-. Hex &Associates based on staffs recommendation and findings: toyer` se nded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Mr. Werven�and Ms. Sc a voting V. General Development Plan #159 by R.L. Hexum & Associates. The ao ap (cant is Proposing to develop approximately $2 acres of land located along the north side of 48 St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11 Ave. SW. The Plan identifies a future off ramp, frontage road, and lots for commercial -industrial development within the eastern 46 acres and future ponds, open space and residential development in the western 36 acres. A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are being considered concurrent with this application. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated December 22, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained what a site capacity calculation was. Ms. Baker stated that she would like to add the following condition as number 9: "Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be met via cash in lieu of land. The internal trail system should connect with public trails along 11' Avenue SW to 48 h Street SW." Ms. Baker stated that there are internal trails shown within the residential area and flood plain area that could be connected to future trails on 48"' Street and into 11a' Avenue. She stated that the access point at 48'" Street, in which the collector roadway will intersect, is fixed. She Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 explained that this was the first time she had heard that the northern point of the collector road is fixed. She indicated that she would need to check into the issue before it goes to Council. She indicated that, if it is fixed, the realignment of the roadway might not be an option. However, she pointed out the benefits of realigning the roadway. Ms. Baker stated that there would be substantial investments in the infrastructure adjacent to the property. Therefore, it makes sense to allow development on both sides of the roadway to be more efficient. Discussion ensued regarding access to certain parcels. Mr. Tom Hexum, representative of R. L. Hexum and Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Council adopted Official Street Map #12 on August 1, 2000, which outlined the legal description of the frontage road. He explained that he received that legal description from the consultant of MnDOT. He indicated that they could not receive any mining permits or zoning permits, until the frontage road issue was resolved. Mr. Hexum stated that MnDOT and the City have already completed three or four wetland studies. Therefore, he would like Condition Number 4 revised to include "If the MnDOT, City, and Olmsted County studies of record are not sufficient, they would provide one." Mr. Hexum stated that he did not like the vagueness of Condition Number 5. He would like the improvements defined and have a timeline associated with it. Mr. Hexum asked that the word "shall", in Condition Number 7, be changed to "may". He stated that he would like the choice to dispute the US 63 Corridor Traffic Study that was publicly funded. Ms. Dorothy Groth, of 107 48`' Street SW, addressed the Commission. She indicated that the hill had been tested and it is not solid rock. She informed the Commission that there are springs on the side of the hill. Mr. Gary Kellner, of 4440 Highway 63 South, addressed the Commission. He asked Mr. Hexum if the north and south accesses for the frontage road have been predetermined. Mr. Hexum responded that the adopted Official Street Map #12 made it predetermined. He indicated that the City Council adopted the map on August 1, 2000. Mr. Kellner asked if Mr. Hexum was going to pay for the road connecting from 401' Street to 481" Street. Mr. Hexum replied that he was unsure who was going to pay for the frontage road. Mr. Kellner stated that the State does not have any intentions on purchasing the right-of-way and that the frontage road is no longer in existence. He stated that Frank Kottschade told him that the road did not exist. Ms. Baker stated that she did not understand the Official Street Map #12 to include the frontage road. She indicated that she would find out whether or not the frontage road was a part of it before the Council meeting. She indicated that she did not believe MnDOT planned on participating with regard to the frontage road. le? 1 l q Page 7 l City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Mr. Hexum stated that he did not want it to be part of the official street map. However, the City adopted it and Richard Freese gave him the legal description for it. Ms. Schultze asked staff to respond to Mr. Hexum's request that the word "shall" be changed to "may", on Condition Number 7. Ms. Baker suggested leaving Condition Number 4 as is. She indicated that, if staff found that sufficient information was submitted, staff would not need it. Ms. Baker stated that "prior to completion of planned roadway improvements to 48"' Street SW and the interchange at 48'" Street and Highway 63" could be added to Condition Number 5. Mr. Ardell asked if there would be associated timelines. Ms. Baker responded that they are presently working with conceptional timelines. Mr. Quinn stated that he believes there is a legislative mandate that the money must be used by 2003. Ms. Schultze commented that the improvements to the road is what gives the property value. She explained that Mr. Hexum couldn't ask the Commission to give him an exact timeframe of when he can improve his property. Ms. Petersson stated that the vagueness that Mr. Hexum referred to was with regard to roads. Ms. Baker stated that, if the Commission were to change the wording from "shall" to "may", in Condition Number 7, they should just leave the condition out. She explained that it would leave it up to the discretion of the applicant. She indicated that she received comments from Charlie Reiter, from the Transportation Division, and the Rochester Public Works Department regarding the need for a traffic study for that property. If a traffic study is not completed, the applicant could pay a contribution to studies that have already been done or are being done. Ms. Petersson stated that the condition, as presently written, states that he has to contribute to previous or current studies, instead of doing his own traffic impact study. Discussion ensued regarding possibly rewording of Condition Number 7. Mr. Quinn questioned if the Commission had the ability to require that the applicant contribute to previous or current studies. Ms. Baker stated that the policy makers would need to decide whether or not the City had the ability. She stated that, if there hadn't been other road projects planned there, he would have to do a traffic impact study. Mr. Slaver suggested leaving the condition in place and ask the City Attorney for guidance, prior to the Council meeting. Ms. Baker stated that the condition could be reworded to require a traffic impact study, but at the choice of the applicant, in lieu of doing one, they could contribute. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Ms. Schultze stated that, if Mr. Hexum wishes to disagree with a previous study, he should have the ability to do his own study. She expressed the need to stand behind staff, with the knowledge that the studies that have already been done and have been generally approved by staff. Therefore, she suggested leaving the condition as worded by staff. Mr. Burke suggested the following wording of Condition Number 7 'If a traffic impact study is required, the applicant shall provide at their own expense or prorated contribution towards the completed study." With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the north and south access points are fixed and if the realignment of the roadway would be an option. Ms. Schultze moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan #159 by R,L., Hexum & Associates with the following conditions and for staff to clarify the legitimacy of how the prorated contribution should be approached with regard to Condition Number 7. CONDITIONS; 1. The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a rev„lsed Plan"shall be filed with thei Planning Department, ❖ Additional right -of -war shall be Identifi-ed along 11 'Ave, SW consistent with the requirements for a collector road, Including pe`destnan facMiles- , ❖ Access openings on the roadway labeled "Commercial Drive SW Ad k 6e , corrected toaine up across front otller,openings s� The southerly. access to 11th Ave SW W 11 b@ eylmtnated d• . The north/south collector road shall 6e realigned to provide for buildable: iarid on both sides of the road and to better work with the topography - 2. At the time of iplatting, controlled access will need to be dedicatted alpng TH li 3r 4@ St. SW and 11 Ave SW Arid the frontage road, exs;ept for the streeticlr1vq+Ivay openings approved with the plat(s); In addition, right-of-way shale a _sledlCated fior, 11'' Avenue and 480" St ;SW consistent with the requirements for,those roadways,. Any right-of-way In excess of dedication r@qulremeitts shall ba res.0 _ ed as right -of- way. 3. At the time of platting, the'developer shall dedicate their p"roIportlonall nduht of right- of -way for the 48,' St. S1f1ifl H 63 interchanVe, Any, right-ol way �eedes! >In addition tta the area dedicated shall be platted and reserved noth the first phase of th[s development Te�Mg,, of the doandI I shall be o%tllned in the Qevelofiril�ni Agreement 4.._Ptior tsZp_latting this property, the applicant shall complete a Wetland pelineat on and` submit it to the LGU for review and ip iprobvaL 80 Page 9 t City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 5. Development of this property shall be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of planned roadway improvements to 48u' Street SW and the intersection of 48t° Street and Highway 63. 6. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of along term maintenance and ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of the development. 7. In lieu of preparing a Traffic Impact Study, the applicant shall provide a prorated contribution towards completion of that by the consultant for MNDOT. 8. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a'Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, phasing this development, substandard street reconstruction charges and/or. traffic improvement district charges including 11 h Ave. SW and 4V St. SW, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, extension gf utilities and contributions for public infrastructure. 9. Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be met via cash In lieu of land. The internal trail system should connect with, public trails along 11tb Avenue, SW to 48t' Street SW. Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7.1, with Mr Werven "voting nay._ Ms. Petersson explained that she w open the public hearing, but that the item would be continued to January 10, 2001. Ms. Baker stated that she uld give a staff pr ntation on January 10, 2001, as the application had been r sed. She stated that ad ' nal referrals have been sent to agencies and that staff wZ iting their response. Ms. Petersso if anyone wished to speak with regard he request. No one came forward. to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ( / "I, DATE: PUBLIC HEARINGS TING DEPT: I ITEM NO. PLANNING �a 5 M DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #160 by BARCO Development Company to PREPARED BY: mown as Plateau Estates. The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 208 Brent Svenby, acres into a single family residential development consisting of both single family Planner detached homes and townhomes. The plan identifies roadway alignments and connections, as well as detention ponds and open space. The property is located along the north side of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and west of Century High School. January3l, 2001 NOTE: Right and left turn lanes will be constructed on CSAH 22 by Christ Our Rock Lutheran Church, staff recommends that the language in condition # 8 be removed referring to turn lanes. The text to be removed is shown as eirikeaut. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On January 10, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this General Development Plan Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He explained the proposal and stated that they have worked with staff on the roadway alignments. He stated that they are generally in agreement with the conditions with some modifications. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve General Development Plan #160, to be known as Plateau Estates, with staff- - '-gestod conditions, as revised in discussion and staff -suggested findings. Mr. Stever seconded the motion. The ion carried 7-1, with Mr. Hodgeson voting nay and Mr. Werven abstaining. Conditions: 1. The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department: 9 Creating a public park that meets the dedication requirements outlined in the memo dated December 27, 2000 from the Park and Recreation Department. 2. Parkland dedication for this development shall be met as outlined in the December 27, 2000 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. 3. Prior to platting that part of the property Inclose proximity to the wetlands, the applicant shall complete a Wetland Delineation and submit It to the LGU for review and approval. 4. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance and ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of the development. The developer is subject to a Stormwater Management fee for all areas that do not drain to an on -site stormwater facility. 5. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter Into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, phasing this development, Traffic Improvement District (TID) charges, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities (sidewalkslpossible bicycle lane along the collector roadway), right-of-way dedication, extension of utilities and :ontributions for public infrastructure. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Page (i� RCA January 31, 2001 6. At the time of platting, the developer shall address the long term maintenance and ownership of the "oper space". 7. At the time of platting, the developer will need to address Section 64.227 (Trail Thoroughfares and Sidewalks) of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Mid -block pedestrian connections will need to be provided. 8. At the time of platting, controlled access will need to be dedicated along East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The developer is responsible for Fight and left turR laA86 frOM GSAW 224o Plateau Drive NE and the construction of a trail facility along CSAH 22 where the property abuts CSAH 22. 9. A secondary access will need to be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate traffic in excess of 1200 average daily trips through the one access to East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The GDP shows a connection to 351h Street NE (a township roadway); this connection must be worked out with Cascade Township prior to the platting of Phase I. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated January 5, 2001. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed In Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated January 5, 2001 2. Minutes of the January 10, 2001 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department GIS Division 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2001 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. Yaggy Colby Associates. n"r ON PLATEAU ESTATES ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN in'll! III h$) M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 5, 2001 TO: Mayor and Common Council FROM: Michael Nigbur RE: 1 -5 General Development Plan 4160 CC: Pursuant to additional discussions between staff members of the City Public Works Department, City Attorneys Office, the Planning Department, and Yaggy Colby staff, we would like to propose a modification to Condition #9 relating to secondary access. The following language should be used to replace the existing condition # 9 A secondary access will need to be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate traffic in excess of 1200 average daily trips through the one access to East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The GDP shows a connection to 35'h Street NE (a township roadway). This right of way connection shall be provided to the City as an easement or other document prior to the platting of Phase I. The construction of the roadway connection shall be addressed in the Development Agreement. NO ROC I] ES rER PUBLIC H'ORKS DEP.-1RTlit E.NT LAND DE,\-ELOP.MEN'T SECTION VW TO: FROM: DATE: RE: City Planning and Zoning Commission Brent Svenby, Planner January 5, 2001 �.►i�asatihiolt' IsnoN�t +� �f��rgo7�cw►<� nrc� Ipmi� J ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 General Development Plan #160 to be known as Plateau Estates Planninq Department Review: Petitioner: BARCO Development Company 119 South Jones Algona, IA 50511 Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located north of east Circle Drive (CSAH 22), west of Century High School and east of the Deerhaven Development. Proposed Use: The General Development Plan includes approximately 208 acres of land. The applicant has petitioned to annex 53.9 acres of the property. The annexation is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on January 17, 2001. The applicant has also filed a zoning petition to zone 32.1 acres to the R-IX (Mixed Single Family Extra) district. This area is shown as being developed with townhomes. Single family detached development is proposed over the remainder of the property. The plan also indicates open space and parkland. Most of this land in the northern portion of the property is identified as open space. The plan also identifies the roadway alignments and connections to adjacent properties. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as suitable for "low density residential' types of development. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 General Development Plan January 5, 2001 Zoning: The property is currently zoned A-3 (Agricultural) and A-4 (Agricultural — Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. The applicant has petitioned to annex 53.9 acres into the City of Rochester. This land will be zoned R-1 upon the approval of the annexation. A rezoning petition has been filed to rezone 32.1 of the 53.9 acres to the R-1X zoning district to allow for the development of townhomes. The petition to amend the zoning district for this property is being reviewed concurrently with this application. Streets: The GDP proposes to take access from East Circle Drive via Plateau Drive NE. The plan allows for the northerly extension of Plateau Drive NE, a collector roadway. The collector roadway shown will eventually link with 48 h Street NE. The plan also allows for a connection to the properties to the north, east and west. The main access for the development is Plateau Drive NE. Once the development of the property reaches 1,200 average daily trips, a secondary access will be required if one is not already provided. The plan identifies a north/south collector roadway through the property, which is consistent with the Currently Valid Thoroughfare Plan. Both public and private roads are proposed within the development. Private roadways will serve the proposed R-IX zoned land. Any private drive access serving more than 4 units will need to meet the spacing standards for roadways. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required along all roadways within the development. Provisions for development of a trail facility will need to be accommodated in the southwest and southeast comer of the site where the property abuts East Circle Drive. On East Circle Drive between Viola Road and TH 63 there is a trail designated a trail on the north side of the corridor. Planning Department Transportation staff also recommends that accommodations for bicycle travel be provided along the proposed collector roadway. Drainage: The General Development Plan identifies existing topography. The property generally drains to the north. The plan proposes a storm water detention pond in the north central portion of the property. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private and execution of a long-term maintenance agreement will be required. The developer will be subject to a stormwater management fee for all areas that do not drain to an on -site stormwater facility. Page 3 General Development Plan January 5, 2001 Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. According the GDP, wetlands have been identified and are identified on the property. A wetland delineation report will need to be filed with the City and necessary permits obtained. The Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area is present within this property. This area is mostly found in the northern portion of the site. Public Utilities: Services are, or will be, available to serve this property. The development of the northern portion of the property may be dependent on the availability of sanitary sewer and water service extensions from the north and west. The City is planning on placing a new water system well in this area. Due to the growth levels in the High Level Area, it is anticipated that drilling for this well would occur in 2001, bringing it online in 2002. Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirements for this development be in the form of land. The dedication requirement will be approximately 8 acres, with at least half the dedicated land having a natural slope of 4% or less, non -wooded and not be located in an existing watercourse, floodway, wetland or water ponding area. Environmental Review: In accordance with Minnesota Rules, 4410.4300 subp. 36, the proposed development of this property will require preparation of a Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet since it consists of the conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural land to a more intensive land use, i.e. residential development. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Dept. Transportation Division 2. Rochester Public Works 3. Rochester Park 8 Recreation 4. Olmsted County Public Works 5. RPU Water Division 6. RPU Operations Division 7. Rochester Fire Department 8, Olmsted County SWCD 9. Planning Department - GIS Division 10. Planning Department — Wetlands 11. MnDOT Report Attachments: 1. Copy of General Development Plan 2. Referral Comments (9) 3. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative 1V Y Page 4 (7 General Development Plan January 5, 2001 Summary: This GDP includes approximately 208 acres of land to be developed with low density residential development consisting of single family detached homes and townhomes. The applicant has filed a petition to annex and rezone a portion of the property. Both private and public roadways are proposed for the development. The private roads are proposed to serve the townhome areas, while public roads are proposed to serve the detached single family portion of the development. The General Development Plan has been laid out consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan, which identifies a future collector road extending north of Circle Drive across this property to eventually link with 48th St NE. Controlled access is indicated consistent with access management goals along East Circle Drive. Consistent with preliminary analysis completed as part of the Circle Drive Traffic Management Study currently under development, the intersection of Plateau Drive and East Circle Drive would be signalized in the future when warrants for a signal are met. The applicant will be expected to contribute towards the cost of a future traffic signal installation at this location as part of the Development Agreement for the site. A secondary access will need to be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate traffic in excess of 1200 average daily trips through the one access to East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The developer will need to work with Haverhill Township on the roadway connection shown to 35'" Street NE. According the GDP narrative, wetlands are present on the property and a wetland delineation report will need to be filed with the City and necessary permits obtained. Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings: 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. This GDP proposes a low density residential development, which is consistent with the land use designation for the property. The proposed R- 1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) zoning for the townhome development portion of the development is also consistent with the land use designation for the property. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. The GDP identifies the future collector roadway (Plateau Drive) that will eventually extend from East Circle Drive to 48t6 Street NE. In order to facilitate safe ingress into the development right and left turn lanes will be required from East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) to Plateau Drive NE Page 5 General Development Plan January 5, 2001 at time of development. The applicant will be expected to contribute towards the cost of a future traffic signal installation at this location as part of the Development Agreement for the site. The developer will need to work with Haverhill Township on the roadway connection to 35lh Street NE, which would be a secondary access for the developmenL This connection would be necessary in order for the developer to continue development once there is 1,200 average daily trip through one access point if a secondary access is not provided elsewhere. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The development density is consistent with a low density residential land use designation of the Land Use Plan. The GDP promotes the development of mixed densities and housing styles. The policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. This development will help to further the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan and also those found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan. 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. The General Development Plan has been laid out consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan, which identifies a future collector road extending north of Circle Drive across this property to eventually link with 4e St NE. Controlled access is indicated consistent with access management goals along East Circle Drive. Consistent with preliminary analysis completed as part of the Circle Drive Traffic Management Study currently under development, the intersection of Plateau Drive and East Circle Drive would be signalized in the future when warrants for a signal are met. The applicant will be expected to contribute towards the cost of future traffic signal installation at this location as part of the Development Agreement for the site. Provisions for development of a trail facility wilt need to be accommodated in the southwest and southeast corner of the site where the property abuts East Circle Drive. East Circle Drive between Viola Road and TH 63 is designated for development of a trail along the north side of the corridor, parts of which are already in place east of Broadway. We would also recommend that accommodations for bicycle travel also be provided along the proposed collector street. This should be worked out In consultation with the City Public Works Department as part of the Development Agreement. Options would include either an off-street trail or design of a roadway cross-section that would provide for a dedicated bicycle lane in each direction of travel. 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 (qo ' Page 6 General Development Plan January 5, 2001 provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. The General Development Plan has been laid out consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan, which identifies a future collector road extending north of Circle Drive across this property to eventually link with 48tb St NE. Controlled access is indicated consistent with access management goals along East Circle Drive. Consistent with preliminary analysis completed as part of the Circle Drive Traffic Management Study currently under development, the intersection of Plateau Drive and East Circle Drive would be signalized in the future when warrants for a signal are met. The applicant will be expected to contribute towards the cost of a future traffic signal installation at this location as part of the Development Agreement for the site. A secondary access will need to be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate traffic in excess of 1200 average daily trips through the one access to East Circle Drive (CSAN 22). Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Services are, or will be, available to serve this property. Sanitary sewer and water service is available at the southwest corner of the site. Water service is also available at the intersection of East Circle Drive and Plateau Drive NE. The applicant's phasing plan indicates development starting in the south and working towards the north. The development of the northern portion of the property will be dependent on the availability of sanitary sewer and water services extensions from the north and west. The City is planning on placing a new water system well in this area. Due to the growth levels in the Nigh Level Area, it is anticipated that drilling for this well would occur in 2001, bringing it online in 2002. The watermains in the cul-de-sac streets must be looped where practical and extensions to adjacent properties will be required. Page 7 General Development Plan t j January 5, 2001 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. Pedestrian facilities will be required along all public roadways. Provisions for development of a trail facility will need to be accommodated in the southwest and southeast corner of the site where the property abuts East Circle Drive. East Circle Drive between Viola Road and TH 63 is designated for development of a trail along the north side of the corridor, parts of which are already in place east of Broadway. It is also recommended that accommodations for bicycle travel also be provided along the proposed collector street. This should be worked out in consultation with the City Public Works Department as part of the Development Agreement Options would include either an off-street trail or design of a roadway cross-section that would provide for a dedicated bicycle lane in each direction of travel bicycle lane in each direction of travel. 