The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/05/2001_Regularr CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCILIBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 5 REGULAR PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 0 �-C) 5 MARCH 5, 2001 7:00 P.M. (34) D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (5-8) 2) Consideration of Public Utility Board Action (9-10) 3) Transfer of Wine and On & Off Sale 3.2 Beer License from Cucumber Lil's to TJ's 63 Club, Inc. (11-14) 4) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (15-16) 5) Approval of Accounts Payable (17-20) 6) 301 Projects (Fund)/Transfer of Unexpended Balance of Permanent Improvement Projects (21-24) 7) Promotional Appointment/Fire CaptainlFire Department (25-34) 8) Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Plateau Estates Development EAW (35-36) 9) Roadway Name Change/Plateau Drive NE to Stonehedge Drive NE (37-40) 10) Request to Advertise for Bids/Four Water Quality Protection Program Projects (41-42) 11) Revocable Permit for a Part of Lots 3 & 4 of Block 1, Bel Air 81h Sub. (43-44) 12) Revocable Permit for a Part of Lots 3 & 4 of Block 1, Circle Drive Corporate Park (45-46) 13) Municipal State Aid Street System Revisions (47-48) 14) Sole Source Procurement of Equipment/Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Equipment (49-54) 15) Sewer and Water to Serve the Gluek Property (55-62) 16) Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Avenue SW to Salem Road (63-64) 17) Center Street Ramp Condition Appraisal Report Council Agenda March 5, 2001 Page 2 E) HEARINGS (65-66) 1) Continued Hearing/Type III, Phase 11, Restrictive Development Preliminary Plan by Waste Management to Permit Construction of 7,140 Square Foot Transfer Station (67-76) 2) Zoning District Amendment by B & N, LLC/Zone Approx. 5 Acres from H Zoning to M-1 Zoning District/South Side of 19t' Street NW, West of 32n° Avenue NW and East of West Circle Drive (77-96) 3) General Development Plan by B & N, LLC to be Known as B & N Properties (97-122) 4) Preliminary Plat by Leslie A. Lurken to be Known as North Park Eleventh Subdivision (123-150) 5) Preliminary Plat by Badger Development LLC to be Known as Badger Ridge Second Subdivision (151-158) 6) Annexation by Ordinance Petition by Schaffenberger, Cassidy and Fogarty to Annex 58.98 Acres North of Emerald Hills Development and South of 48 h Street NE (159-170) 7) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 62.273, Accessory Building in Residential Districts - General (171-172) 8) Permit Parking Petition from Edison Neighborhood F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (173-174) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A ITEM DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD PREPARED BY: S. KVENVOLD This agenda section is primarily for the purpose of allowing citizens to address the City Council on a topic of their choice. The following guidelines apply: • This section of the agenda may not be used as a forum to continue discussion on an agenda item which has already been held as a public hearing. • This agenda section is limited to 15 minutes and each speaker is limited to 4 minutes. • Any speakers not having the opportunity to be heard will be first to present at the next Council meeting. • Citizens may only use this forum to address the Council on a maximum of one time per month. • Matters currently under negotiation, litigation or related to personnel will not be discussed in this forum. • Questions posed by a speaker will generally be responded to in writing. t.uUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-17 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS T. SPAETH 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. Consideration of Public Utility Board Action D-3. Transfer of Wine and On & Off Sale 3.2 Beer License from Cucumber Lil's to TJ's 63 Club, Inc. D-4. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-5. Approval of Accounts Payable D-6. 301 Projects (Fund)/Transfer of Unexpended Balance of Permanent Improvement Projects D-7. Promotional Appointment/Fire Captain/Fire Department D-8. Decision on Need for Environmental Impact Statement for Plateau Estates Development EAW D-9. Roadway Name Change/Plateau Drive NE to Stonehedge Drive NE D-10. Request to Advertise for Bids/Four Water Quality Protection Program Projects D-11. Revocable Permit fora Partof Lots 3 & 4 of Block 1, Bel Air 8d Sub. D-12. Revocable Permit for a Part of Lots 3 & 4 of Block 1, Circle Drive Corporate Park D-13. Municipal State Aid Street System Revisions D-14. Sole Source Procurement of Equipment/Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Equipment D-15. Sewer and Water to Serve the Gluck Property D-16. Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing/Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23'd Avenue SW to Salem Road D-17. Center Street Ramp Condition Appraisal Report COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 5 Meeting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date 3-5-01 3ENDA SECTION CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT: RPU ITEM ,'NO, ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Consideration of Public Utility Board Action Kathy Wilson The Rochester Public Utility Board has approved the following on February 27, 2001 and requests the Common Council's favorable consideration: to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Altec Industries, Inc. for one S.D. Pittman Inc. Panther Mini -Derrick. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $61,330.00 plus sales tax and Altec Industries, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder. to approve a resolution to approve a contract agreement with Advance Tank and Construction Company, and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement for Cascade Creek Unit 2 — Contract 2 Demineralized Water Storage Tank. The amount of the contract agreement to be $152,600.00 plus a contingency of 5% ($7,630.00) for a total approved amount of $160,230.00 and Advance Tank and Construction Company being lowest responsible bidder. - to approve a resolution to approve a purchase order agreement with Electrical Power Products, Inc. for relay and control panels for the Cascade Creek 161 kV Conversion Project. The amount of the purchase order agreement to be $123,589.00 and Electrical Power Products, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder. GENERAL MANAGER: �� k a d w COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: we sledje. we Cetwer RESOLUTION BE IT RESLOVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a purchase order agreement with Altec Industries Inc. for One — S.D. Pittman Inc. Panther Mini -Derrick The amount of the purchase order agreement to be SIXTY-ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($61,333.00) plus sales tax, with Altec Industries Inc. being lowest responsible bidder. Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 27th day of February, 2001 . Pretdent Secretary wt ple6ga. wt 6ttver RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a contract agreement with Advance Tank and Construction Company, and that the Common Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement for Cascade Creek Unit 2 — Contract 2 Demineralized Water Storage Tank The amount of the contract agreement to be $152,600.00 plus a contingency of 5% ($7,630.00) for a total approved amount of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED THIRTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($160,230.00) and Advance Tank and Construction Company being lowest responsible bidder. Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City, of Rochester, Minnesota, this 27`b day of February, 2001. President Secretary ON we pledye. we dsaver RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, that the Common Council of the said City is requested to approve a purchase order agreement with Electrical Power Products, Inc. for Relay and Control Panels for Cascade Creek 161kv Conversion Project The amount of the purchase order agreement to be ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($123,589.00) and Electrical Power Products, Inc. being lowest responsible bidder. Passed by the Public Utility Board of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 271h day of February, 2001, President Secretary REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY CLERK ITEM NO. D - 3 IITM DESCRIPTION: TRANSFER OF WINE AND ON AND OFF SALE 3.2 BEER PREPARED BY: LICENSE FROM CUCUMBER LIL'S TO TXS 63 CLUB, INC. DONNA J SCHOTT Application for the transfer of the Wine License and On and Off Sale 3.2% Beer License for Cucumber Lil's located at 1726 S. Bdwy has received from Tami J. Spaid. The new name for the establishment will be TJ'S 63 Club. Inc. Michelle Crawford was the former owner. Ms. Spaid is requesting that the transfer be effective as soon as possible. Transfer would be pending the required fees, insurance certificates and all departmental approvals. A confidential investigative report has come back satisfactorily. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED A motion to approve the transfer of the Wine and and the On and Off Sale 3.2% Beer License from Cucumber Ill's to JTs 63 Club. • UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I i DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK b - -1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA J SCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. OFF SALE 3.2 BEER TRANSFER Oriental Food from Kunthary Phy to Sophon Phy 605 6`b Ave NW Rochester Mn 55901 GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT Rochester Juvenile Hockey Association PO Box 237 Rochester Mn 55903 PREMISE AT: Bon's Buffet 1652 Hillcrest Shopping Center Rochester Mn 55901 GAMBLING — RAFFLE Elton Hills School PTSA 3002 l6d' Ave NW Rochester Mn 55901 Raffle - 5111/01 SEWER & DRAIN Terry Soppa DBA T & R Excavating 1380 Church Ave St Charles Mn 55972 Jeffs Well Drilling, Inc DBA Peterson Well Drilling 27943 US Hwy 14 West Sleepy Eye Mn 56085 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE MARCH 5, 2001 OFF SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR (Annual Renewals) A C Liquor Inc DBA Andy's Liquor Andy's Crossroads Liquor Inc DBA Andy's Andy's Marketplace Liquor Inc B & F Leasing Inc DBA Apollo Liquor & Smokeshop Deanna Inc DBA Apollo Wine & Spirits Barb's Northbrook Kicker Inc DBA Northbrook Liquor RMT of Rochester Inc., A Mn Corp DBA Buckeye Liquor RSI-Supervalu Inc DBA Cub Foods Bear Creek Liquors Joe's Liquors Inc MGM Wine & Spirits Inc DBA MGM Liquor Warehouse Plaza Liquor Route 52 Liqueurs, Wines and Ales Inc DBA Northwest Liquors Sam's West Inc DBA Sam's Club #6427 Sunstone Hotel Properties Inc DBA Kahler Downtown Liquors CLUB ON SALE LIQUOR (Annual Renewals) AFL-CIO Labor Club DBA Labor Club William T. McCoy Post #92 Rochester Elks Lodge #1091 Fraternal Order of Eagles #2228 DBA F.O.E. #2228 Columbus Building Association DBA Knights of Columbus Loyal Order of Moose DBA Rochester Moose Lodge #2128 Rochester Golf & Country Club VFW Post #1215 Whitlock Sonnenberg WINE (Annual Renewals) Karla Sperry DBA Bilotti's Italian Restaurant Chardonnay, LTD. Hung Fu Chue DBA China Dynasty Guo Xiao DBA China Garden Cynthia Elizabeth Daube DBA Daube's Bakery & German Restaurant Denny's Inc DBA Denny's Restaurant #1368 Nghi B. Sam DBA Great China Restaurant India Garden Inc. Trips Inc. DBA Hawthorne Suites of Rochester John Hardy's Bar-B-Cue Inc. 29 Frontage Rd, Hwy 52 N John Hardy's Bar-B-Cue Inc 940 S Bdwy DMS Patel LLC DBA John's Family Restaurant & Coffee Shop Rochester Athletic Club Inc. Roscoe's Rootbeer & Ribs Inc. DBA Roscoe's North Sky Dragon