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 plan proposes a storm water detention pond in the north central portion of the property. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private and execution ofa long term maintenance agreement will be required. The developer will be subject to a stormwater management fee for all areas that do not drain to an on -site stormwater facility. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. 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 lot, block layout and lot density for the development appear to be consistent with the Subdivision Design Standards. Specific lot and block layouts will be reviewed at the time the property is platted. The proposed densities are compatible with existing and planned development of other parcels in the area. Any private drive access serving more than 4 units will need to meet the spacing standards for roadways Recommendation: Based on the above criteria, staff would recommend that the following conditions should be imposed in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: t. The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department: Page 8 General Development Plan January 5, 2001 Creating a public park that meets the dedication requirements outlined in the memo dated December 27, 2000 from the Park and Recreation Department. Z Parkland dedication for this development shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land as outlined in the December 27, 2000 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. 3. Prior to platting this property, the applicant shall complete a Wetland Delineation and submit it to the LGU for review and approval 4. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance and ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of the development. The developer is subject to a Stornwater Management fee for all areas that do not grade to an on -site stormwater facility. 5. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, phasing this development, Traffic improvement District (TID) charges, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities (sidewalks/possible bicycle lane along the collector roadway), right-of-way dedication, extension of utilities and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. At the time of platting, the developer shall address the long tern maintenance and ownership of the "open space". 7. At the time of platting, the developer will need to address Section 64.227 (Trail Thoroughfares and Sidewalks) of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Mid -block pedestrian connections will need to be provided. B. At the time of platting, controlled access will need to be dedicated along East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The developer is responsible for right and left turn lanes from CSAH 22 to Plateau Drive NE and the construction of a trail facility along CSAH 22 where the property abuts CSAH 2Z 9. A secondary access will need to be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate traffic in excess of 1200 average daily trips through the one access to East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The GDP shows a connection to 35t' Street NE (a township roadway); this connection must be worked out with Haverhill Township prior to the platting of Phase 1. ROCHESTER 193 Minnesota 1/2/01 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 application for REVISED General Development Plan #160 & ZONE#00-17 on the Plateau Estates (E. Circle Dr) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Note: Attached are Public Works comments from 12/13/00. New comments are shown with BOLD, while prior comments that have been addressed are shown with . 1. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, Traffic Improvement District (TID) charges, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. An on -site detention pond is indicated on the GDP plan, to serve a portion of the subject property. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance & ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. The developer is subject to a Stormwater Management Fee for all areas that do not grade to an on -site stormwater facility. 3. Grading & Drainage Plan approvals are required prior to development of this property. Public Works staff concurs with the revised location proposed for the Collector roadways. 5. Controlled Access will be required along the entire frontage of East Circle Drive. 6. The developer/owner needs to address long term maintenance and ownership of the "open space". C:ITEMPIGDP160 Revised 12-29-OO.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota 1/2/01 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 Pedestrian facilities will be required along the entire frontages of all new public roads within this property, 8. Specific routing of sanitary sewer lines will be reviewed further during the platting stages. 9. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure. 10. Phasing for development of the northern portion of the subject property may be dependent on the availability of sanitary sewer and water service extensions from the north and west. 11. The timing of improvements, and cost participation for 35 " St NE & 16`s Ave NE must be addressed prior to platting of Phase I. 12. The R-1X area in the southern part of this GDP indicates the use of private drives. Any private drive access serving more than four (4) units must meet spacing standards for roadways. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): ❖ Sanitary Sewer Availability (SAC) @ $1653.67 per acre. Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per acre Stormwater Management Charge for all areas that do not drain toward on -site detention facilities. A proportional share contribution to the NE TID. C:ITEMP%GDP160 Revised 12-29-OO.doc TRANSPORTATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT APPLICA'I Jurisdiction I Aoolicatioo - 1998 CITY GDP 160 The General Development Plan has been laid out consistent with the BARCO Thoroughfare Plan, which identifies a future collector road extending north of Circle Drive across this property to eventually link with 48's St NE. Controlled access is indicated consistent with access management goals along East Circle Drive. Consistent with preliminary analysis completed as part of the Circle Drive Traffic Management Study currently under development, the intersection of Plateua Drive and East Circle Drive would be signalized in the future when warrants for a signal are met. The applicant will be expected to contribute towards the cost of a future traffic signal installation at this location as part of the Development Agreement for the site. Provisions for development of a trail facility will need to be accommodated in the southwest and southeast comer of the site where the property abuts East Circle Drive. East Circle Drive between Viola Road and TH 63 is designated for development of a trail along the north side of the corridor, parts of which are already in place east of Broadway. We would also recommend that accommodations for bicycle travel also be provided along the proposed collector street. This should be worked out in consultation with the City Public Works Department as part of the Development Agreement. Options would include either an off-street trail or design of a roadway cross-section that would provide for a dedicated bicycle lane in each direction of travel. CITY ANNEX 00-16 No comment BARCO CITY SD 00-02 In regards to need for a traffic study, proposed use is estimated exceed the ET ONE threshold for minimum number of trips generated (750) ch a TIR is required. No other comments CITY Prel Plat 0 Plat is consistent with discussions that halSbeEnh held with applicant regarding SPn� Sctions. It is anticipated tha St SE will be extended eastward in the Meadows 2istent with the Lor nge Thoroughfare Plan. In order to provide for cootI een the future traffic flow on 20" St and traffic ot 7, ation of the access has been held as far east aspossible. a co between traffic queues that will build at the of 20's St with 1 I E. It should be noted there will likely be an he multi -family developmen he south side of 20* St also in this location. If in the long term an unacceptable le conflict occurs between access traffic and the through traffic on the future 20 'sed median would be a consideration to control this conflict, although at this timer t anticipated that this would be needed given projected future traffic levels on 20 s e extended. r rye pledge, we deliver December 29, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: General Development Plan # 160 by BARCO Development Company to be known as Plateau Estates and Zoning District Amendment #00-17 for R-1 and R-lx district zoning. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced general development plan 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. The cul-de-sac streets must be looped where practical and extensions to adjacent properties are required. 3. Most of this area is within the Northeast High Level Water System with pressures ranging from the low 50's PSI to a small area over 95 PSI. In the area over 95 PSI we would recommend the builder install pressure -reducing devices within each house. A small area at the extreme north portion of the proposed collector street would be within the Main Level Water System Area. 4. Near the intersection of the northerly collector street and the long cul-de-sac street (at the interface between the High Level and the Main Level Systems) we would like to place a new water system well that would be set up to ultimately serve both systems. Due to the present growth levels in the High Level Area we anticipate drilling this well in 2001 and bringing it online in 2002. This would be prior to the development of the adjacent area of the well placement and would require the installation of the connecting 12" water main and temporary access on the future long cul-de-sac street alignment south from the well to the High Level System as some sort of an assessment type project. We would plan on serving the Main Level Area of this property through a pressure -reducing valve within the well house until such a time that a Main Level System connection is established from the north. 5. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area and the well details and timing. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 0644A 41 Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Yaggy Colby Associates BARCO Development Company Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER PARK AND RtCREATION DEPARTMENT rgo MEMORANDUM 07 DATE: December 27, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning SUBJECT: General Development #160 Plateau Estates (Amended 12118100) The development is estimated to contain ± 300 residential units. The dedication requirement for the development will be ± 8.0 acres. Dedication should be in the form of land. At least ''/: of the dedicated land should have a natural slope of 4% or less, be non - wooded and not be located in an existing watercourse, floodway, wetland or water ponding area. The general location of the proposed park is acceptable. The amended GDP indicates less than 1.0 acre of parkland that meets dedication requirements. The 1.0 acre of land that meets dedication requirements can be expanded upon by: 1. moving the major local road located south of the park to the SE 2. increase the size of the park along the major local road by moving the SE line of the "park entrance". The increase in park street frontage from 200' to 300' would be acceptable. 3. require the applicant to selectively clear and grade vegetation from the plateau area of the park would increase the developable area Cc: Wade Dumond yaggy C:\TEMP\PLATEAU EST GDP.DOC December 28, 2000 Jennifer Garness Consolidated Planning Department Dear Jennifer: The Public Works Department has reviewed BARCO Develooment Cmmnanv to be known as NIat( following comments: 17 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-474" 507/285-8231 Plan # • Access control shall be required along CSAH 22 East. • Right and left turn lanes will be required from CSAH 22 to Plateau Drive NE. • Street signs and stop signs will be required. Sincerely, Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS:bw tVarglndx�yknxmm.Eac AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks 8 Agriculture Solid Waste 199 WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: _ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey -L.14ydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. OtherIz L_ 40 From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative PIZ OLMSTED SOIL AND #ER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1485 Industrial Drive NW Room 102 Rochester. Minnesota E--` (507) 280-2850 Fax t507) 280-2858 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Date: December 15, 2000 To: Jennifer Garness From: Tony Hill @ RE: General Development Plan #160 - BARCO Development Company General Development Plan Review Decorah Edee Groundwater Recharge Area: Is present within the GDP. This assessment is based on the Olmsted County Geological Atlas and bedrock mapping using ArcView coverages of the two -foot contour lines. More accurate geologic information regarding the area of the Decorah edge contact may be available from borings completed near the site. General development recommendations for the Decorah Edge setting should be considered for this site. Decorah Edge Recommendations 1. Delinatation of the high water table conditions be completed. 2. Limit the extent of grading that can occur where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock 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 disturb, require that intercepted recharge water be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of recharge processes. 5. Clay plugs be installed in utility trenches as means of maintaining dispersed groundwater recharge flows. 6. Preserve the unique hydric features of the site. Soils Information: • Erodible Soils: There appears to be highly erodible soils present within the GDP area. - Sogn loam-11 C - Dickinson sandy loam-27C AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER t ab� , Frontenac loam-173F Marlean silty clay loam-251 G Schapville silty clay loam-309C Timula silt laom-322E Mt. Carrol silt loam 401 B, 401 C and 401 D Channahon loam-472B and 472C Dorerton loam 473D and 473F Hydric Soils: Review of the Olmsted County Soil Survey indicated the presence of hydric soils (Haverhill clay-474B). Wetlands: Further delineation is required. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 280-2850. Section 19, Haverhill Twp. ° No • rpu we pledge, we deliver 507/280-1579 December 26, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Department Consolidated Planning Dept. FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. Of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: General Development Plan #160 by BARCO Development Company to be known as Plateau Estates and Zoning District Amendment #00-17. The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 208 acres into a single family residential development consisting of both single family detached homes and townhomes. The applicant is proposing to zone approximately 32 of the 208 acres of land to the R-lX (Mixed Single Family Extra) district upon annexation. The plan identifies roadway alignments and connections, as well as future ponds and open space. The property is located north of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and west of Century High School. This is an amended application —roadway alignments have changed. RPU's Operations Division has reviewed this district amendment and has no objection as it is we do intend to serve the total area in the future, Sincerely, ✓�'J Michael J. Engle ks c: W. Lorber revised general development plan and zoning outside our service area at this time. However, Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507,280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.org 11 /29/00 YCA #7136 LD2 PLATEAU ESTATES GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Plateau Estates is approximately 208 acres bounded by East Circle Drive to the south, unplatted land to the east and north, and Deerhaven Subdivision and unplatted land to the west. The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan (GDP) in accordance with Appendix B E-3. a) Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of the applicant, may create potential problems in street, drainage, public utilities or building design and construction, and how these problems will be investigated further or engineered to overcome the limitations. Preliminary soil borings on the relatively level areas on the south half of the property do indicate bedrock from between 4 feet at the shallowest to 10.5 feet below the surface. Additional soil borings will be completed during the engineering phases to determine subsurface conditions and the bedrock depth in the areas of construction. Steeper areas with higher erosion potential are being avoided as much as possible as indicated by the street alignments. Hydric soils are shown on the Olmsted County Soil Survey, and wetlands do exist on the property and are on the northern portion of the site. The exact size of these wetlands is not known at this time, but they will be delineated prior to a preliminary plat submittal for those specific areas. Decorah shale areas are present on the site and will be avoided as much as possible. Many of these areas are shown on the GDP as open space. This shale zone will need to be crossed in some areas, as streets will need to be extended for development connectivity; specifically the collector road identified on the Thoroughfare Plan. b) Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs. �f The storm drainage does not appear to cause problems that wilt jktS�t�n—t 0 W R increase of normal costs. D Nrn/ 2 9 2000 c) Identification ofpotential off -site drainage problems. ^ nci The applicant intends to construct a pond to handle the majority of the storm water run-off from this property. Participation in the city's storm water management plan may occur on a portion of the site. Possible participation with other developers downstream in constructing a pond on other private property has been discussed also. There should be no problems with off -site drainage created by this development. r. 30T Plateau Estates General Development Plan Page 2 d) Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration. Sanitary sewer and water service is available at the southwest comer of the site from the Deerhaven development. Water service is also available at the intersection of East Circle Drive and Plateau Drive NE. A lift station may be necessary for the northern most portions of the development depending on the timing of sanitary sewer facilities coming from the northwest through the Hadley Valley area. e) Identification of possible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of the applicant. The areas of steeper slopes will be avoided where possible. The majority of these areas are shown on the GDP in the rear of lots and will not be graded. Where development encroaches into the steeper slopes, erosion control measures will be incorporated into the grading plan during final design. )7 A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. Generally from south to north, but please see the attached phasing plan. �a l NO" 2 4 2(1f1rJ 11 Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 4. The applicant shall g de a 10' wide bituminous path within the property of this application along the s th side of Kings Run Creek. The a cant shall coordinate with the Park Departmen n the location of the path. P o development; the Kings Run Corridor and pedestri trail area shall be dedi , d to the City or easements shall be dedicated covering "ese areas. S. Additional easements may be re 44fired��fAA drainage or utility purposes. Any easements necessary for the devefo rfient of this property shall be executed prior to development. 6. The extension of public vv�aatt rmain andlo the addition of hydrant(s)pn-site Will require the dedicatio an applicable ea ment; and the execution_of a City-dwner Contract. 00-007 7. Future addt s are not approved with this ap cation If additions are pursued in the futur a applicant will need to submit an aplication to amend the approved Final a Plan. , 8. ecution of a Maintenance and lhvnershtp Agreemen required for the proposed private stormwater treatment pond. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report for the GDP, dated January 5, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Werven asked why Mr. Harford;s comments, on page D43 of the staff report, was not listed as a condition of approval. Mr. Svenby explained that Mr. Harford's comment was made before the revised GDP was submitted. He indicated that the applicant would need to do a wetland delineation. Mr. Quinn asked if the applicant had complied with Mr. Harford's comment, on page D43 of the staff report. Mr. Svenby responded yes. Ms. Petersson asked if the Commission could add it as a condition. Mr. Svenby responded that the Commission could. However, the applicant would still need to do a wetland delineation. Page 6 / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes goo? Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Mr. Werven stated that he believed Mr. Harford's comment, on page D43 of the staff report, was specific to the sidehill. He indicated that he would like Mr. Harford's comments made as a condition, upon approval. Mr. Quinn stated that Condition Number 3 covers the wetland delineation. He stated that a condition regarding avoidance of the sidehill should be added as an additional condition. Ms. Baker suggested rewording Mr. Harford's comment, as it could be hard to enforce. Discussion ensued regarding the wording "shall" and "will" versus "should". Mr. Svenby stated that the word "cash" should be taken out of Condition Number 2. Mr. Staver asked how Tony Hill's recommendations, on page D44 of the staff report, are accounted for in staffs conditions. Mr. Svenby explained that there are no current standards for development in the Decorah edge shale area. Therefore, staff cannot make a condition that affects it, as there is no ordinance in place. He explained that, in the past, the Commission has made a recommendation that the developer take into consideration those recommendations by Tony Hill, of the SWCD. Mr. Staver expressed concern with Mr. Hill's recommendations not becoming conditions, as recommendations can be ignored. Ms. Wiesner asked how large open spaces have been handled in the past. Mr. Svenby stated that the developer has not indicated if the open space would be public or private. He explained that there are some developments that have dedicated to the City large open spaces. Discussion ensued regarding access to open spaces. Mr. Wade Dumond, of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He indicated that the wetland areas outlined in the plans are approximate and that he plans to get together with Mr. Harford, in the spring, to find the exact location. Mr. Dumond explained the numerous problems with the road coming down the ridge. He indicated that it has been a concern discussed between the planning staff, developers, and other staff agencies. He explained that Rochester Public Utilities Water Division needs a well in the valley. He explained where the water tower would need to be located. Mr. Dumond stated that Mr. Harford's comment, on page D43 of the staff report, was made prior to the revisions. He explained that he did not want it to be considered as a condition and that he did not think Mr. Harford would want it to become a condition. Mr. Dumond explained that there is no ordinance or legislation to protect areas of Decorah Shale. He indicated that Mr. Wheeler previously prepared a memo a few months ago explaining that there is nothing anyone can do about the issue, at this time. He explained that is why Mr. Hill's recommendations have only been recommendations and not conditions. Discussion ensued regarding topography, elevation, and drainage. go, Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes �� Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Mr. Dumond stated that he spoke with Denny Stotz regarding his conditions. Mr. Stotz did not express concern with working it out, in combination with what his recommendations were. Mr. Dumond stated that he would like to work with the planning staff, with regard to Condition Number 3. He indicated that the statement says that they could not plat anything on the development, even though the wetlands are % or'/. mile away. Mr. Dumond stated that he is in the process of discussing the last sentence, in Condition Number 4, with Rochester Public Works. Mr. Dumond stated that the right and left hand turn lanes were part of the Christ Our Rock Church project. Therefore, they will probably ask for the condition to be taken off. He indicated that he had a message for the County Engineer to call him with regard to that. Ms. Wiesner asked if a trail could be placed on the small parcels adjacent to Circle Drive. Mr. Wade responded that they plan to try. Discussion ensued regarding how to reword Condition Number 3. The following wording was selected "Prior to platting that part of the property in close proximity to the wetlands, the applicant shall complete a Wetland Delineation and submit it to the LGU for review and approval". Mr. Brede asked if the controlled access would be considered for traffic lights. Mr. Dumond responded yes. Discussion ensued regarding additional dedication for the right and left turn lanes. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan #160 by BARCO Development Company to be known as Plateau Estates, based on staff - suggested conditions, as revised in discussion, and with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. Mr. Werven expressed concern with regard to making decisions on sensitive areas. He indicated that he did not believe enough information was presented. Therefore, he indicated he would abstain from the motion. Ms. Petersson asked staff to hurry with the Decorah Shale study. Ms. Baker stated that she would relay the message to the Planning Director, Phil Wheeler. Ms. Petersson asked if Tony Hill or Terry Lee could do a presentation on the issue for the Commission. Ms. Wiesner stated that she was under the impression that a GDP was a way of letting planners know that they are in general agreement of how to layout the land and properties. She 0 Page 8 Rol City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 indicated that the applicant would still need to come back for various other applications. She indicated that the current process was just a general stepping stone for developers get a go ahead that they are in the right direction. Ms. Petersson explained that the Decorah Shale issue has been discussed previously and that the Commission would like to have some guidelines to go by soon. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Hodgson voting nay and with Mr. Werven absl CONDITIONS- 1. The General Development Pian shall be revised it follows, and a revised be filed with the Planning Department ➢ Creating a public park that meets the dedication requirements outil memo dated. December 27, 2000 from the Park and Recreation Departmi 2. Parkland dedication for this development shall be met as outlined in the De 27, 2000 memo from Rochester Park and Recreat on'�, i� r 3. Prior to platting that part of the propertjrAn, close pr mitt' io the wetlands; applicant shall complete a Wetiand.Deilneation and submit it to the LGU for and approval 4. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development K%Any on -a stormwater facilities serving 50 `developable acres or less willlremain;privat execution of along term maintenance and ownership agreement wjlhtereq required private stormwater facilities must be constructed co'curr1ii#4It6l.,l stages of the development The deveplo er 1s su b�ecto a 5t rm afar Maria S fee for all areas that do not drain to a3n,,}on ri-s sitt e stormw d'Vx_'$� ` _.V`i'r'.}J 5. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Ac with the City that outlines he obligations Qlr the applicant relating torjtiut n6 to, phasing this development, Traffic improvement Ristrict f;TD) charges, st management, park dedication, traffic improvements�rpedestrian facHI s „4 (sidewalksipossible bicycle lane along the collectorrroadway), rigt)t-of-wayw;. dedication, extension of utilitiesand contrrbutionsrforpublic nf7astructtrre; �fMV,.yFS,"�.(fz 6. At the time of platting, the developer shall address the long tern maintengn ownership of the "open spaces y� `i '" x, � 7. At the time of platting, the'developer will need to address Sectio#,64.227 (7`r Thoroughfares and Sidewalks) of the Zoning Ordinance and:Laitd Developrt Manual. Mid -block pedestrian connections will need tobe`provlded xnt' P 8. At the time of platting, controlled access will need to be dedicate�i�a1ong Eag Drive (CSAH 22). The developer is responsible for right and left turp lanes fi 22 to Plateau Drive NE and the construction of a trail.:faality along CSAH 22 property abuts CSAH 22 Plan shall ried in the nt. ember the review iS ...� its, � 1 'and merit Cited water Page 9 to City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 9. A secondary access will need to be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate traffic in excess of 1200 average daily trips through the one access to East Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The GDP shows a connection to 35th Street NE (a township roadway); this connection must be worked out with Cascade Township prior to the platting of Phase 1. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report for the Zoning District Amendment, dated January 3, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Quinn asked what Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan included. Mr. Svenby responded that it discussed some of the general goals of the housing plan to offer a variety of housing styles and densities. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Brede moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment , 00-1T t y, BARCO Development Company. Mr. Burke seconded the motion: The motion carried 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mr. Brent Svenby pr ented the staff report, dated staff report is on file at ft Rochester -Olmsted Plai ,to the Commission. The Mr. Svenby explained that th plicant was aski or two variances; 1) setback standards and 2) access spacing standards. Mr. Svenby stated that staffs recomm or1s, listed in the staff report, did not show strong support for approval for the variances. efore, staff suggested that the Commission would need to prepare their own finding�ssionwouid if, ey ap ved of the variances. Mr. Svenby stated that the Coma�t nee make two separate motions with regard to the variance request and co ditionai use permit req t. Mr. Werven asked how tld'project was different to the parkinbqot adjacent to St. Mary's. Mr. Svenby explain that spacing standards were adopted when th ajor amendments to the Ordinance/'representative, pleted. The applicMark Jasmin, of HGA Architects of Rochester,ressed the Commissilained that the variance to the setback standards was for the new REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2-5-5=01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING er =M DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #00.17 by BARCO Development PREPARED BY: Company. The applicant Is proposing to zone approximately 32 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Brent Svenby, Single Family) to the R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) district to allow for the development Planner of townhomes. The property is located north of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and west of Century High School. January 31, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 10, 2001, to consider a zone change request to rezone approximately 32 acres from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) district. The applicant also submitted a General Development Plan, which is being reviewed currently with this proposal. The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended approval, with staff suggested findings. Mr. Breda made a motion to approve Zoning District Amendment #00-17 by BARCO Development Company with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated January 3, 2001. nch Action Needed: I. The council may approve oir deny this petition."The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criterla list in the staff report. If the Councti wishes to proceed with the`zone change as:peptioned, it should Instruct the` City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can` tie,8dopIt d aupported by dinpsy of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated January 3, 2001 2. Minutes of the January 10, 2001 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. 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, February 5, 2001 in the Council i Board Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building 6. Yaggy Colby Associates COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to: pmd 2;' PLATEAU ESTATES] ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Z Ef $ ZONE CHANGE MAP @€4 0o U �Q�O�l�D coo P9 �' �unnm ununuw ,��punn� nummn ,Anu LL 1 wW �0 t �-d 0 )/ V 'In)�hsnQZ .0 t�G TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: January 3, 2001 a�����'N�arizim M���II �•WV �, ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRA71OW 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGiHRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285.8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-17 by BARCO Development Company. The applicant is proposing to zone approximately 32 acres of land to the RAX (Mixed Single Family Extra) district upon annexation. The property Is located north of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and west of Century High School, Planning Department Review: Petitioner: BARCO Development Company 119 South Jones Algona, IA 50511 Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located north of east Circle Drive (CSAH 22), west of Century High School and east of the Deerhaven Development. Requested Action: The applicant requests 32.01 acres be zoned R-1X (Mixed Single Family Extra) district. Existing Land Use: The property is undeveloped and has been cropped in the past. Proposed Land Use: The applicant Is requesting the R-1X zoning district so that it can be developed with townhomes. A General Development Plan is being reviewed concurrently with this zoning petition. The GDP covers the area consisting of 208 acres of land. Adjacent Land Use and North: The property to the north is zoned A-3 Zoning: (Agricultural) district on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. This area is included in the GDP and is shown as being developed as single family homes. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER II Page 2 ZC 00-17 January 3, 2001 South: Property abutting this land to the south is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and A-4 (Agricultural — Urban Expansion) district. The land zoned R-1 is within City and is being developed as a church. The land zoned A-4 is within Olmsted county. East: Property to the east is zoned R-1 in the City of Rochester. Further east is the Century High School and the Emerald Hills Developments that are zoned R-1 in the City of Rochester. West: The property to the west is undeveloped land zoned A-4 in Olmsted County, which is included within the proposed Plateau Estates GDP. It's proposed to be developed with single family homes. Transportation Access: The main entrance into the site will be provided from Plateau Drive NE. Additional roadway connections are shown to neighboring properties. A secondary access for the development is required when the development reaches 1,200 trips through only one access point. Wetlands: Wetlands exist on the property. The GDP identifies locations of possible wetlands. A wetland delineation is required to be submitted to the LGU and approvals from the LGU will be required prior to filling or draining any wetlands. Referral Comments: 1. RPU Water Division 2. Rochester Public Works 3. Olmsted County Public Works 4. Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Referral Comments Sct wP RspM+ 3. Neighborhood Meeting Summary Analysis for Zoning District Amendment. Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as �rf45� Page 3 W ZC 00-17 January 3, 2001 found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "low density residential" types of uses. Rezoning 32.01 acres of land to R-IX (Mixed Single Family Extra) would be consistent with the "low density residential' land use designation. In addition, it would help further the policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, which encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. Including R-1X zoning within the development will encourage mixed housing styles and densities. This will also help to further goals and policies found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy aft of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and Uses within the R-IX Zoning District would be appropriate on the property and compatible with adjacent properties. b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Uses within the R-1X district would be appropriate on the subject property and would be compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The amendment to R-IX would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and would not be considered spot zoning. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above -mentioned findings, it would appear that the zoning district amendment from the R-1 to R-1X zoning district would meet the above criteria. Staff recommends that the request to zone 32.01 acres to the R-IX (Mixed Single Family Extra) district be approved, based on the above -suggested findings. •N Y/I N�YNXY AXCNITXcTsQ (/7 SOAYOTORS December 20, 2000 Ms. Mitzi Baker Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Summary —Neighborhood Meeting Plateau Estates R-lx Zone Change and General Development Plan LANXSCAP9 AACNKRCTS Dear Mitzi: A neighborhood meeting was held December 14, 2000 at Century High School regarding the Plateau Estates proposed R-lx zone change and General Development Plan. Approximately 25 individuals were in attendance (please see attached sign -in sheet). The layout, zone change area, and the future use of the property were discussed, as well as individual neighbor concerns. The zone change from an R-1 zoning to an R-lx, for the purposes of townhomes, was received fairly well. A couple of neighbors were concerned that apartments might be permitted. The allowed uses within an R-lx zoning were discussed, and it does not permit apartments. The neighbors were comfortable with the townhouse proposal on this property. The street connection on the west side of the property to 35`s Street NE was discussed as this is a township road. Some neighbors did not feel this was a good option and did not think the township would agree to the connection. This 35th Street NE connection would be the only secondary access into the property in the near future. Township neighbors to the west were also concerned that they might be annexed into the city because of this development. It was discussed that, typically, the city of Rochester does not force annexation upon property owners unless they have been 100% surrounded. The development of this property would not include annexation of any outside properties. If you have any questions or concerns, please call. Sincerely, YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES fjAcw��4 Wade DuMond, L.A. WD YCA #7136 LD2 Attachment PLANNERS ROCHEST ER OFFIE 717 Third Avenue! Rochester, MN 559( 507.288-64E Fax 507-288-505 MASON CITY OFFICI 515-424.634 Fax 515-424-035 =Eq.1 Oppv nity Emp/or SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS IO)ECT PREPARED BY CHECKED BY SHEET NO. x 11-6 lr02 DATE DATE OF 77 EL FoN6 1FGe. .a i:oar e� s Z �+��; �ryr .z ..�ti• /9_Ava_nn.✓ _ ._ .. _ . 2 sz .89�� _. ,��P-wc.}(,,—. _ Z42C S'L7i Svc /✓�"��------ ----.__... �6?'%% 2%5--,�5 t: 23 33, h(e.--Sa Q YAa�y j . •-.--.-.. _-_..____..__. -.-_.... 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (� DATE 2-5- 1 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NOABake�r PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S " !M DESCRIPTION: Final Site Plan for Carpet One store in SD-1, Arboretum Special PREPAR District. Mitzi A January29, 2001 The Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission considered this application at a public hearing on January 10, 2001. The Commission considered and approved a Variance to the impervious surface coverage within the Shoreland Overlay District. The Commission recommends approval of the Final Site Plan, subject to the following conditions/modifications: 1. Site and utility plans shall be revised to comply with comments from RPU Water dated November 21, 2000. 2. An additional hydrant shall be provided, per comments from Rochester Fire Department dated November 30, 2000. 3. Separate grading drainage plan approval and permit are required prior to development. 4. The applicant shall grade a 10' wide bituminous path within the property of this application along the south side of Kings Run Creek. The applicant shall coordinate with the Park Department on the location of the path. Prior to development, the Kings Run Corridor and pedestrian trail area shall be dedicated to the City or easements shall be dedicated covering these areas. 5. Additional easements may be required for drainage or utility purposes. Any easements necessary for the development of this property shall be executed prior to development. ` The extension of public watermain and/or the addition of hydrant(s) on -site will require the dedication of an applicable easement, and the execution of a City -Owner Contract. L Future additions are not approved with this application. If additions are pursued in the future, the applicant will need to submit an application to amend the approved Final Site Plan. 8. Execution of a Maintenance and Ownership Agreement is required for the proposed private stormwater treatment pond. Council Action Needed 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution approving the proposed Final Site Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: NVId 3dVD50NVI M'431s3MOOa 3NO 13dl]YD O4� Jill liit �ili1= aa� �a E jS �I ilia • �i �_F1. � 11 ' NVId DNIOVSD NW '83153NJON ii U 3NO13dNVJ 1 1R3W1R8ad340WIN708d n n 4 9Z030 rjjj jl a iIsdld g4- gdddjY dd�d�aj9Y cyd vd -5t$ I I je ®I I 1 H Is �1�l� I I 1Eil� r xxn+'a�sawoa +--1 R 3 1y sit 1 7?Y]� 'N ZS 'Ur1H '0N 39Y1NOL3'M !i� 13 � " I ' i !is1 Q 3NO.Lgcj � 11 4 i U �r a �lii' d e I !i' i ►. �in g V1 NNIW199OOtl j?t[i E 'N ZS'AMH '0213Jtl1NOTlj"M pd J�11 3NO13dldo 'Mf viaar�Htw'�.sawoa 1yy �1 ) 1;Y), N ZS'ANJi'ONilj 'M � � 3N013d'dVDNVJ a � l 9�ji A lE� 0 ® g n � � oo -- t8 Q m d C:t i nl L TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission ROCH ESTE R-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 507/285-8224 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 DATE: January 4, 2001 RE: Arboretum Special District Amendment Final Site Plan #00-02 to allow the construction of a Carpet One Store in Special District-1 (Arboretum). The applicant is also requesting a variance to Section 62.1008 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual on the amount of impervious surface coverage. The property is located along the west side of the TH 52 West frontage road, south of Kings Run Creek, and north of Eastwood Bank Building. Plannin-g Department Review. Applicant: Owner: Surveyor/Engineer: Referral Agency Comments: Report Attachments: A.B. System, Inc 209 Wood lake Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Darren Groteboer 2410 Highway 63 North Rochester, MN 55906 A.B. System, Inc 209 Wood lake Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 MN -DOT, Rochester Park & Recreation, Rochester Public Works, RPU Water Division, Fire Department, Planning Dept. — John Harford, 1. Referral Comments (6 letters) 2. Location Map 3. Final Site Plan AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 of 8 DeYelOAment Review: Location of Property: The property is located along the west side of the TH 52 west frontage road, south of 55`" Street NW, north of the Eastwood Bank building. Zoning: SD-1 (Arboretum Special District) Adjacent Land Uses & North: The Kings Run Drainage way, and also the Zoning Northwest Plaza property, all zoning SD-1 South: Eastwood Bank building zoned SD-1, and also the Rochester Covenant Church zoned SD-1 East: Across TH 52, commercial properties zoned B-4 (General Business) West: Northwest Plaza property commercial property zoned SD-1. General Development Plan: The approved Arboretum General Development Plan designates this property appropriate for "commercial" development. Access: Access to the site would be from the north access driveway of the Eastwood Bank building. This retail store would share an access with Eastwood Bank. Drainage: The applicant has revised the site plan to include a stormwater management pond behind the building to treat stormwater run off before it is discharged to Kings Run Creek. Wetlands: The Final Site Plan does identify Wetlands adjacent to the Creek. Special District Summary: In 1982, the City adopted a Special Zoning District for The Arboretum (# 2247). The Special District allows for a mixture of land uses guided by a general development plan for the area. Land uses conforming to the underlying R-1 district (at the time of Special District adoption) only need be approved through conventional zoning and subdivision approval processes (such as Lincolnshire Subdivisions). Other development projects in accordance with the general development plan for the property, but not conforming to the underlying R-1 zoning must be considered for approval through a two step site plan review process set forth in Ordinance # 2247. This two step process includes the Project Development Plan and the Final Site Plan. ^ A Page 3 of 8 / Analysis: Review Procedure: The proposed development is subject to the provisions of Ordinance #2247, which establishes the Arboretum Special District and provides for procedures for approval of projects within the Special District. In this instance, A Type III, Phase II review procedure is necessary for both the project development plan phase and the final development plan phase of the review. This requires public hearings at both the Planning Commission and the City Council. According to the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM Sec. 60.327), this application will need to be measured against the criteria applicable for conditional use permits (Sec. 61,146) and also for a Restricted Development Final Plan (62.708). Background & Summary of Proposal: On August 30, 2000, the applicant submitted an application for Project Development Plan (preliminary plan) approval for a Carpet One store in the SD-1, Arboretum Special District. The preliminary plan proposed a retail store for carpet sales (Carpet One) to be 21,875 sq. ft. in sq. ft. in size. The site plan also identified locations on the back side of the building for future expansions that total 3,062 sq. ft. The building is proposed to have a colored standing seam roof with exterior walls finished with colored E.I.F.S., steelox wall panels and single score colored splitface block at the base. The front of the building is proposed to include a 42 sq. ft. "Carpet One" sign. A free standing pylon sign is also proposed at the easterly property line and is 12 sq. ft. in size and approximately 24 feet high. Access to this site will be from the West Frontage Road for T.H. 52 and will be shared with Eastwood Bank. Most of the parking required for the carpet store will be located on the Eastwood Bank property in an area that has been designated for shared parking with this property. It appears that ample parking will be provided for both uses. The application for preliminary plan approval did not identify existing conditions such as all existing topography, Kings Run Creek, Floodway, Floodplain, Wetlands and the Shoreland District boundary and setbacks. in addition, the application for preliminary plan approval did not include a site capacity calculation (identification of total site area, resource protection areas and total buildable area), or information identifying the pervious and impervious surface totals. The applicant was required to submit this information with the application for final approval. The Project Development Plan (preliminary plan) was approved by the Rochester City Council in October 2000, subject to six conditions or modifications. Final Site Plan, New Information: The access, building size, exterior finish and parking appear consistent with the approved Project Development Plan (preliminary plan). Additional information submitted with the Final Site Plan inclues: detailed existing topography for the entire site and adjacent City land; identification of Kings Run Creek, Floodway, 100 Year Floodplain and Wetlands; 75' Shoreland building setback; proposed finished grades, stormwater management pond and stormwater outlet to the Creek; additional landscaping adjacent to the proposed pond; proposed future City trail; silt fence to be used during construction; a site capacity calculation (identification of total site area, resource protection areas and total buildable area); and total existing and proposed pervious and impervious surface areas. One feature not identified on the Final Site Plan is the Shoreland District boundary, which is 300 feet from the Ordinary High Water level (usually the top of bank on this Creek). This boundary Page 4 of 8 a2q extends beyond the southeasterly property boundary, into the Eastwood Bank parking lot, covering this entire development site. Floodplain & Shoreland: At this time, the applicant has completed a flood study for this property to identify the floodway and 100 year floodplain boundaries on the property. The proposed grading plan identifies these boundaries. The applicants engineer concluded the proposed development would not adversely affect flood potential along Kings Run Creek. Additional site information was submitted with the Final Site Plan, as outlined above. With this additional information, staff has been able to determine that the entire project site is within the Shoreland Overlay District, which includes land within 300 feet of Kings Run Creek. These regulations are designed to protect water resources and shoreland areas by regulating development density and intensity, stormwater management and water quality, and alteration of land — including grading and vegetation alterations. Shoreland District regulations are found in Section 62.1000 at. seq. of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Variance: The applicant has filed a request for a Variance from Section 62.1008 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, to permit 44% of impervious surface on this lot. Section 62.1008 restricts the impervious coverage within the Shoreland Overlay District to 25% of the lot. ALAN&BG:$Y� 5^"'„�.Y1Y 'Rf�e. j�P "•t�"yp. f Total Site Area 86,753 s.f. Net Buildable Area 59,465 s.f. gr .50 FAR Permitted in B-4 use asguide) 29,732 s.f. Pro osed FAR = .37 21,875 s.f. IVM 25% of Total Site — (Impervious Surface Coverage Must Not Exceed 25% 21,688 s.f. Proposed Impervious Surface Coverage = of Total Site 38,427 s.f. �44% y g The Planning staff suggested findings are: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are no exceptional circumstances that apply to this property that do not apply to other properties within the same class of zoning or within the Shoreland Overlay District. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does appear to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request may not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other property in the area. The applicant is proposing to construct a stormwater management pond that will provide for overall water quality improvements. Stormwater runoff from the existing Eastwood Bank currently flows to Kings Run Creek without treatment. The stormwater management pond on the Carpet One site will capture that runoff so that it is treated prior to outletting to the Creek. � 0 Page 5 of 8 / MINIMUM VARIANCE: The applicant is requesting a variance of 19% in order to proceed with the proposed use of this site as a carpet retail store. Criteria & Findings: Sections 61.146 and 62.708 are attached for your review. These sections of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM) include the criteria that must be considered when reviewing this application. Staff suggests the following findings. In regard to Section 61.146, if this application were approved subject to conditions or modifications, staff suggests that findings within this Section could not be made to support denial of this request. In regard to Section 62.708 (2) of the LDM (see attached), staff suggest the following findings Final Development Plan Criteria: a) Public Facility Design: Approved construction plans and an executed Owner Contract are required require prior to installation of public utilities. An approved grading/drainage plan is also required prior to construction. b) Geologic Hazard: in order to improve water quality from this site, the applicant is proposing a stormwater management pond that will capture existing and new run off for treatment prior to outletting the water to Kings Run Creek. c) Access Effect: An existing access location, shared with Eastwood Bank, will be utilized to serve this development. d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan makes provisions fora needed pedestrian trail along Kings Run Creek. 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. i Site Status: Revisions will be required to the utility plan prior to construction. installation of public infrastructure will required approved construction plans and an executed Owner Contract. g) Screening and Bufferyards: The landscape plan includes trees and shrubs adjacent to the proposed stormwater pond. These plantings will help replace vegetation removed for the construction of the pond. 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. 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. j) Ordinance Requirements: The applicant has filed a request for a Variance from Section 62.1008 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, to permit Page 6 of 8 A4 / 44% of impervious surface on this lot. Section 62.1008 restricts the impervious coverage within the Shoreland Overlay District to 25% of the lot. Staff Recommendation: Variance: The Planning Commission will need to consider the Variance request to Section 62.1008 and determine whether the Variance should be approved or denied, as part of this application. The Commission makes a decision on the Variance. The City Council will only hear the Variance request if the Commission's decision is appealed to the Council. Final Site Plan: The Commission will need to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding this application. Staff recommends approval subject to the following modifications or conditions: 1. Site and utility plans shall be revised to comply with comments from RPU Water dated November 21, 2000, 2. An additional hydrant shall be provided, per comments from Rochester Fire Department dated November 30, 2000. 3. Separate grading drainage plan approval and permit are required prior to development. 4. The applicant shall grade a 10' wide bituminous path within the property of this application along the south side of Kings Run Creek. The applicant shall coordinate with the Park Department on the location of the path. Prior to development the Kings Run Corridor and pedestrian trail area shall be dedicated to the City or easements shall be dedicated covering these areas. 5. Additional easements maybe required for drainage or utility purposes. Any easements necessary for the development of this property shall be executed prior to development. 6. The extension of public watermain andlor the addition of hydrant(s) on -site will require the dedication of an applicable easement and the execution of a City -Owner Contract. 7. Future adddons are not approved with this application. If additions are pursued in the future, the applicant will need to submit an application to amend the approved Final Site Plan. a32 Page 7 of 8 EXCERPTS FROM THE LDM 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 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. 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: 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 of 8 R 3 3 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: 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. 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 Phase I 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. 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. 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. we plerlye, we deldver November 21, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Arboretum Special District Amendment Final Site Plan #00-02 to allow the construction of a Carpet One Store in the Special District-1 (Arboretum). The property is located along the TH 52 West Frontage Rd, south of 55'" St. NW, and northerly of the Eastwood Bank Building. Dear Ms. Gayness: Our review of the referenced site plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. The proposed water main must be realigned to pass around the concrete loading area (stay a minimum of 5' away). Realign the 20' public utility easement as required. 2. A 10' pipe -to -pipe horizontal separation is required along the existing sanitary sewer. 3. 2 protective posts are required per City of Rochester Detail Plate #6-18 for the southerly fire hydrant, which is not protected by curb. 4. The water service must include a gate valve and box near the water main. 5. The gas and electric service must be kept a minimum of 5' away from the water main. 6. 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 with profiles must 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, 06-4A RLL Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention AB Systems, Inc. Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER Minnesota 11/30/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Mark E. Baker a3s� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Roam 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for an Amendment to Special District Final Site Plan #00-02 — Arboretum for a proposed Carpet One Store. The following are Public Works comments from 9/19/00 for the preliminary site plan application. Public Works has no new comments: 1. Separate Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to construction on this site. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided, and a Stormwater Management fee will apply for voluntary participation in the Citys regional Stormwater management Plan, if on -site detention is not provided. 3. Dedication of the Kings Run Corridor and bike trail easement should be required for the development of this property. 4. The grading for a ten (10) foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along the south side of Kings Run Creek. The location and extent of grading for the path should be coordinated with Parks Department. 5. The extension of public watermain and/or the addition of hydrant(s) on -site will require the dedication of an applicable easement, and the execution of a City -Owner Contract. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: Stormwater Management Fee = TBD, if on -site detention is not provided. C:\TEMP\spedal District Final Plan #00-02 Carpet One Arboretum 11-00.doc ROCHESTER PARK AND R__REATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: November 30, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning SUBJECT: Carpet One Store Ammendment to Arboretum Special District Site Plan No parkland dedication is required. The alignment of the future trail ( to be constructed by the City at some future date) is acceptable. An easement for the trail should be required of the applicant. The grading plan indicates that the trail alignment is to be cleared of vegetation, re- graded and seeded to turf with the grading beginning at the west end of the Carpet One parcel and ending where the trail enters an existing City owned parcel. i a37 WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: afll7 qun, W ' &,;k j)(a - 4IrOa-az No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. �A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative 939 oltdNESo;, �O PIC� December 1, 2000 Minnesota Department of Transportation District 6 2900-48th St. N.W. Box 6177 Rochester, Minnesota 55903-6177 Jennifer Gamess Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 (507)280-2913 Re: Arboretum Special District Amendment Final Site Plan #00-02 to allow the construction of a Carpet One Store in Special District-1 (Arboretum). The Property is located along the west side of the TH 52 West Frontage Road, south of Kings Run Creek, and north of Eastwood Bank Building. T.H. 52, C.S. 5508 Planning Log # 00-09.02.01 Dear Ms. Gamess: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the proposed Carpet One Store proposal. It has been determined the West Frontage Road is within Mn/DOT's jurisdiction. An application for an entrance permit will be required for this shared entrance proposal. You may contact Lee Gierok, our permits specialist, at (507) 285-7362 for the necessary procedures in obtaining a pen -nit. This development may require a right turn lane and/or a by-pass lane. These requirements will be determined during the permit process. We would like to thank you for the opportunity to review this Final Site Plan for the Carpet One Store. If you have any questions you may contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner, at (507) 285-7369 or Debbie Persoon-Bement, Plan and Plat Coordinator, at (507) 281-7777. Sincerely, Dale E. Maul Planning Director An Equal Opportunity Employer tx ENGINEERS A0 D December 26, 2000 I�r.� 0EC 2 6 1 ROCHESTER OLMSTED Mr. Brent Svenb Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Carpet One, Shoreland Variance Request West Frontage Road, Highway 52 North Dear Brent: ARCHITECTS V YAG( COLB R ASSULI E, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Carpet One is requesting a variance to the shoreland ordinance in conjunction with the Carpet One Final Development Plan of the Arboretum Special District heard at the January 10, 2001 Planning Commission. The primary shoreland issue that is requested for variance is the 25% impervious surface coverage for stormwater quality purposes (Section 62.1008). The Preliminary Project Development Plan, as approved by the planning commission and council, shows approximately 44% (38,427 square feet) impervious surface which is 19,310 square feet over the allowed 25% (21,688 square feet). This variance request is primarily for the approximately 19,310 square feet impervious surface over the allowed 25%. PLANNERS The 25% impervious surface requirement in the shoreland ordinance is largely for stormwater management and to control the pollution of public waters. The pollution, on site, would primarily come from the parking lot areas and typically is washed off is with the first '/2 inch of rainfall. Carpet One has proposed to install a stormwater ROCHESTER OFFII management pond that meets city of Rochester and state stormwater quality requirements. In reality, it has been designed to treat more than just the stormwater runoff from all of the parking on the site. It treats an additional 37,500 square feet of 717 Third Avenue existing untreated parking lot runoff from the bank property to the east that flows across the site and into King's Run. This currently untreated 37,500 square feet of parking lot is Rochester, MN 559i almost double the 19,310 square feet impervious surface variance requested. In effect, the development of this site, with accompanying pond, should improve the water quality 507-288-641 above what is existing today. fax 507-288-50' The pond location will require the removal of a number of Box Elder trees. River Birch, Silver Maple and Cottonwood trees will be planted in the pond area to lessen the loss of these less aesthetic Box Elder trees. Wildlife habitat will also be created with the construction of the pond. The following findings could be used in support of the variance (staff recommended MASON CITY OFFIC statements are in quotes). 515-424-63, Exceptional Circumstances: "There does appear to be exceptional circumstances or conditions that apply to the fax 515-424-035 applicant's property that may not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning • = Equal Opportunity Emp10 911 district." The Carpet One lot is long and narrow with King's Run drainage on and along the northwest part of the property which substantially reduces the lot development capacity. This site is the last commercial lot to be developed in this area, and is surrounded by other developed lots that have been built under a previous ordinance without the existing shoreland restrictions. The owner is proposing a storm water treatment pond to mitigate the impacts to the King's Run shoreland. Reasonable Use: "The variance request appears to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property." A typical commercially developed lot would have an impervious surface area percentage much greater than 44% of the lot. For example, a B-4 zoned lot allows for 10% landscape area. Landscape area can include some types of paved areas such as trails. This would allow for a commercial lot with more than 90% impervious surface. The applicant is primarily using the existing shared parking area on the east and is not creating substantial amounts of new parking. Absence of Detriment: "The granting of this variance request does not appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other property in the area." The pond proposed by the owner appears to mitigate the potential detriment to the public welfare and other properties in the area. The variance also does not appear to be detrimental to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual as the purpose of the stormwater management section of the shoreland ordinance appears to have been met by the design of the stormwater pond. Minimum Variance: The minimum variance necessary would be a variance to the impervious surface coverage that must not exceed 25%. Sincerely, YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES 4"-� Wade DuMond Landscape Architect WD YCA #7031 LD2 Attachments I N9 R U d cc AB Systemsr-- DEG 2 6 = ae�a► Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Comnussion Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff r detf dated January 3, 2001, to the Co s�The staff report is on file at the Roches msted Planning Department. Ms. Wiesner to recommend approval of V,glratt&n Petition #00-16 by TGH, LLC. Mr. Stay econded the motion. The motio arried 9-0. CONTINUED ITEMS: Arboretum Special District Amendment Final Site Plan #00-02 to allow the construction of a Carpet One Store in Special District-1 (Arboretum). The applicant is also requesting a variance to Section 62.1008 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual on the amount of impervious surface coverage. The property is located along the west side of the TH 52 West frontage road, south of Kings Run Creek, and north of Eastwood Bank Building, Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated January 4, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker stated that, when the preliminary plan was submitted, the existing topography for the entire site and Kings Run Creek were not identified on the site plan. She indicated that the applicant was informed that, once the information was submitted, staff would be able to determine whether or not the property was subject to shoreland zoning. She informed the Commission that the property is subject to shoreland zoning. Ms. Baker stated that there was one standard, of the Shoreland District, that the applicant was not complying with, which is a limitation of 25 percent impervious surface on the site. She stated that the applicant filed a variance to that standard. Ms. Baker stated that a storm water pond was added to the final site plan to mitigate the additional impervious surface that the applicant was asking for and to address water quality issues. She explained that, in order to add the pond, they would need to remove some of the vegetation that is in close proximity to the creek. However, the applicant proposes to replant some higher quality vegetation between the pond and creek. Ms. Baker explained that the Commission would need to act on the variance and final plan application separately. Ms. Baker handed out a revised memo, dated January 5, 2001, from the Rochester Public Works Department asking to add another condition. She indicated that staff would like to add it as Condition Number 8. The memo is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Werven asked how it was determined that there be a limitation of 25 percent impervious surface on the site. Ms. Baker responded that the Shoreland District regulations were adopted in 1995. She indicated that the State mandated that the regulations be adopted. She explained that they have a model ordinance that they encourage all communities to adopt it, which is where the 25 percent standard probably came from. Page 3 a y3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Ms. Wiesner asked if the 10-foot bituminous would be hooked up to something in existence now. Ms. Baker responded that the City plans to continue it to the frontage road. There is not a present system in place. Ms. Wiesner asked if a walk path would also be put in the properties behind the project (Carriage Homes). Ms. Baker responded that the path would go on the south side of Kings Run Creek. She stated that she did not know if the Carriage Homes' plans show a bituminous trail. Ms. Wiesner asked if there was land available, in the Carriage Homes area, to put a path in. Ms. Baker responded that there is some space in between the homes and creek. However, she was unsure how much room was available for a trail. Mr. Hodgson stated that the preliminary report stated that there would be 21,875 square feet. However, it states that there is a future expansion of 3,000 feet. He questioned if the Commission was to approve 21,875 feet. Ms. Baker responded yes. She explained that, if the applicant wished to come forward at a future date with the expansion of the building, they would need to submit an amendment to their final plan approval. The applicant's representative, Pete Schuler with A. B. Systems, addressed the Commission. He indicated that the owner, Darren Groteboer, and Wade Dumond, of Yaggy Colby Associates was also present to answer any questions. Mr. Schuler stated that the approved preliminary plan showed 38,427 square feet of impervious surface. This would be 19,300 square feet over the allowable 25 percent. He indicated that the 25 percent impervious surface requirement, in the shoreland ordinance, was for the purpose of storm water management and for pollution of public waters. He indicated that they plan to install a stormwater treatment pond, which meets the City of Rochester and State storm water quality requirements. He explained that the pond would improve the water quality. Mr. Schuler stated that they plan on planting River Birch, Silver Maples, and Cottonwoods. Mr. Schuler made the following comments, with regard to the variance findings: Exceptional Circumstance: The lot is long and narrow, which makes it difficult to work with. The entire northern side abuts Kings Run. There is a large area, on the north side of the creek that is green space. It is the last commercial lot to be developed in the area. The previous Ordinance did not require the other properties to meet the existing shoreland restrictions. The stormwater treatment pond would be an addition to the area and would mitigate the impacts of the Kings Run shoreland. The applicant could build 90 percent impervious surface, in a B4 use. They are currently only asking for 44 percent. Absence of Detriment: It would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or properties in the area. The pond would mitigate the potential detriment to public welfare. Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Mr. Burke asked if the applicant was agreeable to the 8 conditions for the final site plan, as indicated by staff. Mr. Schuler responded yes. Discussion ensued regarding traffic circulation. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke moved to approve a variance to Section 62.1008 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual on the amount of impervious surface coverage, based on staffs findings. Mr. Werven seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. FINDINGS: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES: There are no exceptional circumstances that apply to this property that do not apply to other properties within the same class of zoning or within the Shoreland Overlay District. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance request does appear to be necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the applicant's property. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The granting of this variance request may not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other property in the area. The applicant is proposing to construct a stormwater management pond that will provide for overall water quality improvements. Stormwater runoff from the existing Eastwood Bank currently flows to Kings Run Creek without treatment. The stormwater management pond on the Carpet One site will capture that runoff so that it is treated prior to outletting to the Creek. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The applicant is requesting a varlance of 19% in order to proceed with the proposed use of this site as a carpet retail store. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Arboretum Special District Amendment Final Site Plan #00-02, with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. CONDITIONS: 1. Site and utility plans shall be revised to comply with comments from RPU Water dated November 21, 2000. 2. An additional hydrant shall be provided, per comments from Rochester Fire Department dated November 30, 2000. 3. Separate grading drainage plan approval and permit are required prior to Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Comnusston Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 ass 4. The applicant shall grade a 10' wide bituminous path within the property of this application along the south side of Kings Run Creek. The applicant shall coordinate with the Park Department on the location of the path. Prior to development, the Kings Run Corridor and pedestrian trail area shall be dedicated to the City or easements shall be dedicated covering these areas. 5. Additional easements may be required for drainage or utility purposes. Any easements necessary for the development of this properly shall be executed prior to development. 8. The extension of public watermain andlor the addition of hydrant(s) on -site will require the dedication of an applicable easement, and the execution of a City -Owner Contract. T. Future additions are not approved with this application. If additions are pursued in the future, the applicant will need to submit an application to amend the approved Final Site Plana 8. Execution of a Maintenance and Ownership Agreement is required for the proposed private stormwater treatment pond. Mr. Brent Svenby presF Commission. The staff Mr. Werven asked why Mr. as a condition of approval. the staff report for the P, dated January 5, 2001, to the t is on file at the R ester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that Mr submitted. He indicated that I on page D43 of the staff report, was not listed comment was made before the revised GDP was at would need to do a wetland delineation. Mr. Quinn asked if the applicant had compli with Mr. Harford's comment, on page D43 of the staff report. Mr. Svenby res/kedif . Ms. Pete rssonCommission could add it a a condition. Mr. Svenbvrfesponded that the Commission could. Howel�r, the applicant would still need to do a wetlalhd delineation. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING p? f ? DATE: 02-CI OI AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING I e -S 'cM DESCRIPTION: Revised Preliminary Plat #00.12 by BBB Development, LLC known as PREPARED BY: dgeview Manor. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 14.90 acres of land into 38 Theresa Fogarty, lots for low density residential development and 1 outlot. The plat also dedicates the right- Planner of -way for 50ei Avenue NW and 5 new roadways. The property is located along the west side of 50 J Avenue NW, south of 65ti' Street and north of the Weatherstone Development. January 23, 2001 NOTE: Staff recommends re -wording condition #7 to provide clarification. The text to be removed will be shown as strikeout and added text in "italic bold': City Planninqq and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on January 10, 2001 to consider this preliminary plat. Mr. Harvey Ratz1off, applicant's representative, addressed the Commission. He indicated that, due to the different elevations on 50'h Avenue, the City had the applicant revise the plan. Due to the elevations, it made it impossible for them to carry a street through. Therefore, they added a cul-de-sac (Mallard Drive). The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following conditions or modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised as follows: a. Change the roadway name "Pheasant Place NW" to "Pheasant Lane NW" to meet the standards of the LDM, as stated in the letter dated 12-20-00 from the Planning Department Addressing Staff. b. Indicate controlled access within 75' of the "50th Avenue NW" right-of-way along the south side of "Middlebrook Drive NW". 2. Prior to submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities; right-of-way dedication and contributions for public infracstructure. 3. A temporary turn -around at the westerly end of "Middlebrook Drive" and "Florence Drive NW" is indicated on the revision of the Revised preliminary plat. Easements for these turnarounds, as well as for any utilities located outside of the plat boundary must be executed with the City prior to recording of the Final Plat documents. 4. Since the reconstruction of 50"' Avenue is proposed in the near future, the developer must execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City prior to the recording of the final plat. Said a�reement will address the developer's responsibility to provide pedestrian facilities along the west side of 50 Avenue NW and pedestrian facilities including pedestrian ramps along both sides of all new roadways in this plat. 5. Storm water management facilities intended to serve this subdivision must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 6. An Ownership J Maintenance Agreement for Outlot A shall be executed and filed with the City. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: __ _ Second Page 2 �. Revised Prel ary Plat Ridgeview Manor 7. Parkland dedication requirements in the form of.93 acres of land for -this platshallbe met via deferred land with dedication to occur when the 6.0 acre park shown on the GDP is deeded to the City. Such dedication of land will occur when the park is accessed via road or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the park. 8. The Owner shall execute a Contribution Agreement, drafted by the City, to address the Owner's proportional cost share of the reconstruction of 505i Avenue NW. The Contribution Agreement must be signed by the Owner before the City will initiate a public project to reconstruct 50th Avenue NW. Mr. Stever moved to recommend approval of Revised Preliminary Plat #00-12 by BBB Development, LLC known as Ridgeview Manor, with staff -suggested conditions outlined in the January 9, 2001 memo, including dropping the first bullet of Condition Number 1 and also with the assumption that appropriate working would be inserted in Condition Number 7 regarding parkland dedication and credits. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0, with Mr. Ohly abstaining. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated January 5, 2001 and revised memorandum, dated January 9, 2001. Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated January 5, 2001. 2. Copy of revised conditions, dated January 9, 2001 3. Comments from City Park and Recreation Department, dated January 18, 2000. 4. Minutes of the January 10, 2001 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. on Monday, February 5, 2000 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester/ Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie & Betts r— oz i �11 �W a Mm 1 g LJl � Nil a z � QM� W a -�_-- .' ' --- �.. 'M YN•_ --- --- --- --- .1 3 N N 3-A..Y_40 S --- .: Y .:3 n N 3 A X. .._.N rC'c i •- i 2- F: � N Mq V m n w Y � w I R � N R — J \f 1 3 WGW X tl i n I M N 0:riIvi`d14n Np a o Y � r= et IS��gw 0 C 3 aS7 G G G 0 0 N ryrz `, 625„ e 1X_ Ik e A O _J L_ • r �.- 117a�zii�zaxn -- .Jam 1T I 9 m Ilk I it r 1 oj Ali N ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT ' 201 FOURTH STREET SE 0s3 ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Ridgeview Manor 1 st Preliminary Plat #00-12 "REVISED JAN 18 '01" Acreage of plat.......................................................... 14.90 a Number of dwelling units ............................................. 38 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 2.55 units/acre Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .93 acres The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements in the form of .93 acres of land be met via deferred land dedication with dedication to occur when the 6.0 acre park shown on the GDP is deeded to the City. Dedication of land for park purposes to occur when the park area is accessed via street or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the park. C:\TEMP\RIDGEVIEW MANOR IST.DOC ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner WELL/SEPTIC FAX DATE: January 9, 2001 RE: Revised Preliminary Plat #00-12 by BBB Development, LLC known as Ridgeview Manor. Revisions of the Revised Preliminary Plat 00-12 was submitted to the Planning Department on January 9,2001. Staff has reviewed the revisions of the Revised Preliminary Plat and recommends approval with the following condition / modifications: 1. The plat be revised as follows: Indicating water service and / or water mains stubbed out to serve the Weatherstone property, south of Middlebrook Drive NW as stated in the letter dated 12-21.00. Change the roadway name "Pheasant Place NW' to "Pheasant Lane NW" to meet the standards of the LDM as stated in the letter dated 12-20.00 from the Planning Department Addressing Staff. Indicate controlled access within 75' of the "501h Avenue NW" right-of-way along the south side of "Middlebrook Drive NW'. 2. Prior to submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities; right-of-way dedication and contributions for public infrastructure. 3. A temporary turn -around at the westerly end of "Middlebrook Drive" and "Florence Drive NW" is indicated on the revision of the Revised preliminary plat. Easements for these turnarounds, as well as for any utilities located outside of the plat boundary must be executed with the City prior to recording of the Final Plat documents. 507/285-8232 507/285-8224 507/285-8213 5071285-8345 507/287-2275 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER asp"' 4. Since reconstruction of 500 Ave. NW is proposed in the near future, the developer must execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City prior to the recording of the final plat. Said agreement will address the developer's responsibility to provide pedestrian facilities along the west side of 50" Ave. NW and pedestrian facilities including pedestrian ramps along both sides of all new roadways in this plat. 5. Storm water management facilities intended to serve this subdivision must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 6. An Ownership / Maintenance Agreement for Outlot A shall be executed and filed with the City. 7. Parkland dedication requirements for this plat shall be met via deferred land dedication with dedication to occur when the 6.0 acre park shown on the GDP is deeded to the City. Such dedication of land will occur when the park is accessed via road or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the park. 8. The Owner shall execute a Contribution Agreement, drafted by the City, to address the Owner's proportional cost share of the reconstruction of 501 Avenue NW. The Contribution Agreement must be signed by the Owner before the City will Initiate a public project to reconstruct 50'' Avenue NW, ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GI&'ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner wELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 DATE: January 5, 2001 RE: Revised Preliminary Plat #00-12 by BBB Development, LLC known as Ridgeview Manor. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 14.90 acres of land into 38 lots for low density residential development and 1 outlot. The plat also dedicates the right-of-way for 501" Avenue NW and 5 new roadways. The property is located along the west side of 50' Avenue NW, south of 65th Street and north of the Weatherstone Development. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: BBB Development P.O. Box 247 Byron, MN 55920 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: RPU Water Division Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Rochester Fire Department Planning Department - Wetlands staff Planning Department - Addressing staff Planning Department - Transportation staff RPU Operations Division Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Approved Preliminary Plat 4. Copy of Revised Preliminary Plat 5. Revised Ridgeview Manor General Development Plan 6. Referral Comments (5 letters) �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ri Page 2 Revised Preliminary Plat Ridgeview Manor January 5, 2001 Location of Property: Zoning: Proposed Development: Roadways: asp The property is located along the west side of 501" Avenue NW, south of 650 Street NW and north of Weatherstone Development. The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. On May 1, 2000, the City Council approved a preliminary plat for this area. The applicant is now requesting to revised the approved preliminary plat because of some engineering issues. This development proposes to subdivide approximately 14.90 acres of land into 38 lots for low density residential development and 1 outlot. This plat dedicates right-of-way for five new roadways and also dedicates the right-of-way for 501 Avenue NW. The first roadway dedicates 60' of right-of-way for "50`" Avenue NW" with controlled access along "50" Avenue NW". The second roadway labeled as "Middlebrook Drive NW" is designed with a 60' right-of-way and extends to the north/west. A temporary turnaround and easements are required at the westerly extent of "Middlebrook Drive NW". Controlled access is required within 75' of the ,501h Avenue NW" right-of-way along "Middlebrook Drive W. The third roadway labeled "Mallard Drive NW" is designed with a 56' right-of-way and extends to the north intersecting "Florence Drive NW". The fourth roadway labeled "Florence Drive NW" is designed with a 66' right-of-way and extends east and west within this plat. A temporary turnaround and easements are required at the westerly extent of "Florence Drive NW". Controlled access is required within 75' of the "501" Avenue NW" right-of-way along "Florence Drive W. The fifth roadway labeled "Ripley Lane NW" is a cul- de-sac designed with a 50' right-of-way with a 51' cul-de-sac radius and extends to the north from "Middlebrook Drive W. The sixth roadway labeled "Pheasant Place NW" is designed with a 50' right-of-way and extends to the north from "Florence Drive W. This roadway name needs to be revised to "Pheasant Lane NW". 59 Page 3 Q( o Revised Preliminary Plat Ridgeview Manor January 5, 2001 Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, pedestrian facilities including pedestrian ramps are required along both sides of all of the new roadways in the subdivision. A 5' sidewalk will also be required along the west side of 501 Avenue NW. Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,110' in the northern portion of the plat to 1,070' in the southern portion of the plat. The property generally drains to the south. Specific grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a Final Plat application. Grading plans shall conform to the future grades and cross-section for 501 Avenue NW. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. Hydric soils exist on the site. The applicant will need to submit a wetland delineation and obtain approval for a replacement plan for the wetlands being displaced by this plat. Public Utilities: Water and sewer will need to be extended to serve this property. A 10-foot utility easement is shown on the front of each lot on the plat. A 20' public utility easement is required for the water main loop between Lots 5 & 6, and 12 & 13, Block 1 and between Lots 7 & 8, Block 2 (to a future cul-de-sac). Water services and / or water mains must be stubbed out to serve the Weatherstone property south of Middlebrook Drive NW. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors at a rate of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit, in addition to the required off-street parking. This additional parking may be provided either off-street or on -street. This development requires 46 spillover parking spaces. The right-of-way and road widths appear adequate to meet this requirement. Parkland Dedication: The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirements for this plat be met via deferred land dedication with dedication to occur when the 6.0 acre park shown on the GDP is deeded to the City. Dedication of land for park purposes shall occur when the park area is accessed via street or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the park. Page 4 Revised Preliminary Plat Ridgeview Manor January 5, 2001 as9 General Development Plan: The applicant submitted a revised GDP for this property to reflect the necessary changes to the property. This revision to the approved GDP was processed through the Type I Review Process. The proposed changes to the GDP have been approved. The proposed plat is generally consistent with the approved "Revised" General Development Plan known Ridgeview Manor. Staff Review and Recommendation: A preliminary plat for this area was approved by the City Council at their May 1, 2000 meeting. Because of engineering issues, the applicant is now requesting to revise the approved preliminary plat. Half of the right-of-way of the southerly most roadway (Middlebrook Drive NW) and outlot A is on land not owned by the applicant. This property owner will need to be in agreement with this roadway and outlot and will need to sign the final plat documents. The location of this roadway is consistent with the approved Weatherstone and Revised Ripley General Development Plans. Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this revised preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Sections 61.225 and 61.226 of the LDM. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions / modifications: 1. The plat be revised as follows: • Providing a 20' utility easement between Lots 5 & 6, Block 1 and Lots12 & 13, Block 1 and between Lots 7 & 8, Block 2 (to a future cul-de-sac). • Indicating water service and/or water mains stubbed out to serve the Weatherstone property, south of Middlebrook Drive NW as stated in the letter dated 12.21.00 from Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division. • Dedicate the entire right of way for "501h Avenue NW" as shown in GDP #144. • Change the name roadway "Pheasant Place NW" to "Pheasant Lane NW" to meet the standards of the LDM as stated in the letter dated 12-20-00 from the Planning Department Addressing Staff. • Indicate controlled access within 75' of the "50`h Avenue NW" right-of-way along "Middlebrook Drive NW" and "Florence Drive NW" 2. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. Page 5 W� Revised Preliminary Plat Ridgeview Manor January 5, 2001 3. A temporary turnaround is required at the westerly end of "Middlebrook Drive NW" and "Florence Drive NW". Easements for these turnarounds, as well as for any utilities located outside of the plat boundary must be executed with the City prior to be recording of the Final Plat documents. 4. Since reconstruction of 501 Ave. NW is proposed in the near future, the developer must execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City prior to the recording of the final plat. Said agreement will address the developer's responsibility to provide pedestrian facilities along the west side of 501' Ave. NW and pedestrian facilities including pedestrian ramps along both sides of all new roadways in this plat. 5. Storm water management facilities intended to serve this subdivision must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. A stormwater declaration and/or wetland declaration is needed for Outlot A. 6. Parkland dedication requirements for this plat shall be met via deferred land dedication with dedication to occur when the 6.0 acre park shown on the GDP is deeded to the City. Such dedication of land will occur when the park is assessed via road or the Park Department wishes to begin development of the park. 7. Prior to the submittal of the final plat, the applicant must submit a wetland delineation and obtain the necessary permits from the LGU that may be necessary for this plat to proceed. 8. The Owner shall execute a Contribution Agreement, drafted by the City, to address the Owner's proportional cost share of the reconstruction of 50' Avenue NW. The Contribution Agreement must be signed by the Owner before the City will initiate a public project to reconstruct 501' Avenue NW. REMINDER TO APPLICANT: • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City Owner Contract for construction of the public roadways and utilities. • This plat Is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans and an executed Development Agreement will need to be submitted with the final application If the applicant intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements. The Grading Plan for this development shall conform to the future orades and cross-section for 500 Avenue NW Page 6 /] Revised Preliminary Plat Ridgeview Manor Q[ 160( January 5, 2001 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. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. Effective May 15, 1999 Page 0.j Revised Preliminary Plat Ridgeview Manor January 5, 2001 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 we pledge, we deliver December 21, 2000 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: Preliminary Plat #00-12 by BBB Development LLC to be known as Ridgeview Manor. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. A 20' public utility easement is necessary for the required water main loop between Lots 5 & 6, and 12 & 13, Block 1 and between Lots 7 & 8, Block 2 (to a future cul-de-sac). 2. Water services and or water mains must be stubbed out to serve the Weatherstone property south of Middlebrook Dr. NW. This will need to be coordinated with Weatherstone's engineer and verified by us and Fire Prevention Bureau as final plans for this part of the development do not currently exist. 3. Other minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the applicant's engineering firm with these comments. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours,n. o.� 06WA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau McGhie & Betts, Inc. BBB Development Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 M ROCHESTER Minnesota 12/21/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4m Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested REVISED application for Preliminary Plat Request #00-12 on the Ridaeview Manor (Had been called Northern Trails) property. The following are Public Works comments from 3/27/00. New comments are shown in BOLD, while prior comments that have been addressed are indicated with . 1. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 2. The stormwater detention facilities intended to serve this subdivision should be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 3. A Stormwater Declaration is needed for Outlot A. 4. All of the 50th Ave NW ROW in GDP#144 shall be dedicated in this plat or an easement provided to the City prior to plat approval. 5. Controlled access, as indicated on the preliminary plat along 50th Ave NW, shall be shown on the final plat. 6. A temporary turn -around, is required at the westerly extent of GGRFad Wale NW, Middlebrook Dr NW, and Florence Dr NW. Easements are required for off -site utility extensions, and for the temporary turn arounds. C:iTEMP\PP#00-12 Revised 12-OO.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota 12/21/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 20140 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 8. Construction of pedestrian facilities including pedestrian ramps, is required concurrent with development of this subdivision, along both sides of all new streets, including along Outlots. 9. Since reconstruction of 501h Ave NW is proposed in the near future, the Owner shall execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement, drafted by the City, to address the Owner's responsibility to provide pedestrian facilities along the west side of 50th Ave NW. 10.A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 12. The Owner shall execute a Contribution Agreement, drafted by the City, to address the Owner's proportional cost share of the reconstruction of 50th Ave NW. The Contribution Agreement must be signed by the Owner before the City will initiate a public project to reconstruct 509' Ave NW. 13.The Grading Plan for this development shall conform to the future grades and cross-section for 50t Ave NW. 14.In addition to the controlled access shown on the revised preliminary plat, additional controlled access is required within 75 feet of the 50th Ave NW ROW, along Florence Dr NE & Middlebrook Dr NW C:7EMPIFP#00-12 Revised 12-00.doc a`d° ROCHESTER Minnesota 12/21/00 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 following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property: ❖ Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre ❖ Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre ❖ Stormwater Management Fee for participation, at the City's discretion, in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan @ $2043.01 per acre Stormwater Management District for Section 7, Cascade Township proposed @ $1000.00 per gross acre ❖ A proportional share of the cost for reconstructing 50t Ave NW to provide additional trip capacity. The Owner's share of the reconstruction cost will be addressed in a Contribution Agreement that is required for this subdivision. Proposed rate = $1909.62 per gross acre in the Northwest Transportation Improvement District. Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division; 4 2 Stop Signs a 1 Dead End Signs 44 12 Street Name Signs 2 Trucks Prohibited Signs 2 Speed Limit Signs C:REMPPP#00-12 Revised 12-00.doc WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. Application Number.. �t.e-U p0-IZ�� (, No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hyddc soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. _ A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative r Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507) 287-2275 PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: December 20, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: RE: RIDGEVIEW MANOR A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. PHEASANT PLACE NW has incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change Pheasant Place NW, to PHEASANT LANE NW. NOTE: This change was made with information gathered from the new GDP, (Ridgeview Manor). The roadway configuration has been changed so it now ends in a cul-de-sac. Page 11 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 1 Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase I Conditional Use Permt #00-36 with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Mr. Staver seconded the tion. The m ion carried 9-0. CONDITIO 1. Any new sig a on the property/building shalhcomply with si standard "A" in Section 63.220 he Zoning Ordinance. 2. Prior to the issuance building permi Department a lighting pI which corn Section 63.210 of the Zoni Ordinanc 3. Any needed repairs or panel rep cem the property must be done at the o e Public Works Department will inspe development to determine if repair 6 4. Stormwater Management must prev Management Fee will apply f all new 5. All fire hydrant relocati shall be In and construction:` i, the applicant all 'provide to the Planning as with ezt or lighting standard "R" In t DiscussioZensued rding appropriate findings to support the roval of setback standards and accedards. Some of the key points in approvin he variances included, having an entrance only access off of 4"' Street into the ;te, access spacing was redesigney and not exiting, not having emergency vehicles Ding through the same circs other vehicles, and using an existing drive area. Ms. fesner moved to have staff prepare findings in support of the varian to the se ack standards and access'spacing standards, per the dtscusslon, Mr; BOr Ae conded the motion. The motion carried 9-0: : Revised Preliminary Plat #00-12 by BBB Development. LLC known as Ridgeview Manor. The Plat proposes to subdivide approximately 14 90 acres of land Into 38 lots for low density residential development and 1 outlot. The plat also dedicates the right of way for F Avenue NW and 5 new roadways The property is located along the west side of 50 Avenue NW, south of 65 Street NW and north of the Weatherstone Development Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated January 5, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Also, a memo dated January 9, 2001, by Theresa Fogarty was presented addressing a revised preliminary plat submitted by the applicant. Mr. Svenby stated that the first bullet, under number 1 of the revised memo, could be dropped. Mr. Burke asked when the reconstruction of 50'" Avenue NW would begin. �]�O Page 12 � City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Ms. Baker responded that bids would be received in the fall. Mr. Hanford stated that the wetland issues were taken care of on the project. He explained that the applicant was in the process of going through the replacement plan process when the plat originally went through. The applicant's representative, Harvey Ratzloff, addressed the Commission. He indicated that, due to the different elevations on 50th Avenue, the City had the applicant revise the plan. Due to the elevations, it made it impossible for them to carry a street through. Therefore, they added a cul-de-sac (Mallard Drive). Mr. Ratzloff indicated that he would like an additional sentence, in Condition Number 7 of the revised memo, to include that the City Owner Contract show that there be a balance of 5.07 acres of credit for future parkland dedications. He explained that the current plat only requires .93 acres. Mr. Ratzloff stated that he met with staff, with regard to the Contribution Agreement. He indicated that they have agreed upon a price and is waiting for the actual agreement from Mike Nigbur. Ms. Wiesner asked if the proposed credit of parkland dedication would create a problem for the Park Department. Ms. Baker responded that they actually would not have a credit, as they have not dedicated anything yet. She explained that it could be clarified before the Council meeting. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Development, I_LC known as Ridgevi In the January 9, 2001 memo, includi and also with the assumption that ap Number 7 regarding parkland ded(ca The motion carried 8-6, with Mr. Ohly CONDITIONS; 1. The plat be revised as follows: • Change the roadway name. the standards of the LDM ai Department Addressing St • Indicate controlled accessO the south side of "Middlebr 2. Prior to submittal of the final pi Agreement with the City that of not limited to; storm water mar pedestrian facilities; right-of-w Dumber 7 ondition motion. ►^ to meet I.Planning nt a to, but its i Page 13 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes �( Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 infrastructure. 3. A temporary turn -around at the westerly end of "Mid Drive NW" is indicated on the revision of the Revisei these turnarounds, as well as.for any utilities locates must be executed with the City prior to recording of 4. Since reconstruction of 50ei Ave. NW is proposetl tn. must execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement witFj the final plat. Said agreement will addressthe dives pedestrian facilities along the, was side of50"' Ave: including pedestrian ramps along both sides of all' n w 5. Storm water management facilities intended to seine constructed concurrent with the initial stages of den + 6. An Ownership i Maintenance Agreement for Outiot E the City. r' v -.„ vrt i1yt f %"f Fin' 7.t.� 7. Parkland dedication requirements for this plat shall i dedication with dedication to occur when the 6 0 act; deeded to the City. Such dedication of land will occ road or the Park 'Department wishes to begin develgl 6. The Owner shall execute the Owner's proportioria Contribution Agreement public project to reconsl The Commission took a break. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the report is on file at the Rochest lebrook Drive" and "Florence preliminary plat.. Easements for n of is ad via The. ,6A. nuary 5, 2001, to the Commission. The staff Department. Ms. Baker stated that she received ref)r& cafe tions, from the applicant's consultant prior to the meeting, on the building's squa footage. Sh2r plained that the original calculations took into account the gross square foatage of the building. cording to the Ordinance, there are certain things within the bull that get subtracted (ex. s ge areas and underground parking). /F Ms. Baker explained what the applicant could do to obtain density bo es (page E61 of the staff report). REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a �3 DATE 2-5-01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S'9 0 M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-23 to be known as Wedgewood Hills Fourth February 1, 2001 :SPARED BY: Brent Svenby, the applicant has requested that this item be removed from the agenda and rescheduled for the February 21, 2001 Council meeting. This will give the applicant time to address the issue regarding mid -block pedestrian connections. Council Action Needed: 1. Table this item. The Planning Department will republish the legal notice and send new post cards if the applicant requests a design modification. Distribution; 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Planning Department —GIS 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, 5. McGhie & Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second McGhie 9 Q Bettse Inc. Rochester Iiinnesota Und Surveying I lrhnn - Land Planning C'nnsuldng-Civil Engineering Cieotcchnical Engineering C01WnlCdnn Material 'renting February 1,2001 Mr. Brent Svenby Consolidated Planning and Zoning Department 2122 SE Campus Dr. Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Final plat for Wedgcwood IIills Fourth Dear Mr. Svenby: t�ndscape Archile rare, On behalf of our client, Leslie A. Lurken we would like to request that the Wedgewood Hills Fourth plan be removed from the February 5, 2001 agenda of the City Council and be rescheduled for the February 21, 2001 meeting, This should give us time to address the issuc of the design modification regarding the mid -block connection. Sincerely, McGhie & Betts, Inc. 94—J4-1— Joshua J. Johnson JIJ/bd Pc Mr. Lucky Lurken 1648 Third Avenue S.E. Rochester, MN 55904 Tel- 507,289.3919 Fax, 507.280.7333 e-mail. Incghie belh.com Established 1940 z'd EEEL-682-LOS S1139R3IH9oW eE2:OT TO TO 9aA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING D( 7`J / DATE 2-5-01 r0cl g.M_F7Rol u■] c H PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PLANNING 91 _ /0 :M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-11 to be known as Manor Woods West PREPARED BY: Twelfth Subdivision I Brent Svenby, January 31, 2001 Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated January 31, 2001. This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101. B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: t. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of cash ($5,880) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. Payment of parkland dedication fee Is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents. I That construction access shall be limited to the use of Manor Park Drive NW extending north from this proposed subdivision to 7e' Street NW. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. 2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity EnCIOSUreS: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording/ Treasurer/Auditofs Statement 3. Recording Fee 4. Title Opinion 5. 1 Original Plat Myiar 6, 3 Myer Copies of Plat Attachment: i 1. Staff Report dated January 31, 2001.�� Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Planning Department —GIS 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. McGhie & Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second by: to: \MR-M z.W41. �lk %�Iq t U. Ugg m t y�J' 11 1 }� ij��' � r ...- 1 �% ��' i . L f � �1`'=" l� . �� 1yy`,4D�Id, a�a N ,�i K Oki jj:� AL v AMENDED GENERAL PLAN F­­DEVELOPMENT MANOR WOODS WEST ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA AWND NT ANroyacL 4-209 I "aria ao:v�Jn- . co �3dN ✓'�pA z LI R WN}` 3%3 ;i om� 0 pigy a^� 2y� y sn gEEGa 5 0 a�d p �'_ b-� w, d i i rP,\ R�A• s �h WW1 N J Q f / 1� mow. T` y 8 // �• TO: Rochester Common Council e �i'Bii'�n■'n'a ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ PLANNING FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner GIS/ADDRESSING/ MAPPING DATE: January 31, 2001 HOUSING/HRA BUILDING CODE WELL/SEPTIC RE: Final Plat #00-11 to be known as Manor Woods WetWTwelfth Subdivision Planning Department Review: ApplicantJOwner: Forbrook-Bigelow Development P.O. Box 247 Byron, MN 55920 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. RPU Water Division 2. RPU Operations Division 3. Planning Department — Wetlands 4. Planning Department — Addressing 5. Planning Department — Transportation 6. Rochester Public Works Department 7. Fire Department 8. Park and Recreation Department 9. Owest 10. MnDOT Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of GDP 5. Copy of Preliminary Plat 6. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located south of 51h Street NW, north of 4s' Street NW and NW of Manor Park Drive NW. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) District on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. 507/285-8232 507/285-8232 5071285-8224 507/285-8213 507/285-8345 50W287-2275 `-'� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER a$0 Page 2 Manor Woods West 12`h January 31, 2001 Proposed Development: This development consists of 6.43 acres of land to be subdivided into 20 lots for single family residential development and 2 outlots. Streets: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for one roadway. This roadway is a northwesterly extension of Manor Park Drive NW to the northern border of this development. This roadway is designed with a 44' roadway on an 80' right-of-way. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all roadways. The executed development agreement between the developer and the city requires the developer to construct pedestrian facilities along the public roadway including the outlots. Drainage: This area of this plat is somewhat rolling with the elevations of this site ranging from 1080' in the SE portion, 1090' in the SW portion to 1160' in the NW portion of the plat. Stormwater will be directed toward the existing stormwater detention pond for Manor Woods West Development. Wetlands: A Wetland Replacement Plan has been approved for the Manor Woods West area by the City. This plat does not include any wetland replacement area and the wetland area fill by the proposed Manor Park Drive NW is part of the approved wetland replacement plan. Public Utilities: Public utilities will be extended from Manor Park Drive NW, which abuts the southern and northern boundaries of this plat. The public improvements construction plans have been approved for this development. Spillover Parking: The proposed roadway is adequate to accommodate the required spillover spaces. Additional spillover spaces will likely be accommodated within the driveways. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plat. The Rochester Park and Recreation Department recommends that the parkland dedication requirements for this plat be satisfied by cash in lieu of land in the amount of $5,880. Payment of parkland fees is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents. General Development Plan: In 1998, the city approved an amended general development plan that included this property. The Page 3 Manor Woods West 12t° January 31, 2001 proposed plat is generally consistent with the approved General Development Plan. Substantial Land Alteration: This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alternation as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat, subject to making findings established in Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM. This development includes a proposal for cut and fill work which involves a grade change of 10- feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The area where the grade is proposed to be changed more than 10 feet is primarily the southwest side of the plat along the westerly edge of the plat. Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Staff Suggested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alternation, staff recommends the following findings to Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance $ Land Development Manual: 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The slopes on the west edge of the development will be designed with a maximum slope of 3:1. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. All cut material will be used to fill in the low area of the site. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. All excess material will be used on the site so no additional trucks will be necessary for the excavation work. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and surface water quality. 5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester. There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. The natural topography of the area be re -graded to provide adequate slopes for dwellings. 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for development that is consistent with the land use plan. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed in phase 1 of the project taking approximately 6 weeks. fl; Page 4 i ((JJ Manor Woods West 12'" January 31, 2001 8) The grading activity will only take place during the construction of the roadways and buildings pads that are planned for the site. The grading is expected to be completed in approximately 6 weeks. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater management will be provided for the development. 11) The areas of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and should not effect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed in approximately 6 weeks. The duration seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner contract process for this development. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable 2) Not applicable 3) Not applicable 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable 6) Not applicable 7) Not applicable 8) Not applicable Preliminary Plat. Page 5 QQ311 Manor Woods West 12'" U January 31, 2001 A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on May 1, 2000 with the following conditions: 1. Grading Plan and Drainage Plans must be approved prior to submittal of the final plat; pedestrian facilities shall be constructed concurrent with this development, along both sides of Manor Park Drive NW, including along the Outlots. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 3. Two additional fire hydrants be added to the proposed water system layout according to the locations referred to by Public Utilities - Water Division. 4. The applicant agrees that this Subdivision will have an impact upon the City's need for parkland and that the cash in lieu of land will meet this need. Final Plat., Planning Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and finds that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of cash ($5,880) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. Payment of parkland dedication fee is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents. 2. That construction access shall be limited to the use of Manor Park Drive NW extending north from this proposed subdivision to 7 h Street NW. aey ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 1 /24/01 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 Final Plat Request #00-11 on the Manor Woods West 12'h property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 2. Construction access shall be limited to the use of Manor Park Dr NW extending north from this proposed subdivision to 7th St NW. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the Development Agreement with the exception of: ❖ Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: NONE C:\TEMP\FP00-11 Manor Woods West 12th.doc ags ROCHESTER PARK AND I CREATION I DEPARTMENT, / 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 607-281-6166 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Jennifer Gamess Planning RE: Manorwood West 12`h Final #00-11 Acreage of plat.......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density .................................................. Densityfactor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 6.43 a 20 units 3.11 units/a .0244 .49 a $12,000/a The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount $5,880 (49 acres X $12,000/acre) with payment due prior to recordation of plat. Applicant: Forbrook-Bigelow Development 705 County Road 3 NW Byron MN 55920 N:\PARK\DSTOT2\2001\DEDICATION\NW 2898\MANORWOOD WEST 12TH.DOC WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative Rochester November 29, 2000 Minnesota Ms. Mitzi Baker Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 Land Surveying RE: Exemption from Section 62.1101.2 (a) for Manorwoods West 12th Urban - Land Planning M Consulting - Civil Engineering Dear Ms. Baker: Geotechnical Engineering Section 62.1101 of the Rochester Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance contains new standards for substantial land alteration projects. The grading of the Construction Material Testing Manorwoods West 12th site will result in exceeding a 10-foot vertical cut and a 10- foot vertical fill over various portions of the site, primarily the southwest side of the Landscape Architecture project. This project meets the definition of Section 62.1101.2.a.l(d) where the cuttfill involves a grade change of 10-feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The enclosed grading plan indicates the cut and fill areas on the site. The maximum extreme fill would be approximately IS' and that would occur on the southwestern • portion of the site. (See grading plan.) Section 62,1102.1.F provides for an exemption provided there are sufficient findings made as contained in 62.1105. The following are suggested findings in support of the request: 62.11050-15). 1. The activity necessary to grade the portions in excess of 18-foot vertical cut/fill will not result in unstable slopes or unsafe access. The slopes on the west edge of the site will be a maximum of 3:1 and only a small portion of the grading would involve an 18-foot cut. The cutifill areas are not adjacent to a planned park area. 2. The environmental impacts of grading on this site to adjacent properties will be minimal because there is vacant land on the west side of the property. 3. There is access to the site from the north and the south. It will not be necessary to truck in fill or haul fill off of the site, so that will minimize the impact on the surrounding roads. 4. The additional grading will not adversely affect air quality, the ground water, or surface water quality. 5. The natural topography of the area will be re -graded to provide adequate slopes for single — family dwellings for this development and future single- family developments planned in the 1 nPu^1n but the 1648 Third .avenue S.E. overall scenic quality will be mam' tail' � � �,-, •Rochester, MN 65904 j------- Tel. 507.289.3919 'f JAN `L011 Fax. 507.289.7333 e-mail. mcghiebens.com g,)CN— E— WF ptiv�,j '�...=.NIhJf, OEPkRTt Established 1946 6. The grading is compatible with the proposed adjacent neighborhood developments. 7. The grading will be confined to the Manorwoods site and adjacent property owned by the developer, and will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. 8. The grading activity will take place in 1 phase taking approximately 6 weeks. There are homes in the immediate area that will be visually affected by the grading activity for only a shod time during the grading process. 4. The grading plan will provide for proper restoration stabilization in accordance with the codes for the City of Rochester. 10. The grading will not result in negative impacts on the drainage patterns. The grading of the site directs drainage to the outlots which take the run-off to a detention pond. 11. The area of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and will not affect the groundwater or the subsurface water quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12. The grading of the site will take place in 1 phase taking approximately 6 weeks. This time frame is appropriate for the size and location of this activity. 13. Permanent and interim (during construction) erosion/sedimentation control will be provided for in the grading plan. The city will review and approve this grading plan. 14. A performance and payment bond is required for all work associated with the construction of the public improvements. This bond will be submitted with the owner/contractor. 15. This development will comply with the standards in the Land Development Manual and on file with Public Works. Very truly yours, McGHIE & BETTS INC. %-l-41- JoshuaJ.Johnson JJJ/bd pc: Harvey Ratzloff Q U Joel Bigelow ii 1-` ; j i4N A! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #00-37 to be known as South Pointe Sixth. January29, 2001 Staff Recommendation: MEETING 2-5-01 ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised changing the designation of'South Pointe Lane SW' to "South Pointe Court SW". 2. Temporary turn -a -rounds and associated easements shall be executed with the City for the northwesterly extent of "South Pointe Drive SIN" and 'South Pointe Lane SW', prior to recording the final plat documents. 3. A temporary access from South Pointe a to 6e Street SW shaft be constructed, prior to development to minimize the impact of construction related traffic on existing South Pointe residents. 4. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a reduction in previously established park/and credits as a result of the dedication of South Pointe and Outlot A. The applicant currently has 2.55 acres of credit remaining. S. Consistent with other developments approved along trunk highway corridors, the Owner shall incorporate noise abatement designs Into the buildings constructed within this development, in compliance with State and/or Federal Noise Abatement Regulations, and waive its right to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.H. 63. "The General Development Plan for this property was approved with the following condition. Based on conversation with the Rochester Public Works Department, it no longer appears necessary to require execution of the Pedestrian Facilities Agreement required by this condition. • Prior to recording any final plats for this development, execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required to address the Owner/Developer's responsibility with regard to the required pedestrian facilities along the entire frontages of T.N. 63, and 60ei St SW. Council Action Needed: 1. if the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Attachment: „L 1. Staff Report dated January 29, 2001 1* UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ado 1-: �1 SOUTH POINTE Paleanel On-Sllr S. Dnln.p FSYIy IS Nernup MVRB MGM OF WAY FOR PROPMD YNDOi APPROVE[� Pnr,HESTER-0LNi'. ':. r,IR6 EPNRTMENT 2122 Ctin.ru3 DRNE S.E. ROCHESTER, MN 55DD4.4744 llv \ y 63 AlrpaK Zone D \\ �—Limtt GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT pdwol ISOff1 (otm �.iV icVl Vc1V r[JG�CJL VSTNIAOr� D� j y OT February 2, 2001 Minnesota Department of Transportation District 6 2= 4ft St. N.W. Boa 6177 aoch*$ter, Minnesota sssDss,n Mitzi Baker Rochester Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100 Rochester, ,MN 55904 Subject: Final Plats, South Pointe Subdivisions Dear Ms. Baker: (507)285-7369 The Minnesota Department of Transportation District 6 has reviewed the Final Plat #00-37 South Poittte Sixth Subdivision and Final Plat #01-03 South Pointe Seventh Subdivisions and offers these recommendations: The Owner (developer) shall incorporate noise abatement designs into the buildings constructed within this development, in compliance with State and/or Federal Noix Abatement Peguiations, and waive their right to request future govemrnent provision of any noise abatement related to TH 63, Thank you for the opportunity to review the final plats. Please ]ct us know if you have any questions_ Sincerely, Fredrick Sandal Principal Planner M FQwf 0;*,,mryN Emp1oY'� TOTAL P.O2 III Jill $rs b 7 ,fr,=o x p ' s , =inn MAW m ti 9.cNlnd 1GJl= c a 1 i , � a � a' I,I i •� 11 1A- ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSINGa/ 507/285-8232 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner WELIJSEPTIC 5071285-8345 DATE: January 31, 2001 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Final Plat #00-37 by Randy Reynolds to be known as South Pointe 6th Subdivision. Plannin_q Department Review. Applicant/Owner: All Pointe Development Randy Reynolds 3552 West River Parkway Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department - Addressing staff Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 letters) 2. Copy of Preliminary Plat 3. South Pointe Approved Revised General Development Plan Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located between T.H. 63 and 11`h Avenue SW, south of 60'" Street SW and northeasterly from South Pointe Third and Fourth Subdivisions. Zoning: This plat consists of two zoning districts: Block 1, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Block 2, Lots 1 through 3, are zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map and Block 3, Lots 1 through 8 are zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning `—'� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 South Pointe Sixth Subdivision January 31, 2001 Map. Proposed Development: This development proposes to subdivide approximately 6.61 acres of land into 15 lots for low density residential development and also dedicates right-of-way for two public roadways, including the extension of South Pointe Drive SW. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for two roadways. The first, "South Pointe Drive SW" is designed with a 60' right-of-way and classified as a major local street. Temporary tum-a-rounds and associated easements are required at northwesterly extent of "South Pointe Drive SW". The second roadway named "South Pointe Lane SW". This roadway is designed with a 60' right-of-way. This roadway needs to be re -named to "South Pointe Court SW". There already exists a South Pointe Lane SW located in South Point Fourth and Fifth Subdivisions. Temporary turn -a -rounds and associated easements are required at the northwesterly extent of the currently named "South Pointe Lane SW". Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all roadways. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. Drainage: The topography is moderately rolling with elevations from the SW corner of the proposed plat being 1230', gradually increasing to 1244' to the NE corner. There is a hill that crest just above the center of this plat at 1246' and generally drains to the east and the west. Grading and drainage plans have been approved for this Plat. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands, no potential wetlands are indicated on this site. According to the Soils Survey, hydric soils do not exist on this property. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. 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 15 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the 1-1 Page 3 South Pointe Sixth Subdivision January 31, 2001 roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. Parkland Dedication: The Park & Recreation Department stated that dedication requirements be met via: Reduction in previously established parkland credits as a result of the dedication of South Pointe 3r' Outlot A. The applicant currently has 2.55 acres of credit remaining. General Development Plan: This property is included in the approved Revised South Pointe General Development Plan. The proposed preliminary plan is consistent with the Revised South Pointe General Development Plan. Preliminary Plat: The Rochester Common Council approved the preliminary plat for this property in October 2000 subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. Changing the designation of "South Pointe Lane SW" to "South Pointe Court SW". 2. Fire protection and domestic water needs for the unplatted areas with roadway frontage will need to be resolved with the Rochester Public Utility - Water Division, prior to any utility construction. 3. Temporary tum-a-rounds and associated easements shall be executed with the City for the northwesterly extent of "South Pointe Drive SW" and "South Pointe Lane SW; prior to recording the final plat documents. 4. A temporary access from South Pointe a to 60fh Street SW shall be constructed, prior to development, to minimize the impact of construction related traffic on existing South Pointe residents. Planninq Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised changing the designation of "South Pointe Lane SW" to 'South Pointe Court SW'. 2. Temporary turn -a -rounds and associated easements shall be executed with the City for the northwesterly extent of 'South Pointe Drive SW" and "South Pointe Lane SW", prior to recording the final plat documents. 3. A temporary access from South Pointe 6v' to 600' Street SW shalt be constructed, prior to development, to minimize the impact of construction related traffic on existing South Pointe residents. Page 4 South Pointe Sixth Subdivision January 31, 2001 4. Parkland dedication for this plat shalt be met via a reduction in previously established parkland credits as a result of the dedication of South Pointe P Outlet A. The applicant currently has 2.55 acres of credit remaining. 5. Consistent with other developments approved along trunk highway corridors, the Owner shall incorporate noise abatement designs into the buildings constructed within this development, in compliance with State andlor Federal Noise Abatement Regulations, and waive its right to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.H. 63. "The General Development Plan for this property was approved with the following condition. Based on conversation with the Rochester Public Works Department, it no longer appears necessary to require execution of the Pedestrian Facilities Agreement required by this condition. • Prior to recording any final plats for this development, execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required to address the Owner/Developer's responsibility with regard to the required pedestrian facilities along the entire frontages of T.H. 63, and 60v' St. SW. Reminder to the applicant., Payment of parkland dedication fees and execution of easements for off site utilities, turn -a -rounds or right-of-way is required prior to recording the final plat documents. recreation DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Jennifer Gayness Planning RE: South Pointe 6"' Final #00-37 ROCHESTER PARK AND F REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM Acreage of plat.......................................................... 6.61 acres Number of dwelling units ............................................. 15 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 2.27 units/acre Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .37 acres The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Reduction in previously established parkland credits as a result of the dedication of South Paine 3r' Outlot A. The applicant currently has 2.55 acres of credit remaining. Applicant: All Pointe Development 3552 West River Parkway \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOT2\2001\DEDICATION\SW 2897\S POINTE B.DOC ROCHESTE-K Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 1 /30101 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a Final Plat #00-37 on the South Pointe Sixth Subdivision property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this subdivision. 2. Temporary tum-arounds, and associated easements are required at the northwesterly extent of South Pointe Ln SW, and South Pointe Dr SW. 3. The Owner should construct a temporary access from South Pointe 6th to 600 St SW to minimize the impact of construction related traffic on existing South Pointe residents. 4. The Owner shall incorporate noise abatement designs into the buildings constructed within this development, in compliance with State and/or Federal Noise Abatement Regulations, and waive its right to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.H. 63. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the executed Development Agreement and City - Owner Contract. C:\TEMP1FP00-37 South Pointe 6th.doc CIM Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507) 287-2275 PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: January 25, 2001 TO: Jennifer Gamess FROM: Planning Dept, Addressing Staff Xel RE: FINAL PLAT 00-37 SOUTH POINTE SIXTH A review of the final plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues: 1. South Pointe Lane SW has incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change SOUTH POINTE LANE SW to SOUTH POIIsfE COURT SW. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �_G_ni AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARRII G PLANNING :M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-03 to be known as South Pointe Seventh PREPARED BY: C.I.C. #173 Planned Community. Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner January 31, 2001 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. A temporary access from South Pointe 6i8 to 600 Street SW shall be constructed, prior to development, to minimize the Impact of construction related traffic on existing South Pointe residents. 2. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a reduction in previously established parkland credits as a result of the dedication of South Pointe 3'" Outiot A. The applicant currently has 2.55 acres of credit remaining. 3. Consistent with other developments approved along trunk highway corridors, the Owner shall Incorporate noise abatement designs into the buildings constructed within this development, in compliance with State and/or Federal Noise Abatement Regulations, and waive its right to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.H. 63. *"The General Development Plan for this property was approved with the following condition. Based on conversation with the Rochester Public Works Department, It no longer appears necessary to require execution of Pedestrian Facilities Agreement required by this condition. • Prior to recording any final plats for this development, execution of a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement is required to address the OwnerlDeveloper's responsibility with regard to the required pedestrian facilities along the entire frontages of T.H. 63, and 600" St. SW. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Distribution: ' 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department GIS Division 5. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday February 5, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. NCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: tom.. i SOUTH POINTE FeleoYet De—e14 U N... I,<YIIF PEPCM OF ♦AY O56U YNUOT nl 8 Can �a McGhie l9w Betts,im. enr.H y�PAROV.�gEpAHTMENT 2122 CNwru3 DRIVE S.E. ROCHESTER, MN 55904-4744 Smty* Fb FiApajam 'Part Zone D GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT `ith G1 C. G wd mz W x� H� zo `o 1� z _V Fq O �O a e j!1 it �y ; t�ifi �I., • a 4° M1 , I IN I € Ira iY J WWII A TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: January 31, 2001 MVQ: NA "1111110101 MMIMM ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADD R ESSI NG/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Final Plat #01-03 by Randy Reynolds to be known as South Pointe 7th C.I.C. #173 Planned Community. Planninq Department Review: Applicant/Owner: All Pointe Development Randy Reynolds 3552 West River Parkway Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department - Addressing staff Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 letters) 2. Proposed Final Plat 3. South Pointe Approved Revised General Development Plan Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located along the west side of T.H. 63, east of South Pointe Drive SW being platted with South Pointe 61h Subdivision. Zoning: The property included in this plat is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). Proposed Development: This development proposes to subdivide approximately 6.61 acres of land into 15 lots for low density residential development and also dedicates right-of-way for two �`r AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 South Pointe Sixth Subdivision January 31, 2001 Roadways: public roadways, including the extension of South Pointe Drive SW. This Plat does not propose dedication of any public right-of-way. Access to the dwelling units will be via a private roadway located within Lot 1 (the common lot). �3 Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all roadways. This development abuts South Pointe Drive S.W. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. Drainage: The topography is moderately rolling with elevations from the SW corner of the proposed plat being 1230', gradually increasing to 1244' to the NE corner. There is a hill that crest just above the center of this plat at 1246' and generally drains to the east and the west. Grading and drainage plans have been approved for this Plat. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands, no potential wetlands are indicated on this site. According to the Solis Survey, hydric soils do not exist on this property. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. 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 19 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 Park & Recreation Department stated that dedication requirements be met via reduction in previously established parkland credits as a result of the dedication of South Pointe 3'd Outlot A. General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: This property is included in the approved Revised South Pointe General Development Plan. The proposed preliminary plan is consistent with the Revised South Pointe General Development Plan. This plat does not dedicate right-of-way for any new roadways. A Preliminary Plat was not required for this Final Plat. 3bq Page 3 South Pointe Sixth Subdivision January 31, 2001 Planning Staff and Recommendation The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. A temporary access from South Pointe 6"' to 60"' Street SW shall be constructed, prior to development, to minimize the impact of construction related traffic on existing South Pointe residents. 2. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via a reduction in previously established parkland credits as a result of the dedication of South Pointe P Outlot A. The applicant currently has 2.55 acres of credit remaining. 3. Consistent with other developments approved along trunk highway corridors, the Owner shalt incorporate noise abatement designs into the buildings constructed within this development, In compliance with State andlor Federal Noise Abatement Regulations, and waive its right to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.H. 63. *"The General Development Plan for this property was approved with the following condition. Based on conversation with the Rochester Public Works Department, It no longer appears necessary to require execution of the Pedestrian Facilities Agreement required by this condition. Prior to recording any final plats for this Facilities Agreement is required to address reggard to the required pedestrian facilities 60°' St. SW. development, execution of a Pedestrian the OwnenDeveloper's responsibility with along the entire frontages of T.H. 63, and Reminder to the applicant: Payment of parkland dedication fees and execution of easements for off site utilities, turn -a -rounds or right -of --way is required prior to recording the final plat documents. r. ItOCHESTEi Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 1 /30/01 s DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 40 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for a Final Plat #01-03 on the South Pointe Seventh CIC 173 property. The fallowing are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this subdivision. 2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of the public watennain and hydrant within this subdivision. 3. Construction related traffic should utilize the temporary access to 60th St SW, that is proposed for South Pointe 6th. 4. The Owner shall incorporate noise abatement designs into the buildings constructed within this development, in compliance with State and/or Federal Noise Abatement Regulations, and waive its right to request future government provision of any noise abatement related to T.H. 63. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the executed Development Agreement. QNTEMPTP01-03 South Pointe 7th CIC 173.doc ,�� ROCHESTER PARK AND F&REATION DEPARTMENT r"hester .0FO ne- 1 LU 1 UR 1 n a I RGG I SE I ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 24, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: (South Pointe 7th) CIC # 173 The parkland dedication requirement for the CIC was calculated during review of Performance Residential #00-26 and remains unchanged. The dedication has been met via: Reduction in previously established parkland credits as a result of the dedication of South Pointe 3`d Outlot A. The applicant currently has 2.55 acres of credit remaining. Appl"nt: Randy Reynolds 3552 west River Parkway Rochester \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CI TYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2001\DE DI CAT IOM SW 2897\S POINTE CIC 173.DOC\\CITY_OF_ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARK\DSTOTZ\2001\DEDICATION\SW 2897\S POINTE CIC 173.DOC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 02-05-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 6 -t 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANINTNG ITE M DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #00-16 by TGH, LLC to vacate the 19.5' PREPARED BY: ht-of-Way of the undeveloped alley in Block 3 of Highland Addition. The Theresa Fogarty, operty is located south of 2nd Street SW, north of 3rd Street SW and east of 21'` Planners Avenue SW. January 25, 2001 Planning Department Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this vacation request at their January 10, 2001 meeting. The Commission recommended approval of the vacation petition with the following staff recommendation: 1. Prior to the recording of the vacation, the applicant shall dedicate an easement for the existing overhead telephone line or pay for relocation of the existing overhead telephone line. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petition #0016 by TGH, LLC with staff suggested recommendation. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 9-0. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as submitted. Oftachments. 1. Staff Report, dated January 3, 2001. 2. Minutes of the January 10, 2001 CP&ZC meeting. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4t° Street SE, Rochester, MN. JL COUNCIL ACTION: Moron by: second by: to: JIMPT 7 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner v r DATE: January 3, 2001 • •fnC6jj uui�s r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Vacation Petition #00-16 by TGH, LLC to vacate the 19.5' Right -of -Way of the undeveloped alley in Block 3 of Highland Addition. The property is located south of 2"d Street SW, north of 3' Street SW and east of 21s1 Avenue SW. Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): TGH 400 South Broadway, Suite 15 Rochester, MN 55904 Reason to Vacate: Platted alley was never constructed and the applicant wants to use the land for the required bufferyard for a proposal. Referral Comments: Department of Public Works Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division Rochester Public Utilities - Operations Division Planning Department - John Harford - Wetlands Rochester Fire Department Qwest Telephone Report Attachments: Staff Recommendation: 1. Vacation Petition 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comment (1 letter) The applicant has submitted a Site Development Plan which shows an overhead telephone line running within the right-of-way. Qwest is requesting a new utility easement is defined to accommodate the existing aerial facilities or the owner may pay for relocation of the aerial facilities. The applicant has indicated that they will grant an easement for the overhead telephone line. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 6 Vacation 00-16 TGH, LLC 01/04/01 Staff recommends approval of the vacation petition subject to the following: 1. Prior to the recording of the vacation, the applicant shall dedicate an easement for the existing overhead telephone line or pay for relocation of the existing overhead telephone line. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE BE — SUITE 100 ROCHESTER, MN 55904 PHONE (507) 285-9232 FAX (507) 287.2275 Date: December 14, 2000 To: Agencies Indicated Below From: Jennifer Garness, Planning Department Subject: Vacation Petition #00-16 by TGH, LLC to vacate the 19.5' right-of-way of the undeveloped alley In Block 3 of Highland Addition. The property is located south of 2nd Street SW, north of 3rt1 Street SW and east of 21" Avenue SW. This application is scheduled for consideration by the City Planning and zoning Commission on January 10, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4" Street SE. In order for the Planning Department to prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by December 29, 2000. You may also appear at the meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance Is greatly appreciated. If you have comments, in addition to forwarding them to the Planning Department, please send a copy to: TGH, LLC 400 S Broadway, Suite 15 Rochester, MN 55904 (507)252.9949 City Agencies County tiencles OtherAoencles 1. Public Works 14. Health Department 17. School Board Richard Freese Rich Peter Jeff Kappers 2. Fire Department 15. Public Works 18. Peoples Natural Gas Lyle Felsch Paul Curry 16. GIS Division Paul 3. Crime Prevention 19. Qwest f Robert Miller, Gov.Center Don Kendall 4. RPU Operations Division 20. Charter Mike Engle Communications 5. RPU Water Division 21. MN DOT Donn Richardson Dale Maul f 6. Park & Recreation 22. Post Office Denny Stotz Supervisor 7. Building Safety 23. MN DNR Ron Boose Jim Cooper 8. City Attorney 24. SWCD Dave Goslae 25. Peoples Coop 9. Downtown Dev. Dist. Rick Wellik Doug Knott 10. City Administration Terry Spaeth y 11. Jerry Dooley /V �C Neighborhood Organizer 12. Transportation Planner�F—� 13. John Harford, Planning Dept 15 L I ter �' S r . �IC�SI't� G�LL�Q,I -Ci.S Lr.Uv�c� GIS 0. V1Dsc7Ju tl,t� �cl1zs�tv,cv�� Is de.t OL.LCbVIA.0 tcL, J2_ rST!1?1 GEY a tit l�I e.S z� nod uQs �nr vv�u5 PG.� ty, C:l l ITt� rnrn�n[�if1, NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF THE STREET IDENTIFICATION 15 CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED 15 A PLAT. 2(O^L� , City of Rochester, Minnesota Date: T) -Ppr mher 7 200n To: Mayor and Common Council City Hall City of Rochester, Minnesota Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or Utility Easement We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the city of Rochester, Minnesota, and we constitute 50% or more of the owners of the property on the line of the public property herein described to be vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate list showing the legal description and full ownership of each adjoining parcel.) Owners Name (If in joint tenancy, both or all parties must sign) Legal Description TGH, LLC Lots 1, 2 & 3; Block 3, Highland Addition; NW 1/4 of Section 3, T-106—N, R-14W We hereby petition the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate the following described public property: 19.5 feet adiacent to the south property line of the 3 above referenced lots. The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows: t. Platted alley which was never dictated 2. Need of clean—up and maintenance 3. Only one overhead utility on property and will grant easement p,,,,,stezoae Page 1 of 2 3t3 Will provide a code required Buffer yard for Lots 11 2 & 3 between commercial and residential developments. Your Petitioner respectfully requests that such proceedings;hall�ge� s accomplish this vacation be instituted as soon as possible. ,�� z ���1 00 S. Broadway, Ste. 15 ochester, MN 55904 Note: In cases where the property oignaiurs or reuno er I A4Uress is owned in joint tenancy, Kim Clark P tz C1t:eG M' l.t(. (Husband and wife, etc.) w ! ie both owners must sign the Signature of Petitioner Address petition. Signature of Petitioner Address Signature of Petitioner Address State of Minnesota County of / A/.ras lilON Signature of Petitioner Address un this �4'0�day of �irn �✓ ,7 , y$,%CJjL, before me, a Notary Public within said County personally appeared /C[art Mae 14/ 2 to me personally known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be is (her) (their) free act and deed and that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of (his) (her) (their) knowledge. Notary Public, Olmsted County Minnesota DARLINE M. NIESS NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires 1.31-20M : e24as Date My Commission Expires Distribution: City Clerk (white copy) Consolidated Planning (canary copy) Petitioner (goldenrod copy) Vacating Streets, Alleys, And Utility Easements: Form Number 1 Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or Utility Easement Form nazn-30 Sheet 2 of 2 Revised W17180 3�T MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE —SUITE 100 ROCHESTER MN 55904 Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held on Wednesday, January 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Members Present: Ms. Mary Petersson, Chair, Mr. Randy Staver, Vice Chair, Mr. James Burke; Mr. Michael Quinn; Ms. Lisa Wiesner, Mr. Ardell Brede; Mr. Gerry Werven; Mr. Paul Ohly; and Mr. John Hodgson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ms. Jennifer Garness; Ms. Mitzi Baker, Mr. Brent Svenby; and Mr. John Harford Other City Staff Present: Mr. Doug Knott, City Administration ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS: Mr. Brede made a motion to approve the minutes of December 27, 2000, as written. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The minutes from December 27, 2000 were approved unanimously. -Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the agenda, as written. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ORDERLY ANNEXATION: Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated January 4, 2001, to the Commission, The staff -fepod is -on file -at -the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that only two of the lots actually touch the city limits. However, all of the properties are included in an orderly annexation agreement with Marion Township. Mr. Werveq moved to recommend ap Fovai'bfA nex ion'�_I etjffb O '8z Y e 17t" Walls Mr, Quinn seconded tfte motion Te _ o i, scar'rie�e19 �� VACATION RIGHT-OF-WAY: Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated January 3, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. AGENDA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PUBLIC HEARINGS ► NTE i MEETING 3(!;' DATE: 02-05-01 ITEM NO. �'y1 G-1_I EM DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #01-01 by Jason, Stanley and Pamela Bargfrede to PREPARED BY: irate the northerly three (3) feet of the five (5) foot utility easement running along the Theresa Fogarty, southerly lot line of Lot 4, Block 22, Elton Hills Fifth Subdivision except for the easterly five Planner (5).feet thereof. The property address is 2520 12`" Avenue NW January30, 2001 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated January 30, 2001, Staff is recommending approval. Council Action Needed: Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as submitted. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated January 30, 2001. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6. Rochester Title and Escrow Company tql' UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second Luther Schoi Rochester fitle � Escrow Company, Inc, P Y� 2727 18'h Avenue N.W., R"hester, MN 55901; 1-507-282-6337 'chaser: Jason J. Bargfrede Address: 2520 12'h Avenue N.W. Stanley D. Bargfrede Rochester, Minnesota 55901 Legal Description: 4/22 Elton Hills 5th Lender: Sterling State Bank Inspection Date: 06/23/2000 - RE RTD: 37160 5 foot utility casement North <---------- Encroachment of garage into utility easement +1- 3 foot. The Company assures the insured that the above diagram indicates the d mcnsions of the land, the locations of platted easements, and improvements on the land covered in the insured mortgage as shown by those County records which under the laws impact constructive notice. This diagram is based on a visual and taped inspection. and is charted to approximate locations and therefore is not a Survey of any type. The use of this diagram is restricted to the lender and application shown above, and will be invalid for any other use wfiatsoecer. 'n i f/ TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: January 30, 9001 m st • �u�oa�l.R, �pi ne b ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Vacation Petition #01-01 by Jason, Stanley and Pamela Bargfrede to vacate the northerly three (3) feet of the five (5) foot utility easement running along the southerly lot line of Lot 4, Block 22, Elton Hills Fifth Subdivision except for the easterly five (5) feet thereof. The property address is 2520 12" Avenue NW. Plannina Department Review: Petitioner(s): Jason, Stanley and Pamela Bargfrede 2520 12' Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 Reason to Vacate: Existing garage and driveway encroach three (3) feet into existing utility easement. Referral Comments: Department of Public Works Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division Rochester Public Utilities - Operations Division Planning Department - John Harford - Wetlands Qwest Telephone Report Attachments: 1. Vacation Petition 2. Location Map Staff Recommendation: Due to the three foot encroachment of the existing garage and driveway, the owners of the property are requesting to vacate three feet of the utility easement, less the easterly five feet. Staff has reviewed this request and received no objections/ no comments from the referral agencies, therefore staff is recommending approval of this utility vacation request. 7.G WWI `-'� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER k I. City of Rochester, Minnesot(- DATE: Lao I TO: Mayor and Common Council City Hall City of Rochester, Minnesota 35901 PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR UTILITY EASEMENT We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and we constitute'50% or more of the owners of the property an the line of the public property herein described to be vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate list showing the legal descrip- tion and full ownership of each adjoining parcel.) OWNERS NAME (If in joint tenancy, both or all parties must sign) Jas_a„ .7. �4rs ��ecle 4-C d'- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lrof/ _ r���11n .SNN U.�V �1.�0 V1• � -L �i Oy- We hereby petition the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate the following described public property: Le__-e' r u N s Q (a., 4-f-(.-e Ebbn AWS E; L\ 54Lcos-)cG as+a- /�'�� , excee•+ 4, tGe 4: 1&4e- AVt (5� -f•ee•Y-t�-to-A. The facts an reasons for such vacation are as follows: 1. 3 3 40eea• , , +d sa 'c:P u+.'t . L- eo c e r f vx + 2 z) Sheet 1 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 31j I DATE: 02-05-01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E, --1 S A DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #01-02 by K & P Partnership. The applicant is PREPARED BY: proposing to vacate the west 30' of a 50' utility easement located on Lot 3, Block 5, Scenic Theresa Fogarty, Oak First Addition. The easement was recorded by separate document, after recording the final plat, Planner January 31, 2001 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated January 31, 2001. Staff is recommending approval. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as submitted. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated January 31, 2001. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached 4. Planning Department File 5, Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: m Vacation #01-02 Willow Creek K&P Partnership Golf Course 200' Notification Distance Ward 1 Hanson 01/23/01 Ike SW 3 m NOV-20—UU 10:U4A UGU OU/ tsb/ 4d.3/ sr-U1 - L - - - - ..-----..... i. C& C� AOse-IC• Fax Note 7671 Oau To page". r FUl l C-IDepf. i Ca Phone. e Phoiy. i Farr Fa;► 7-I��Ei ,,f145 j t t i '4 w 4 Lt /q alsui w.ijp Lt' SK tCJ J _ 1- . TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: January 31, 2001 .OF.6OCHF.STER•111 }'1 �4•• Fri :i GRATE➢:p UGUST's�P• ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Vacation Petition #01-02 by K & P Partnership. The applicant is proposing to vacate the west 30' of a 50' utility easement located on Lot 3, Block 5, Scenic Oak First Addition. The easement was recorded by separate document, after recording the final plat. Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): K & P Partnership 3775 Willow Ridge Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902 Reason to Vacate: A 50' easement was recorded after the recording of the final plat for Scenic Oaks First Subdivision. Only 20' of the 50' recorded utility easement is needed. Referral Comments: Department of Public Works Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division Rochester Public Utilities - Operations Division Planning Department - John Harford - Wetlands Qwest Telephone Report Attachments: 1. Vacation Petition 2. Location Map Staff Recommendation: The 50' easement was recorded after the recording of the final plat for Scenic Oaks First Subdivision. The applicant has indicated that only 20' of the 50' recorded utility easement is needed. Staff has reviewed this request and received no objections / no comments from the referral agencies, therefore staff is recommending approval of this utility vacation request. M,,`r AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 N: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 63.225 and 63.226 — Lighting PREPARED Standards for School & Church Signs and Development Signs in I John Harford, February 1, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On October 25, 2000 the CP&ZC initiated text amendments to Sections 63.225 and 63.226, Table of Sign Standards and Detailed Sign Regulations. A public hearing was held by the CPZC on January 10, 2001. No comments were received during the public hearing process. The proposed amendment would allow internally lighted signs for schools and churches in residential zoning districts if the signs meet specific standards that are also listed in the amendment. Second, the proposal amends the development sign standard for residential developments such that 2 development signs are permitted at the entrance to residential subdivisions. The current standard allows only one sign at an entrance. The CP&ZC discussed the application and voted to approve the proposed text amendments. Planning Department Recommendation: the attached staff report dated December 14, 2000. Staff recommends approval of the text amendments the recommended changes by the CPZC. Council Action Needed: The Council should pass an ordinance approving the text amendments. Attachments: 1. Staff report dated December 14, 2000 and attachments. 2. Minutes of the CP&ZC meeting of January 10, 2001 3. Proposed Ordinance UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ,U� TO: City Planning and Zonin Commission FROM: John Harford DATE: December 14, 200 nR"I TfD•A UGU�t. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION! 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WEL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 RE: Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amenFAX dment #00-05 to 5on2a7-zz7s Section 63.225 and 63.226. School/church Lighting The CPZC discussed a text amendment to Section 63.225 covering lighting of certain area accessory development signs in residential districts. The CPZC agreed with the staff recommendation on lighting. The following language is presented for the CPZC to act on and send to the City Council. In Table 63.225, page 348 a footnote will be placed in the column for sign type "A" and the row covering "Freestanding Sign — Permitted Lighting" and "Maximum Height". The footnote will state "(4] See 63.226(3) for specific standards covering church and school signs." The current reference to church sign setbacks will be deleted. The recommended standards are as follows: 3) School and Church Signs: All standards in this section Hurst be met to permit a sign with internal lighting. a) Signs shall have a maximum area of no more than 24 square feet. The sign area shall be calculated as specified in Section 63.223(1)(a). b) Thepermitted maximum height shall be no more than six feet. c) Light standard "R", under luminaire with no cutoff, Section 63.213(1) shall be applied to all internally lighted signs. d) The sign must be set back from all lot lines a minimum of four feet. No sign shall be permitted to be located in a utility or drainage easement. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTIMITVI r ,. nnnvv e) The sign must be located adjacent to the main vehicle entrance or building entrance. The sign must be set back from side lot lines the same distance required for the principal building. J) Near lights shall not be permitted lighting for schools or churches. g) Flashing signs shall not be permitted Development Signs In the tables covering the residential zoning districts no reference is made to development signs in the Sign Regulations column. A footnote must be placed in the column for the residential uses. The footnote should state "Refer to Section 63.226 (2)(b) for standards of development signs". In 62.212 the footnote must be numbered [1], in 62.222 it is [2], in 62.225it is [3], in 62.232 it is [5], in 62.242 it is [4], in 62.252 it is [3]. The reference to "shopping centers" in Section 63.222(2)(c) should be deleted from this section because the ordinance addresses these sign types as business center signs. In Section 63.226(2) Development Signs a table states the size and lighting standards. The text states that a development sign is permitted along a collector or higher level street. In order for this provision to allow many of these signs an addition to the text must indicate that development signs are permitted on local and major local streets. Staff recommends that the existing language be placed in a subsection 2) a). A separate subsection addressing development signs for residential development should be developed under a subsection 2) b). The paragraph that addresses construction signs should be renumbered as 2) c) Construction Signs. 2) b) Development Signs for Residential Development: Development signs for development in residential zoning districts must meet the following requirements of this section. The development sign must meet the sign size requirement as specified in the applicable zoning district standards. Where no Sign Type standard is identified far the use in the district a Sign Type "A"must be used to establish the sign size, height, and lighting standards applicable in a residential zoning district. Where a Sign Type is identified in the applicable district far the development the standards for sign size, height, and lighting must be adhered to. Development signs will be permitted at only one access to the development. Two signs may be permitted, one on each side of the street. The two signs combined must not exceed the sign size permitted by the Sign Type. Sign height must not exceed that allowable for the Sign Type. Each sign and each supporting structure must be located on a private easement, joint or otherwise, that is recorded. A copy of the recorded easement must be provided to the zoning administrator with the zoning certificate application. A long term maintenance document must be presented with the zoning certificate application. This document must be recorded. The document must identify the person(s), organization, or corporation, business, or property owner that will be responsible for the care and maintenance of the signs and for the cost of electricity if the signs are lighted. !-there no signed long term maintenance document is submitted by the applicant the zoning certificate application shall be denied. Development signs must not be constructed in a utility or drainage easement or traffic visibility zone. Development signs must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes December 13, 2000 33o Page 4 r City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 13, 2000 Mr. Dumond responded yes. WIT1=1I Mr. Burke movi to be known as Ms. Petersson wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. recommend approval of Preliminary Plat ce Meadows Second Subdivision with st Iked the motion. The motion carried 6-1, CONDITIONS: 1. The Plat shall be revise a. Changing the extension the rc 2. Dedication of parkland be met C. the City Park and Recreation De 3. Outlot A shall be dedicated he Ci i -sqQoMed conditions. r. Werven voting nay. "Spruce Meadows Lane SE". lieu of land, as indicated in the memo from dated November 27, 2000. construction of the 10 foot bituminous pedestrian path on Outl shall be c rrent with the construction of this project. 4. Stormwater Mana ant must provided is; development. 5. The Develope all enter into a Developmen ee that outline a obligations of the applicant re g manage t; park dedication; traffic ImproverMhe contri ons for public infrastructure. 6. T eveloper shall address the looping of. the 8" w to and valve box as described in the memo from t ater Division, dated November 21, 2000. ment with the City of Rochester but not limited to; storm water ,pedestrian facilities; ' ate in and lnstallatiom.of a, he R ster Public Utilities - Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amendment #00 05 to Section 63.225 and 63.226. The text amendment will address lighting standards institutional sins, and development slons in residential zoning districts Mr. John Hanford presented the staff report, dated November 27, 2000, to the Commission. staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. The Mr. Harford stated that Harriet Bishop School has an internal light on their sign. He explained that the light is to help with vandalism. He also explained that some churches have gone through a variance process to allow similar signs. He indicated that staff is not concerned about such instances. However, they suggest that there be a few standards (which are referred to in the staff report). Mr. Hanford stated that he would like the Commission to make a recommendation regarding standards that would address those types of situations. He stated that he would then come back to the Commission, at a later date, with specific language so that the Commission could take final action on the text amendment. Page 5 f C 331, City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes t Hearing Date: December 13, 2000 Mr. Hanford explained that another option, in addition to providing standards and allowing staff to issue permits, would be to make it a Type II use. He explained that they could make it a design modification so that staff would have more time to review each request. He stated that staff is not recommending it be a conditional use permit and variance. Mr. Hanford stated that staff has not received any complaints from anyone in places staff has allowed those types of signage. Ms. Petersson stated that she would only be concerned with spillover light. Mr. Harford responded that they could require that the applicant provides lighting information and identify how much light would be allowed through the ordinance. He indicated that Section 63.213(1) could be used. Discussion ensued regarding how signs are measured Mr. Harford made the correction that Foxcroft has two signs and not one, as was listed in the staff report. Mr. Harford suggested dropping the reference to "shopping centers" in Section 63.226, which refers back to the definition of development signs in Section 63.222(2)(c). Mr. Harford stated that staff and the Board of Appeals suggests that two signs be allowed instead of one for entrances. He indicated that basic standards would need to be set up. Mr. Burke asked if long -tern maintenance agreements have been prepared in the past for the signs. He questioned if they should require long-term maintenance agreements for the maintenance of the signs. Mr. Harford stated that most of the subdivisions have a homeowner's association that maintains the signs. He stated that it would be beneficial to receive some type of documentation of the long-term maintenance of the signs. Mr. Burke stated that most residential subdivisions do not have a homeowner's association. Therefore, there is no structure for maintaining the signs. Ms. Schultze questioned how long signs should be placed at the entrance, since they are primarily used for marketing. She questioned if the signs were a neighborhood association maintenance issue. Mr. Burke stated that neighborhood associations are based on volunteers. He stated that there is no requirement that they exist. Ms. Petersson stated that the maintenance of the signs should be addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Hanford stated that he would check previous plats to see if there is any documentation regarding the maintenance. Mr. Hanford stated that he would come back to the Commission with specific language. 33 Gage 6 r r City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes t Hearing Date: December 13, 2000 With no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Suk closed the public hearing. Ms. Schultze asked if the Commission could address lighting standards for institutional signs first. Mr. Suk replied yes. Ms. Schultze moved to support the staff recommendations and findings on Institutional lighting standards to proceed, with modification of ordinance, as presented Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. Mr. Harford asked if the motion including a staff approved zoning certificate. Ms. Schultze stated that staff did not make recommendations, in terms of the process for approval. Mr. Suk stated that the first option listed in the staff report on page 52, was staffs recommendation. Mr. Harford stated that staffs recommendation is that it be a zoning certificate. Ms. Schultze amended her motion to Include that that it would be through certification. Mr. Quinn agreed with her amendment. The motion carried 7-0. Ms. Schultze stated that she would like additional information on development signs before making a motion. Mr. Harford asked if she is primarily concerned with long-term maintenance. Ms. Schultze responded yes. She stated that, unless it would be on a major highway, she does not see the need for two signs. She stated that signage is primarily used for marketing reasons. Mr. Brede agreed with Ms. Schultze. Ms. Schultie. recommended to defer a recommendation with regard to development signs, until additional information is presented. Ms: Petersson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7=0. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of staff -suggested criteria listed in the staff report. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Ms. Petersson moved to recommend approval of staff -suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. FINDINGS; 1. $ignage serves a purpose for churches, schools, and residential developments. The signage provides Information to the public using the streets.in the: clty., The change " In the proposed text will allow -si na a that is appropriate to the character of an area i Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 13, 2000 and address the variance requests received by the city over the past few years. 2. The signage identifies the facility or development while protecting the public from distractions, preserving property rights, and aesthetics in the city. The text changes will establish additional minimum standards for signage based on the use. 3. The adoption of the amendment is lawful. The city has the authority to establish minimum standards for signage for churches, schools, and residential development. im Mr. John Ha rd presented a memorandum, dated November 28, 2000, to th/Commis The memoran ison file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford state at he notified the members of the telecommunications ta meeting. However, Mark Utz was the only representative present to spea Ms. Schultze expresse ncern regarding talking about the issue, witho a taskforce members being present. Mr. Harford stated that he no d the taskforce members in late N ember 2000. Mr. Harford stated that he would the Commission to indicafa direction that staff should proceed. He explained that he e---P% sed the opinions of th#Taskforce members in the memorandum. He indicated that, be se he included all the taskforce members views, it doesn't necessarily mean that staff wo agree with th Mr. Harford stated that there was not a lot disagrgol9nent among the taskforce members. The only issue of disagreement was regarding stffl&daffl for utility buildings. Mr. Harford stated that the Council has an int rdinance on towers in residential districts, with a few exceptions. He indicated that th oun could possibly extend the interim ordinance for one year. Howev/heindled that\Decber il would prefer not to delay the issue. Mr. Harford stated that he woulent for t7, 2000 meeting. However, he could try to arrange for the tbers tohe January 24, 2001 meeting. Ms. Schultze stated that she%�It it was imperative that the people intV4Lsted in and a part of the taskforce should be presen(when the Commission discusses the issu Ms. Schultze stated tVrthe issue is very confusing and that, for those peo who only discuss it once may not full ' nderstand. Therefore, several discussions should c c efore making final decisions. Mr. Mark Utz 21 First Street SW Rochester, addressed the Commission. H\essoeudl concerns rrding burying utility buildings. He questioned what rational basid be r 33y City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 19 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes ✓ Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Ms. Wiesftr stepped down from the platform, due to a conflict of Mr. John Ha presented the staff report, dated December 1, staff report is on a at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Departs Mr. Hanford stated tho if the Commission is agreeable to his st to the Commission wgpecific language for the next meeting/ the Commission. The he could come back Mr. Burke questioned if the that amendment is a major chalige orjust a clarification. Mr. Harford responded that it "wl,rnostly for clarification He indicated that there is some inconsistency in the present Ordinkxme. He explained that the reason Ms. Wiesner stepped down from the platform is because Aq has a project named the Willows that is affected by the text amendment. He indicated that it i ie only.,Ooject, at this time, that could be affected by any decisions o� Ms. Lisa Wiesner, of Design Construction 7 ptiTs located at 937 37"Avenue NW, addressed the Commission. She indicated that, if rages'a[[e not included in the floor area ratio, she could possibly put 10 additional garag on the sif She explained that it is more than just adding some walls around some exxtt for parking stall'. Ms. Wiesner stated that some pl Ees say that you do nott i clude interior parking spaces in your floor area and other places th ou would because a gara is an interior parking space. She indicated that she would jus a some type of clarification Mr. Brede asked if the tEA amendment would only affect Mr. Harford respondA yes. With no one elqOwishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Slaver ry6ved to direct staff to prepare detailed language stating tha arages are not calculate s part of the floor area ratio, where floor area is applied to res �g ential develop ent as supported by staff suggested findings.' Mr. Burke secondetj,the motion. The irrigiflon carried 8-0. Mr.yfarford asked if the motion included the 15 foot height limitation. Staver responded yes. Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amendment #00-05 to Section 63.225 and 63.226. The text amendment will address lighting standards, institutional signs, and development signs in residential zoning districts. 3 Page 20 / J ✓V' City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Mr. John Hanford presented the staff report, dated December 14, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford stated that he previously indicated at a meeting that most developments have a homeowners association. He indicated that he was incorrect. Therefore, there is still the question of who should maintain the signs. Ms. Wiesner asked that, if a sign is on commonly used land, does there need to be a private easement. Mr. Harford responded no. He asked if the Commission would like to see language recognizing community land. Ms. Wiesner responded yes. Mr. Harford indicated that Ms. Schultze brought up at a previous meeting that signs are used for marketing reasons and perhaps should not allow them, once the development is done. The Commission agreed that the signs coming into developments have a valuable purpose. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Ohly moved to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amendment #00-05 to Section 63.225 and 63.226 'as presented by staff, with the modification that there be an exception for common Interest communitles. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The'motion carried 9-0 , . ]< - Mr. John Harfor sented the staff report, dated November 27, 2000, to+th' Commission. The 41 staff report is on file a Rons chester-Olmsted Planning Department Mr. Harford stated that the C cil's past practices have been VbIlow new information to come to the Council during appeals. Vicated that staff has nobrbquested an applicant to identify what type of hearing process they wN4ed to use. Therer , Terry Adkins has asked for staff to rewrite the Ordinance and change it to r gnize the way the City Council actually functions during an appeal. �/' Discussion ensued regarding what "De Novo m � Mr. Harford indicated that the C/ate .ways wanted^tp entertain new information, when it is applicable to the appeal. Discussion ensued regarding aguage for "De Novo". arford indicated that it is a quasi judicial act and the langube left as is. Mr. Quinn asked why 26 16s was changed to 60 days. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 331 DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ING DEPT: ITEM NO. PLANNING fG ,/ "? M DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Teat Amendment to Section 60.760 — 60.764 — Procedure I PREPARED BY: and Scope of Review, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. John Harford, Seal February 1, 2001 Citv Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On October 25, 2000 the CP&ZC initiated text amendments to Section 60.760 — 60.764, A public hearing was held by the CPZC on January 10, 2001. Comments were received from the City Attorney. The practice of the City Council has been to treat all appeals as "de novo", meaning a new hearing before the council that would allow new information to be submitted as part of the appeal and review. This proposed amendment would reflect the current practice of the Council for zoning appeals. The CP&ZC discussed the application and voted to approve the proposed text amendments. Planning Department Recommendation: See the attached staff report dated November 27, 2000. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment. - ncil Action Needed: The Council should pass an ordinance approving the text amendments. Attachments: 1. Staff report dated November 27, 2000 and attachments. 2. Minutes of the CP&ZC meeting of January 10, 2001 3. Proposed Ordinance INCIL ACTION: Moton by Second by: to: 01101V TO: CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: JOHN HARFORD DATE: NOVEMBER27, 2000 �'y��; lv i� IBM, �m�sal�.�w•s!