Buffet Inc. Donald William McBumey DBA The Sandtrap TJ's 63 Club, Inc. JADCO LLC DBA Valentino's of Rochester Wong's Cafe, A General Partnership DBA Wong's Cafe Zorba's Restaurant of Rochester, Mn. DBA Zorba's Greek Restaurant LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 3 3 MARCH 5, 2001 ON SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR (Annual Renewals) Apple American Lmtd. Partnership of Mn DBA Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar (Apache Mall) Apple American Lmtd Partnership of Mn DBA Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar (Marketplace) Associated Management Inc. DBA Riptide Bar Lorraine Corporation DBA Aviary Restaurant Xiao Guo DBA Bon's Buffet Creative Cuisine Inc DBA Broadstreet Cafe & Bar/Redwood Room Brothers Bar & Grill Inc. J & S Corporation DBA Canadian Honker Hospitality Honker Enterprises DBA Canadian Honker Restaurant & Catering Carlos O'Kelly's Mexican Cafe Colonial Company DBA Colonial Lanes & Brass Lantern Restaurant Southeast Hotel LLC DBA Comfort Inn & Conference Center Charles Brannon DBA Crown Restaurant & Lounge Dos Amigos, Inc DBA Dos Amigos Mexican Restaurant Sunstone Hotel Properties Inc. DBA Economy Inn & Executive Suites D & D of Minnesota Inc. DBA Famous Dave's BBQ Shack Jorge Solis DBA Fiesta Mexicana Restaurant CMZ Inc. DBA Henry Wellington's/NeWts G.A.C. Development LLC DBA Hilton Garden Inn Sunstone Hotel Properties Inc DBA Holiday Inn Downtown Sonor Hotel Corporation DBA Holiday Inn South Hunan Chinese Restaurant of Rochester Inc. DBA Hunan Chinese Restaurant Chen -Si Wang DBA Hunan Garden Restaurant Hypat's Investment Inc. DBA ONeill's Pizza Pub J.J.'S of Rochester Inc DBA J.J.'S Restaurant & Sports Bar J & M'S Family Restaurant Inc. DBA Shady Hill Grille John Barley Come Inc. Sunstone Hotel Properties Inc DBA Kahler Hotel Sunstone Hotel Properties Inc DBA Marriott Hotel GPK Inc DBA Kathy's Pub King's Crossing Bar & Grill Co Inc. Rancho Grande Inc DBA Las Margarita's Bar & Grill Dooleys' Inc DBA McMurphy's Sports Cafe/Aquarius Nightclub Michael's Supper Club Inc. DBA Michael's Restaurant LTB Inc DBA Mugzee's CJC Enterprises Inc DBA North Star Bar Outback Midwest II Limited Partnership DBA Outback Steakhouse BDG5 Limited Partnership DBA Radisson Hotel Centerplace Recreation Lanes Inc. GMRI Inc DBA Red Lobster 4429 Allen Hurlbut DBA Rochescheer Country Pub Rookies Sports Grill & Bar Inc. Shenanigans, Inc. DBA C.J.'S Midtown Lounge Great Western Fair Inc. DBA Smiling Moose Bar & Grill Restech Partners Inc. DBA TGI Fridays Timber Lodge Steakhouse Inc. Victoria's of Minnesota DBA Victoria's Restaurant Willow Creek Golf Course of Rochester Inc. DBA Willow Creek Golf Course Deann M Stowers DBA Wright Stuff Restaurant & Lounge LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 4 i MARCH 5, 2001 I" CONSUMPTION & DISPLAY (Annual Renewal) Pla-Mor Ballroom OTHER ANNUAL RENEWALS Sunday Liquor 57 On -Sale 3.2% Beer 37 Off -Sale 3.2% Beer 17 Dance 22 Bowling 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above RENEWAL LICENSES. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. D _ 6 wyl 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 $940,380.68. Less: Any exceptions I ,,wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT FINANCE D ---(a ITEM DESCRIPTION: 301 PROJECTS (FUND) - TRANSFER OF UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF PREPARED BY: PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Dale Martinson Attached is a prepared resolution closing completed projects, or completed phases within specific projects, and authorizing transfers of the unexpended balances. The project funds were created and financed pursuant to City Charter, Section 1 1.10. The amount of funds transferred to close projects is broken down as follows: Parks $ 552.46 Sewer at Water 170,201.87 Other 70,774.59 Net Funds Transferred $ 241,528.92 The amount of funds transferred to fund active projects Is broken down as follows: Storm Water $ 47,243.07 Flood Control 72,206.46 Other 2,115,665.09 Net Funds Transferred $2,235,114.62 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Respectfully request a motion adopting the prepared resolution closing completed Improvement projects, or completed phases within specific projects, and transferring unexpended balances pursuant to the City Charter, Section 1 1.10; and to transfer the stated amounts to fund active projects listed in Item # 2 below. _ -)UNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Common Council has appropriated funds to the following projects: Pro ect #/ Project Description Amount Parks 2899 Park Acquisition ( 41,760.90) Funds transferred to 12899 from 11994 (Future Construction) 41,760.90 2939 WR6 Reservoir Prkg Lot-S Hills (trf fr 312 Fund) ( 2,700.00) Funds transferred to J2939 from 312 Fund 2,700.00 2947 Repl BckstpatFnce@5F BallDiamnd (trf fr Park reserves-221 Fund) ( 4,775.47) Funds transferred to J2947 from 221 Fund 4,775.47 2956 S.F. Pool Cnvrs; Ppl Bath Hs ( 7,666.53) Funds transferred to ]2956 from ]2904 (Silver Lake Pool Improv) 7,666.53 2976 Foxcroft Park Development (trf to 12978 at J2972—Youth Sports Cmplex) 573.50 2978 East Park Development (trf fr ]2976) ( 21.04) 2988 Adventure Plygmd Development ( 16,088.90) Funds transferred to 12988 from FE Williams Fund 16,088.90 Subtotal 552.46 Sewer ar Water 2086 Wtr Ln/Hydmt sry Fit Storge (trf fr ) 1994) ( 11,549.51) Funds transferred to ]2086 from ]1994 (Future Construction) 11,549.51 2169 Reloc CCM Trkln < 2 > 20St NW (trf to J2133) 170,201.87 2458 Plat Gmdwtr Rechg Area Grant (trf fr ]2137) ( 12,900.25) Funds transferred to ]2458 from 12137 (Storm Wtr Mgmt Fees) 12,900.25 Subtotal 170,201.87 Streets 2235 WdnatRcn Marlon Rd H 14> Bear Crk (trffr ]2201) ( 67.16) Funds transferred to ]2235 from 12201 (Gen Street Improv) 67.16 2113 Curb atGutter Rpr-Var Locations (trf fr 101 General Fund) ( 9,984.17) 8307 Sidewalk Construction -City Shr (trf fr 101 General Fund) (32,716.35) Funds transferred to ]2113 St J8307 fr 101 General Fund 42,700.52 Subtotal 0.00 Other 1976 Regional PubSfty TrainingFcity (trf fr] 1987 at ] 1994) ( 600.00) Funds transferred to 11976 from ] 1994 (Future Construction) 545.00 1985 Bit Paving on St Mtce Svc Lot (trf to ]4937) 35,407.35 1986 Devlp Wide Area Network @ RPL 31,734.01 1987 Repl F.D. Air Cyl u Relatd Eq (trf to ] 1976) 55.00 1995 Non -Pro] Right of Way/Easmnt ( 797.44) Funds transferred to ] 1995 from J2003 (Future Property Acquisition) 797.44 2000 Bldg Safety Local Area Network (trf to ] 1994) 20.24 2005 Impry PWks Grg-CCtrPkw at 2AvNE ( 6,532.98) Funds transferred to )2005 from 701 Fund (PTkg Fund) 6,532.98 2006 BatS-1mprv,FumItur,RcrdFlleSys (trf fr]1994) ( 8,413.65) Funds transferred to ]2006 from 11994 (Future Construction) 8,413.65 2095 DRAKIDS Catalog @ RPL (trf to J2041) 3,612.99 4883 Flood Control Program (trf fr 312 Fund) ( 47.71) 4894 Cnstr 7St NE Ped Brdg ZmbrRvr (trf fr 312 Fund) ( 33,109.70) Funds transferred to ]4883 at 14894 from 312 Fund (FC Sales Tax) 33,157.41 Subtotal 70,774.59 Net Funds Transferred $241,528.92 WHEREAS, the above listed projects have completed various phases and all costs of said improvements have been paid. r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota in compliance with the Charter of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, Section 1 1.10 that: 1*1 1. The above named funds shall be closed and the remaining balances in said funds shall be transferred to the following local improvement project funds: Pro ect # Project Description Amount Park 2972 Youth Sports Complex 552.46 Sewer 81 Water 2133 General Sn/S Main Repicmnt 170,201.87 Other 1994 Future Construction 20.24 2041 Llbr Inf Technigy Hdwr/Sftwr (from ] 1986 8i ]2095) 30,347.00 2046 Upgrd City Hall Computr System (from J 1986) 5,000.00 4937 St Maint Building Improvements 35,407.35 Subtotal 70, 774.59 Net Funds Transferred $241,528.92 2. The following list of projects, although not complete, have incurred expenditures and require a transfer of monies to fund the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota that the following transfer amounts be officially and formally accepted and approved. Project # Proiect/Transfer Description Amount Transfer fr 101 Fund (General Fund) to: 115,665.09 1980 DM ai E Railroad Concern (115,665.09) Transfers fr J2137 (Storm Wtr Mgmt Fees) to the following projects: 47,243.07 2459 CnstStrmWtrPndWCP6.13b-BdwyCms ( 37,515.00) 2462 Cnst Penningm BusPrk Rgnl Pnd ( 2,275.07) 2464 CnstrStrmWtrPnd-KingsRunAreaNW ( 4,198.50) 2470 CnstrStrmWtrPndwestCntryHls3rd ( 3,254.50) Transfer from the 312 Fund (Fld Ctri Sales Tax) to: 4890 ConstrPnds#CP12,#CP14,#CP15 72,206.46 ( 72,206.46) Transfer from the 707 Fund (Sewer Utility Fund) to: 2,000,000.00 4365 Landfl Site-E of W Rvr Rd @ 41 St (2,000,000•00) 3. The Director of Finance Is hereby authorized and directed to put into effect the provision of this resolution as of December 31, 2000. Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this 5th day of March, 2001 Attest: City Clerk Approved this _ day of 1001 President of said Common Council Mayor of said City (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational / Consent Human Resources 1) _ ? ITEM DESCRIPTION: Promotional Appointment - Fire Captain - Fire Department PREPARED 8Y: L Gilsrud The recent voluntary demotion of Fire Captain Charles Roberson creates a vacancy for the position of Fire Captain. The Fire Civil Service Commission has submitted the top three (3) candidates for the position of Fire Captain from the established eligibility roster and recommends the appointment of one of the three to the position of Fire Captain. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Promotional appointment of Firefighter Kim Fanning to the position of Fire Captain effective March 13, 2001. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: O g, ALL-kk]F]RIC,1 C'I1 Y UP March 1, 2001 ROCHESTER FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION GREG WALTERS NORB RYAN HILLA CLINE Honorable Council Members City Council City Hall Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Council Members: The Fire Civil Service Commission recently unanimously approved Fire Captain Charles Roberson's request for a voluntary demotion to the position of Motor Operator. We respectfully request that you make one (1) appointment to the position of Captain from the following list of qualified candidates: 1. Kim Fanning 2. Ken Moyer 3. Brennan Kelly Fire Chief David Kepler desires to have this appointment effective March 13, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, Norb Ryan Secretary Fire Civil Service Commission An EquulOpportunity Employer ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: Fire Civil Service Commission FROM: David Kapler, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Captains Promotion Captain Charles Roberson recently requested a voluntary demotion to motor operator. This leaves a vacancy in the captain's rank. Firefighter Kim Fanning is next on the Captains Eligibility List. 2 request that he be appointed to the position of captain effective March 13,2001. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING as ' DATE: 3-5-01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING LPREPARED i i rM DESCRIPTION: Decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the :Plateau Estates Development EAW. , February 28, 2001 An EAW was prepared for the Plateau Estates development in January 2001 to determine the potential environmental effects of this development that includes approximately 208 acres of land located north of East Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and west of the Emerald Hills Development in part of Section 19 of Haverhill Township. The 30-day comment period on the EAW expired on February 21, 2001. Three letters were received (see attached). Responses to the written comments are included in the staff report. Minnesota Rules require that a decision on this matter must be made by the RGU (Common Council) no later than 30 days after February 21, 2001 (end of comment period). Council Action Needed: Adoption of a resolution setting forth the City's declaration on the EAW adequacy. The resolution should include specific findings. This resolution will be transmitted by the Planning Department to the Environmental Quality Board. chments: a 1. Copy of February 28, 2001 memo from Planning Staff, which includes a copy of the Plateau Estates EAW, comment letters received and responses to the agency comments. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 5, 2001 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Rochester -Olmsted Government Center Building 6. Yaggy Colby Associates 2 flb.7 ��cu.�ne'-.i' iS Availal,Ie ^�ur- ViCAJ �¢ p/OTE: Eo�y p% ciK nr P�onnivJ Dtft __UNCILACTION: Moeonby: Second by: to: i A VW TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING1HRA 5071285-8224 DATE: February 28, 2001 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Plateau EstatQwSELusEPTlc 507/28 FAX 507/287.2275 -275 Background: The 1973 Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, administered statewide through the Environmental Quality Board, is the basis for the present Environmental Review Program of the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Rules 4410.0200 - .7900 were promulgated to administer the mandates of the Policy Act, spell out the specific environmental review procedures, and define when and how they must be employed. The intent of the environmental review program is to identify early the potential impacts of a project and provide time for the decision makers to require that mitigative measures are incorporated into the project design before local permits are granted. The first level of environmental review under the program is known as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or "EAW". The specific content, environmental scope, and procedures for an EAW are specified in Minnesota Rules. The rules mandate what type of projects must go through the EAW process and who will act as the responsible unit of government to determine if additional environmental review is necessary in the form of a much more detailed Environmental Impact Statement or "EIS'. The Plateau Estates development project exceeds a mandatory EAW category in that it will eventually result in the permanent conversion of 80 or more acres of agricultural land to a more intensive use and that there is a potential of more than 250 unattached units (Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 19 and 36). The rules assign the responsibility for the EAW preparation and determination of adequacy to the local unit of government which is charged with the responsibility to approve or deny permits for the project to proceed. In this case, the local responsible governmental unit would be the Rochester Common Council. EAW Process: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Plateau Estates was transmitted to the Environmental Quality Board on January 19, 2001. The Planning Department notified and provided a copy of the EAW to the various state and federal agencies prescribed by Minnesota Rules. Copies of the EAW were made available to the City Clerk, County Administrator, and Public Library for public display, as well as a copy at the Planning Department. A press release was made to the Rochester Post Bulletin which explained the procedures for submitting comments. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ,..yme. Plateau Estates EAW On January 22, 2001, the notice of availability was published in the EQB Monitor. The 30-day comment period expired on February 21, 2001. The following comments were received regarding this EAW: 1. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (see attached) 2. Minnesota Historical Society (see attached) 3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (see attached) Rochester's Responsibilities in the Process: Under Minnesota Rules the City of Rochester is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) to determine the need for further environmental review of a project by preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The decision facing the City is whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects and compare the impacts that may be expected to occur from the project with four criteria outlined in the rules (and listed below). This report could act as a record of the findings made by the City and a basis for the decision that is made. The City must make either a negative or a positive declaration. If a negative declaration is made on the need for an EIS, then the City must notify all persons or agencies that originally received copies of the EAW. The Environmental Quality Board shall publish the decision in the EQB Monitor. If a positive declaration is made, meaning an EIS must be prepared, then it should include the scope of what specific issues must be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. A positive declaration should include the time, date and location of the public meeting to discuss the scope of the EIS. Response to Comments: Under the environmental review process, the RGU's record must provide written response to substantive comments received during the EAW comment period. In this instance we received written comments from those agencies listed above. The comments received generally related to: 1. Ecologically Sensitive Resources 2. Water Resources & Erosion and Sedimentation 3. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions 4. Wildlife Corridor COVER TYPES & ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES: The EAW estimates that there is approximately 4.9 acres of wetlands located on the property before development and only 4.5 acres after development. The developer anticipates impacting .5 acres of wetlands. The developer will need to complete a wetland delineation for the property and a replacement plan will need to be approved by the Local Government Unit. The developer will also evaluate the site for springs at the time the wetland delineation is completed. WATER RESOURCES & EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION: The City of Rochester will require compliance with the City Stormwater Management Plan. The developer will be required to construct on -site treatment facilities or may request to pay a fee that will be dedicated to the funding of regional stormwater facilities. The City's Stormwater Management Plan addresses both water quantity and quality issues. The proposed development will need to comply with adopted plans or policies relating to stormwater management. All development in the City is required to have grading and drainage plans approved by the City Public Works Department, a�Plateau Estates EAW which addresses stormwater management and erosion control issues. These are typically reviewed at the time a specific phase or development is proposed to occur, such at the time of platting. In addition, as part of the City grading and drainage plan review process, the NPDES requirements will be required to be complied with. Stormwater facilities serving less that 50 acres do not qualify as a regional, public facility and requires that the developer sign Storm Water Management Agreement and Declaration for maintenance of the storm water facilities. Facilities serving over 50 acres are considered public facilities and will be maintain by the City. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS & SOIL CONDITIONS: The developer is aware that the Decorah Shale traverses the northern portion of the site. Development in the northern portion of the site is limited, with the majority of the area being left undeveloped. The City is in the process on completing a groundwater recharge study. The results of this study will recommend development practices for those areas where development is occurring on the Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area. WILDLIFE DISPLACEMENT: There will be displacement of wildlife associated with the development of this property. Some of the wildlife will move into other areas of suitable habitat in the vicinity. In the proposed development, large portions of the wooded hillsides are undevelopable and will sustain various types of wildlife. Criteria for Determining Significant Environmental Effects: In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City must consider the following factors as outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 subp. 7: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EIS's. Findings: The Planning Staff recommends that based on the following findings that the City makes a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for the Plateau Estates Development and that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects: 1. The anticipated environmental effects of this project are found to be the same as those experienced with adjacent residential development in the City of Rochester. This site has no unique environmentally sensitive features which warrant more detailed investigations. 2. Water quality of surface waters from the runoff or waste waters from the site should not be significantly degraded because of this project. Erosion and water quality of runoff will be controlled by the installation of stormwater detention ponds and sediment traps. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual provides for an ongoing regulatory authority of the City over erosion control practices. Wastewater from this project will be treated at the City of Rochester Wastewater Treatment Plant which is capable of accepting the estimated amounts of wastewater generated by this project. 4 � / Plateau Estates EAW 3. The potential for groundwater contamination is found to be reduced by the use of a stormwater collection system which employs detention basins as compared to the existing unrestricted overland flow in the property's present state. Spills on the ground surface will have the potential to be intercepted in the stormwater detention areas before they leave the property. 4. The anticipated cumulative loss of agricultural lands within the urban service area of the City of Rochester (where sewer and water service is available) to urban land uses is an anticipated effect of the orderly growth of the City. Land use policies direct development to growth centers such as Rochester to reduce the pressure on agricultural lands in the outlying area to be converted to residential uses. The more efficient use of land for residential purposes where increased densities can be realized because of sewer and water availability is expected to help conserve truly prime agricultural areas. 5. Dust and noise, which will be generated because of the construction of this project, will be no more than typical for any residential development. The City of Rochester has a noise ordinance which will protect nearby residents from unreasonable noise from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Methods for controlling dust will need to be implemented by the developer. Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City prior to construction and will need to incorporate erosion control measures. 6. This property is within the City of Rochester 25 year Urban Service Area according to the Olmsted County Land Use Plan. Cumulative effects of development within the Urban Service Area will include the loss of prime farmland and wildlife habitat. The loss of terrestrial habitat and prime farmland caused by this development should actually help the efforts to retain more significant habitats and farmlands in less developed areas of the County by removing residential pressures and concentrating them in planned areas where the density of development creates a more efficient use of land. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Plateau Estates EAW 2. Letter from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 3. Letter from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 4. Letter from Minnesota Historical Society y�P,sEOP MINNFSOT 9 m `^ � U O� F�OF NANRP�P February 20, 2001 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Brent Svenby, Planner Rochester Common Council 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, Minnesota 55904 EAW for Plateau Estates Dear Mr. Svenby: 500 Larayelle Road St. Paid. Minnesota 55155-40 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the above -referenced document and provides the following comments for your consideration. In regard to Item 17 of the EAW, Surface Water Runoff, we suggest that lowering the quantity of stormwater runoff to levels below pre -development conditions should be a high priority. Property owned by the City of Rochester in Hadley Valley which is currently impacted by runoff would benefit from such an effort. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Based on the information provided, we see no need for further environmental review on the project. We look forward to receiving your Record of Decision and responses to comments. Minnesota Rules part 4410.1700, subparts 4 & 5, require you to send us your Record of Decision within five days of deciding this action. Please contact Ken Wald of my staff at (651) 296-4790 if you have questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor Environmental Planning and Review Section Office of Management and Budget Services c: Joe Oschwald Con Christianson Larry Nelson Bob Bezek eaw Plateau Estates.wpd 20010466 0001 Don Nelson Jon Larson, EQB Russ Peterson, US F&WS DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer �I�. Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity %0 Minimum at 10% Post -Consumer Waste MINNESOT:1 HISTORICAL SOCIETY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE February 20, 2001 Mr. Brent Svenby Rochester Common Council 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: EAW — Plateau Estates T107 RI S19, Haverhill Twp., Olmsted County SHPO Number: 2001-1114 Dear Mr. Svenby Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the EAW for the above -referenced project. It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given to the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act and through the process outlined in Minnesota Rules 4410.1600. . There are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Therefore, in our opinion, the "no" response to question 25a is appropriate. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at (651) 296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, , Britta L. Bloomberg Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 34.,K171.LOGG BOLLGI'.aRD REST/ S41NT PAL L. XF NESOT:1 :,3102? 1906/ TI.LEPHONE: 6.51-296-6126 3� Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v� February 14, 2001 Mr. Brent Svenby, Planner Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Plateau Estates Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Mr. Svenby: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Plateau Estates EAW, in the city of Rochester (City), Olmsted County. This comment letter addresses matters of concern to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff reviewing the EAW and is submitted for consideration by the City, the Responsible Governmental Unit, in deciding whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared on the project. This letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the project for the purpose of pending or future permitaction(s) by the MPCA. We have attempted to identify and consult with interested program staff to identify the MPCA permits that may be required. Additional comments or requests for information may be submitted in the future to address specific issues related to the development of such permit(s). Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. Based on the information contained in the EAW, the Environmental Review staff believes that significant effects related to MPCA issues are not likely to occur as a result of the project. However, please review the following comments prior to making your determination on the need for the preparation of an EIS: General Comments: We commend the project designers for retaining the forested slopes and for minimizing the encroachment into these natural areas on the northern half of the site. The addition of the one cul-de-sac road from the north, however, does present a considerable impact to these forested slope areas. It will essentially cut this natural area in half and will allow for development up into the forested lands effectively eliminating the natural condition and functions of almost a third of the forested slopes. While we appreciate that the road was proposed to go up the crest of the hill and not the draw of the hill (allowing for water dispersal instead of runoff water concentration) there is also the concern that this road completely traverses and allows for development across the edge of the Decorah Shale. Development may compromise the natural ground water recharge and water quality benefit's of this region. We strongly recommend that consideration be given for the removal of the proposed cul-de-sac from the north or at a minimum,' truncate it shortly after it branches off of the main road at the bottom of the forested slope. - r. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 292-5332 (TTY) St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar; www.pca.state.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer - Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Mr. Brent Svenby Page Two Specific Comments: Item 6. Project Description: The project description is misleading, suggesting that the 208 acres of development is on cropland when, in fact, over half of this site is located on forested slopes and wetlands. The protection of these forested slopes is very important for a number of reasons including such considerations as wildlife corridor function, ground water and surface water quality, and aesthetics. Item 10. Cover Types: The EAW shows that there is a loss of 0.4 acres of wetland, but there is no accompanying explanation for this loss or a discussion of any mitigation. The EAW also notes the development of 66 acres of lawn and landscaping associated with a total disturbed area of 138 acres. We would recommend that this project consider minimizing the number of acres of lawn through efforts such as reducing the back yard lawn sizes of homes adjacent to natural areas to near zero or having a very minimal back yard strip, etc. Incorporating designs to minimize both new impervious surfaces and lawns will help protect the water quality of surface waters and ground waters. Item 11. Fish, Wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources: The geology of this site lends itself to natural springs and their associated habitats. The EAW does not mention if any evaluation for springs was conducted or if natural springs exist on this site. An evaluation of the site for springs should be conducted to ensure that any existing spring outlet areas are identified and protected. Item 12. Physical Impact on Water Resources: The addition of 40 acres of impervious surface will permanently affect the hydrology of the area. Since the EAW does not mention the water quality and quantity performance criteria of the proposed detention ponds, it is important that the design of the stormwater system not impair the stability of any natural drainageways. Steep slopes leading off of newly developed areas can be highly sensitive to changes in runoff conditions. It is important to make sure that any stormwater outfalls in natural ravine areas have adequate energy dissipation. In addition, maintenance and cleanout of the ponds should be conducted during each phase of the development of this area. Item 16. Erosion and Sedimentation: Despite their efforts, many development projects in this area have experienced serious erosion and sedimentation problems. Once topsoils are removed, and the parent sub -soils are exposed, this site will also be subject to difficult erosion problems. It is imperative that all preventative best management practices be in -place before any grading begins. It is also important to ensure that the project owner hold the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction stormwater permit throughout all phases of the development and that persons or companies be specifically designated the task of installing and maintaining all erosion and sediment control best management practices Mr. Brent Svenby Page Three Please note that the responsibility for all sedimentation and erosion controls at this site will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and their contractor(s) as set forth in the NPDES permit and that erosion control responsibilities are not transferred to the individual lot owners when the lots are sold (although third -party agreements with the lot owners and the developer could also be put into place to aid in sharing responsibility). Item 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. The EAW states that the potential for ground water contamination from this development is minimal. However, this site is situated on shallow bedrock and on the ground water recharge edge of the Decorah shale. Land use activities such as lawn over -fertilization or road salt usage will affect the water -table ground water with nitrates and chlorides and could begin loading the Prairie du Chien drinking water aquifer for the City if adequate protections in the Decorah -edge recharge zone is left unprotected in areas. Item 24. Odors. Noise and Dust: The EAW appears to be incorrect; dust control is not a requirement of the stormwater permit. Noise and dust issues are regulated under Minnesota air quality rules. Specifically, dust generation is regulated as particulate matter. Item 26. Visual Impacts: The EAW mentions that there will be no visual impacts from this development. However, the proposed cul-de-sac road which traverses the forested slope on the northern portion of the site will alter the natural condition of these north -facing forested slopes and will detrimentally affect the view of these naturally forested slopes. These adverse visual impacts could be minimized by eliminating the proposed road from the north or by truncating the cul-de-sac at the bottom of the forested slope. Item 29. Cumulative Impacts: Development of this site could have a detrimental affect in that this site will no longer provide for even a degraded wildlife corridor as it did as a farm field/woodland/wetland area. We look forward to receiving the required responses to our comments, and your decision on the need for an EIS. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this review, please contact me at (651)297-8236 Sincerely, LL mr Denise Leezer Project Manager Operations and Planning Section South District DL:sjs cc: David Morrison, MPCA, Rochester REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 j DATE: 3-OS-01 AUrNUA JCL. I IUN: CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING :M DESCRIPTION: Roadway name change: Plateau Drive N.E. to Stonehedge Drive N.E. ITEM NO. D' I 'REPARED BY: Janice K. Chezick, GIS Supervisor The plat for Christ Our Rock Subdivision contains a roadway