\ Ipni N ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/265-8213 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amendment #00-06 to Section 60.760 — 60.764. The intent of the text amendment is to simplify the appeals submission procedures. Applicant: City Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed Text Amendment: The CP&ZC initiated a text amendment to Section 60.760 — 60.764 of the zoning ordinance. Land Use Plan: The Land Use Plan does not specifically address this issue. Zoning: Currently, Section 60.760 — 60.764 of the ordinance consists of the "Procedure and Scope of Review, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council' for an appeal of a decision by the CP&ZC or the zoning administrator. Referral Comments: Rochester Public Utilities Operations Division and Public Works have no comments. Analysis: The CP&ZC discussed this issue with the planning staff and initiated the ordinance amendment to Sections 60.760 to 60.764. The City Attorney recommended that the Planning Department study this section and recommend alternative language to the current text. The reason for the recommendation is due to the fact that the process as outlined in the ordinance has never been followed. The current practice is to treat all such appeals as de novo; meaning a new hearing before the council. `�Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 33q ' These subsections include a statement indicating the scope of the review, details on a review on the record, De Novo review, and review body decision. These sections are attached to the report. The concern that the City Attorney has stated is that the procedure that the City Council usually follows is to allow an appeal, whether and applicant has requested it or not, that includes the previously submitted information and new information. The Council wants to continue to allow new information on appeals so that all relevant information is available for a full and fair hearing. The text should reflect that approach to the appeals procedure. Section 60.764 can remain unchanged. Sections 60.760 — 60.763 will need to be amended to reflect the procedure the City Council normally follows. The timeline of 25 days can be removed due to the state law Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 15.99. Section 60.761 is no longer needed if all hearings will be conducted in the same way, in this case as a hearing that allows additional testimony and evidence to previously submitted information. Section 60.763 will need to be amended to delete references to de novo hearings. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the CP&ZC adopt the following language for the appeals procedure. 60.760 PROCEDURE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: The zoning administrator, upon receiving the application, shall transmit to the appropriate body a copy of the application along with all documents constituting the record on which the decision appealed from was taken. within twenty-five (25) days 60.7621 Review on the Reserof the Application: 4?1 VA 1) Unless otherwise provided for by the reviewing body, review of the decision on appeal shall be de novo, but supplanted with the record of the proceedings before the original hearing body. this sestiea—The record shall include: a) A factual report prepared by the zoning administrator; b) all exhibits, materials, pleadings, memoranda, stipulations and motions submitted by any party and received or considered in reaching the decision under review; c) the transcript of the previous hearing(s) belew, if previously prepared; otherwise, a detailed summary of the evidence, but the details need not be set forth verbatim. 2) the reviewing body shall make its decision based upon ja1 the evidence submitted by the appellantFBGgFd afteF first gFanting the Fight of argument but net the iRtMEI-intion of and any other party at the appeal hearing, and fb) the record Prepared at the original hearing. to aRy PaFty Who has filed a RetiGe Gf appea4. 3) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to all property owners entitled to receive notice under the requirements applicable to the original permit application. 60.76462 Review Body Decision: Upon review, the review body may by order affirm, reverse or modify in whole or part a determination, requirement, or decision that is under review. When the review body modifies or renders a decision that reverses a decision of the zoning administrator or hearing body, 3yl the review body, in its order, shall set forth its finding and state its reasons for taking the action encompassed in the order. When the review body elects to remand the order back to the hearing body for such further consideration as it deems necessary, it shall include a statement explaining the error found to have materially affected the outcome of the original decision and the action necessary to rectify such. The review body shall within a reasonable time make its order deciding the matter and shall serve a coon of such order upon the appellant or petitioner by mail. In Section 60.710 reference is made to Section 63.763 and de novo review or review by additional testimony. Under the proposed revisions this reference is not needed and should be deleted from the text. The criteria that need to be addressed for a text amendment include: 1. Whether there is a public need for the amendment. 2. Whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies; 3. Whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful. Findings could be as follows: 1. The amendment will set forth a single and clear process for all applicants. 2. The amendment will allow all applicants and others involved in an appeal to submit the necessary information for the review body to make an informed decision. 3. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes and has stated that the changes are reasonable and lawful. Attachments: 1. Zoning Ordinance text— Section 60.760 — 60.764, and 60.710 3p , not render any decision which confers rights or privileges on the appellant than are otherwise permissible under the strict interpretation of the language of this ordinance. 60.760 PROCEDURE AND SCOPE OF REVIEW, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL: The zoning administrator, upon receiving the application, shall transmit to the appropriate body a copy of the application along with all documents constituting the record on which the decision appealed from was taken within twenty-five (25) days. 60.761 The reviewing body shall issue an order at the meeting at which the application for appeal was received stating the scope of review on appeal to be one of the following: 1) restricted to the record made on the decision being appealed; 2) limited to such issues as the reviewing body determines necessary for a proper resolution of the matter; 3) a de novo hearing on the merits. 60.762 Review on the Record: 1) Unless otherwise provided for by the reviewing body, review of the decision on appeal shall be confined to the record of the proceeding as specified in this section. The record shall include: a) A factual report prepared by the zoning administrator; b) all exhibits, materials, pleadings, memoranda, stipulations and motions submitted by any party and received or considered in reaching the decision under review; c) the transcript of the hearing below, if previously prepared; otherwise, a detailed summary of the evidence, but the details need not be set forth verbatim. 2) the reviewing body shall make its decision based upon the record after first granting the right of argument but not the introduction of additional evidence to any party who has filed a notice of appeal. 60.763 Review consisting of Additional Evidence or De Novo Review: 1) The reviewing body may hear the entire matter de novo; or it may admit additional testimony and other evidence without holding a de novo hearing if it is satisfied that the additional testimony or other evidence could not reasonably have been presented at the prior hearing. The reviewing body shall consider all of the following in making,such a decision: AUGUST 1.2000 3y3- 0 a) Prejudice to the parties. b) Convenience or availability of evidence at the time of the initial hearing. c) Surprise to opposing parties. d) The competency, relevancy and materiality of the proposed testimony or other evidence. 2) "De novo hearing" shall mean a hearing by the review body as if the action had not been previously heard and as if no decision had been rendered, except that all testimony, evidence and other material from the record of the previous consideration shall be included in the record of the review. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to all property owners entitled to receive notice under the requirements applicable to the original permit application. 60.764 Review Body Decision: Upon review, the review body may by order affirm, reverse or modify in whole or part a determination, requirement, or decision that is under review. When the review body modifies or renders a decision that reverses a decision of the zoning administrator or hearing body, the review body, in its order, shall set forth its finding and state its reasons for taking the action encompassed in the order. When the review body elects to remand the order back to the hearing body for such further consideration as it deems necessary, it shall include a statement explaining the error found to have materially affected the outcome of the original decision and the action necessary to rectify such. PAGE 80 AUGUST 1, 2000 34q 60.700 APPEALS: Decisions made in the administration of this ordinance may be appealed to a higher administrative body according to the regulations of this section. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the zoning administrator certifies to the Appeal Body that by reasons of acts stated in the certificate, a stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by an order of the Appeal Body or by a restraining order issued by the District Court of Olmsted County on application, with notice to the zoning administrator and for due cause shown. 60.710 PROCEDURE TO FILE AN APPEAL: All appeals shall be in writing on forms prescribed by the zoning administrator and accompanied by the fees established in paragraph 60.175 of this ordinance. All applications for an appeal shall contain: 1) an identification of the decision sought to be reviewed, including the date of the decision; 2) identification of the status of the person seeking review in relation to the applicant (i.e., applicant, adjacent landowner, owner of record receiving notice); 3) the specific provisions of this ordinance involved; 4) if de novo review or review by additional testimony and other evidence is requested, a statement relating the request to the factor listed in paragraph 60.763. 60.720 WHO MAY FILE AN APPEAL: Appeals may be filed in the following circumstances: 1) Any person aggrieved, or any agency or officer of the governing body affected by any decision relating to the interpretation or application of Chapters 60 through 65 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances made by an administrative official or body charged with enforcement of these chapters may file an appeal within ten (10) days of a decision. The basis for such an appeal may be any alleged error of such an official in making a decision, including his failure to make a decision within the prescribed time limit. A decision means any decision, order, requirement or interpretation which the official or body has the power or duty to make under these chapters. PAGE 76 AUGUST 1, 2000 Page 20 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Mr. ohn Harford presented the staff report, dated December 14, 2000, to th ommission. The staff r ort is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford s d that he previously indicated at a meeting that rry�aas d velopments have a homeowners ass 'ation. He indicated that he was incorrectt. erefore, there is still the question of who sho maintain the signs. Ms. Wiesner asked that, if ign is on commonly used I" and, does there need to be a private easement. s� Mr. Harford responded no. He asked,'# the community land. Ms. Wiesner responded yes. would like to see language recognizing Mr. Harford indicated that M§W48chultze brought up af'a,previous meeting that signs are used for marketing reasons an/pe ps should not allow them, oh�e the development is done. The Commission a the signs coming into developmen sy�iave a valuable purpose. With no one eKe wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the p Mr. Ohly oved to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance and tan veiopment Manu ext amendment #00.05 to Section 63.225 and 63:226 as presente: s#off, with the edification that there bean exception for common`interest commuhtt Mr. 8rede conded the motion. The motion carried 9-0.> Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated November 27, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford stated that the Council's past practices have been to allow new information to come to the Council during appeals. He indicated that staff has not requested an applicant to identify what type of hearing process they wished to use. Therefore, Terry Adkins has asked for staff to rewrite the Ordinance and change it to recognize the way the City Council actually functions during an appeal. Discussion ensued regarding what "De Novo" means. Mr. Harford indicated that the Council has always wanted to entertain new information, when it is applicable to the appeal. Discussion ensued regarding altemate language for "De Novo". Mr. Harford indicated that it is a quasi judicial act and the language should be left as is. Mr. Quinn asked why 25 days was changed to 60 days. Page 21 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 Mr. Harford stated that 25 days was put in, prior to the State law (MS 15.99) being enacted. Therefore, it was in conflict of what was happening. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Staver asked if 25 day was actually changed to 60 days, as it was not in writing. Mr. Quinn stated that Section 15.99, of MN Statues, states that there is a 60 day requirement. Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amendment #00-06 to Section 60.760-60.764, as presented by staff. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. Mr. Staver explained that the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals was having problems reviewing findings and approving resolutions within the 25 days, since they only meet once a month. Mr. Harford stated that there is an outer limit of 60 days, before staff needs to notify and extend it to 120 days, if necessary. Mr. Wiesner asked if they should assume 60 days. Mr. Harford explained that 60 days is only an outer limit. He indicated that, if the applicant is not notified that an additional 60 days is needed, a decision needs to be made within the 60 day period. Ms. Wiesner asked if the 60 day period includes the time of submission to time of decision. Mr. Harford stated that it begins when a complete application has been submitted. Mr. Harford asked if Mr. Quinn's motion included acting on Terry Adkin's revised Ordinance. Mr. Quinn amended his motion to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amendment #00-06 to Section 60.760-60.764 to correspond with the un-numbered Ordinance prepared by Terry:Adkins. NIr.Staver seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 8-1, with Ms. Wiesner voting nay. Ms. Wiesner expressed concern with lengthening the application process Ume. 1, Mr. Harford stated that the fissionfi4ed the taskforce members to be present, prior to discussion telecommunication to ength. He indicated that several members were present to speak on behalf of the t Mr. Harford explained how ttWfssue arose and`h & the taskforce was conceived. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 � DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY ADMINISTRATOR e .18 M DESCRIPTION: HEARING ON REVENUE BONDS FOR GIFT OF LIFE FACILITY PREPARED BY: G. NEUMANN The City has been requested to hold a public hearing to grant its approval for the issuance of approximately $2,340,000 in health care revenue bonds for the construction of an approximate 12,680 square foot Gift of Life Transplant House in Rochester and remodeling and equipping the existing facility at 705 Second Street SW. The bonds would actually be issued by the City of Stewartville. At the time that Gift of Life originally approached the City of Rochester, there had been prior revenue bond issues in Rochester that would not have allowed the Gift of Life bonds to be "bank qualified." As a result, they have contacted the City of Stewartville and they have graciously offered to consider the issuance for the Gift of Life. Approval of the prepared resolution granting the City of Rochester approval is recommended. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the prepared resolution granting the City of Rochester approval for the requested revenue bonds for the Gift of Life. 1 � 9 1NCIL ACTION: Moeon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings ORIGINATING DEPT: I ITEM NO. Public Works f,—jq M DESCRIPTION: Pr�ect Hearing for public Sidewalk Abutting Fox Valley Drive and PREPARED BY: 23 Street SW - Project J2454. Wellner, Over the past several years the staff has received a number of complaints from citizens regarding the gaps in the sidewalk system within Baihly Heights 6t6 Subdivision. Pursuant to these complaints a feasibility plan was drafted and presented to council on December 18, 2000. To move this project forward the City has advertised for bids to construct this project This project hearing is being held and the assessment hearing is being held at this council meeting. Based on this information Staff suggests that the Council proceeds with this Project Hearing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of a resolution approving the Project for construction. JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 350 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 12/18/00 AGENDA SECTION: {� 0 INATING Dpq: ITEM NO CONSENT -AGENDA P�l c Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Sidewalk 9butting Fo alley Drive and 23r° Ave ue SW PREP RED �Y. I, s / Project J 976� j j Wenner lr Public Works has received several verbal and written requests for pedestrian facilities to be constructed along Fox Valley Drive SW and 23'd Avenue SW within Baihly Heights 6' Subdivision. Sidewalks were previously constructed along the segments of Fox Valley Drive and 23rd Avenue within Baihly Heights 61 Subdivision except for along 6 unoccupied parcels. Individuals that reside in the subdivision own all 6 of these parcels. It appears that these 6 unoccupied parcels without sidewalk are intended to serve as either extension of the property on which the home sets or as long-term investments. Nevertheless, the lack of public sidewalk abutting these parcels creates a situation in which the users of the public sidewalk must walk in the street past these parcels. It also appears clear, that the intent of the Council and of the developer at the time of the subdivision approval, was to have a continuous sidewalk along both Fox Valley Drive and 23' Avenue SW. The attached Feasibility Report was prepared for consideration by the City Council. Sidewalk construction is proposed to be fully paid through Special Assessments to the abutting properties. The assessment rate is recommended to be no more than $5.15 per square foot of sidewalk for 5-foot wide sidewalk. Letters dated August 22,2000 were sent to each of the 6 property owners. The letter explained the need for the continuous sidewalk system and asked that the property owners install the sidewalk by June 1, 2001. Based on the August 22, 2000 letter and subsequent conversations with several of the property owners, the Public Works Department recommends that the Council proceed as outline( below. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Motion to accept the Report on the Feasibility of the Proposed Local Improvement Project for the Construction of Public Sidewalk Abutting Fox Valley Drive SW and 23'd Avenue SW. 2. Motion to set the date for Public Hearing on the Project and Hearing on the Special Assessments for the Project as February 5, 2001. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:. to: a s( REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SIDEWALK ABUTTING FOX VALLEY DRIVE SW AND 23RD AVENUE SW. November 16, 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing the following project: Construct public sidewalks along the vacant lots on Fox Valley Drive SW and 23'd Avenue SW in Baihly Heights 6" Subdivision and assess the costs to the abutting properties. The improvement consists of 5-foot wide, 4" thick concrete sidewalk abutting 6 vacant parcels in Baihly Heights 6* Subdivision. Feasibility Report We report that this project is feasible. Public sidewalks were previously constructed on Fox Valley Drive SW and 23nd Avenue SW abutting the occupied parcels in this subdivision. The 6 parcels abutting the proposed project have not had houses constructed to date. Individuals that own the unoccupied parcels also own a residence in the subdivision adjacent to the parcel. One property owner owns 3 of the unoccupied parcels. It appears that the unoccupied parcels are intended to serve as either an extension of the lot on which the owner resides or as a long-term investment. The Department of Public Works has received several requests from pedestrians desiring to use the sidewalks in this subdivision and finding that they must walk in the street near these parcels instead of on the sidewalk. Sidewalks are present elsewhere along all the developed segments of Fox Valley Drive SW and 23 d Avenue SW. The City council received a petition for the construction for these sidewalks at the October 2, 2000 meeting. Prior to the receipt of the petition, the property owners were asked to construct the sidewalk via a mailing sent August 22, 2000 (attached). To date, the Department of Public Works has had a response from only one of the property owners. Schroeters indicate an intent to have the sidewalk constructed in the spring of 2001. This project has not been budgeted for in the City's 2000 Capital Improvement Program. The costs of this project should be paid from assessments to the abutting properties. Currently sidewalk has not been constructed abutting Lots 1, 2, 3 & 6 of Block 2 and Lots 1 & 6 of Block 3, Baihly Heights 6d' Subdivision. The proposed walk for this project consists of the installation of a 5-foot wide, 4" thick concrete sidewalk abutting these six 3!�; 2--, -2- NOVEMBER 16, 2000 parcels. The total length of the concrete sidewalk for this project is approximately 883 feet. The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: 4" Concrete Sidewalk 4,415 S.F. $ 3.00 $13,245 Sodding 600 S.Y. $ 4.00 $2,400 Excavation & Grading 225 C. Y. $ 8.00 $1,800 Pedestrian Ramp 1 Each $ 500.00 $500 Construction Cost $17,945 Contingencies $5,384 Total Project Cost $23,329 Revenue Sources Total Revenue Assessment Charge $22,737.25 City $591.75 TOTAL $23,329.00 Should the council proceed, Public Works recommends that the necessary costs to be collected for this project be done so in accordance with the special assessment procedures of the State of Minnesota and the City of Rochester. Public Works recommends that the City Council Schedule this project for a public hearing with a special assessment rate not to exceed $5.15 per square foot for 4-inch thick, 5-foot wide sidewalk. Submitted for your consideration: ohn H. Wellner, PE Infrastructure Manager Richard W. Freese, PE City Engineer Project No: J No: - 3 - NOVEMBER 16, 2000 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Date October 19, 2000 Description: Construction of public sidewalk abutting Fox Valley Drive SW and 23' Avenue SW. Project Cost Summary Project Budget 4" Concrete Sidewalk $13,245 Sodding $2,400 Excavation & Grading $1,800 Pedestrian Ramp $500 Construction Cost $17,945 Contingencies $5,384 Total Project Cost _ $23,329 Revenue Sources Total Revenue Assessment Charge $22,737.25 City $591.75 TOTAL $23,329.00 Project Assessment Rate $5.15/square foot Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund M ma AMA 0 Lo 42 Cl) 44 0 cn 0 re M— I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 35-5/ DATE: 02/05/01 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works I S -,;t0 :M DESCRIPTION: Special Assessment Hearing for Public Sidew Valley Drive and 23 d Street SW project J2454 PREPARED BY: r of . Wellner V-L- This is an Assessment Hearing to consider the levying of proposed assessments for the construction of Public Sidewalk abutting 6 parcels on Fox Valley Drive and 23 d Avenue SW. The estimated project construction cost and expenses are $23,329.00. We propose to collect $22,737.25 through the assessment process. These assessments will be allocated on a square foot basis with a maximum per square foot charge of $5.16. The remaining balance of the project cost not covered by the assessments are the City's obligation. The Assessment Spread = 5 year period. If the property owner completes the sidewalk installation along their property prior to the construction of the city project, their parcel will be removed from the assessment roll. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of a resolution levying the Assessments. Note: The project is proposed to be constructed in 2001. No payment of the assessments are until the project is substantially completed. Assessment Notices (invoices) will be sent to the owners of the abutting property upon substantial completion of the project. L UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 2/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NABY: PUBLIC HEARINGS City Administration DESCRIPTION HEARING ON REVENUE BONDS FOR OLMSTED MEDICAL GROUP PREPA FACILITY T. Spa The City has been requested to hold a public hearing to grant its approval for the issuance of approximately $3.5 million in health care revenue bonds for the phased remodeling at the Olmsted Medical Group clinic located at 210 9`h Street SE, along with remodeling at the Olmsted Medical Center hospital facility at 1650 0' Street Se in Rochester, along with a new 7,700 square feet clinic to be located in Pine Island. The bonds would actually be issued by the City of Pine Island for the above mentioned project. There is no obligation to the City of Rochester. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the prepared resolution granting the City of Rochester approval for the requested revenue bonds for Olmsted Medical Centep ,a COUNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: second by: to: 4 CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PINE ISLAND, MINNESOTA UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 469.152 THROUGH 469.165, AS AMENDED, TO FINANCE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE BENEFIT OF OLMSTED MEDICAL CENTER TO BE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152-469.165, as amended (the "Act"), each municipality and redevelopment agency of the State of Minnesota (as defined in the Act), including the City of Pine Island, Minnesota (the "City of Pine Island"), is authorized to issue revenue obligations to finance improvements to land and buildings for the benefit of a revenue producing enterprise to be owned by a contracting party (as defined in the Act); and WHEREAS, under Section 469.155, subdivision 9, of the Act, municipalities are authorized to enter into and perform contracts and agreements with other municipalities as the governing bodies of the municipalities may deem proper and feasible for or concerning the financing of a project under the Act, including an agreement whereby one municipality issues its revenue obligations in behalf of one or more other municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City of Pine Island has proposed to issue one or more revenue bonds (the "Bonds") and loan the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds to Olmsted Medical Center, a nonprofit organization (the "Borrower"), to finance the construction of all or a portion of the costs of: i) construction of a 7,700 square foot clinic to be located at 111 County Road 11 N. W. in the City of Pine Island, Minnesota which will be financed with approximately $500,000 of the proceeds of the Bonds; ii) a phased remodeling of the Olmsted Medical Center main clinic, located at 210 Ninth Street, S. E., Rochester, Minnesota which will be financed with approximately $600,000 of the proceeds of the Bonds; and iii) remodeling of 17,500 square feet of the Olmsted Medical Center hospital facility, located at 1650 Fourth Street S. E., Rochester, Minnesota to be used as a new "Urgent Care Center" and the transference of the Obstetrical/Gynecological department from the main clinic to the hospital facility which will be financed with approximately $2,400,000 of the proceeds of the Bonds (collectively, the "Project'); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The financing of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the portion of the Project to be located in the City is hereby approved by the City and the issuance of the Bonds by the City of Pine Island for such purpose in the amounts described above and in an aggregate principal not to exceed $3,500,000 is hereby approved. 2. The Bonds to be issued by the City of Pine Island to finance the Project shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City or the City of Pine Island; and the Bonds, when, as, and if issued, shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including the interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenues received from the Borrower and the property pledged to the payment thereof; and the Bonds shall not constitute an obligation of the City and shall not be secured by the taxing power or any property or assets of the City. 3. The Borrower shall pay any and all costs incurred by the City in conjunction with the approval of this resolution, the issuance of the Bonds, the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project, and all other costs or expenses paid or incurred by the City with respect to the foregoing, whether or not this resolution is approved, the Bonds are issued, or the transaction is carried to completion. Approved this 5th day of February, 2001 0 Attest: a Judy Kay Scherr, City Clerk PNl 15-38 (JU) 191462v.I CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Chuck Canfield, Mayor 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 3s MEETING DATE: 02/05/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. `SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G _. 1\4 DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERR�� INS G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). An Ordinance Establishing the Salaries of the Mayor, Councilmember-At-Large, and Councilmember. ` G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: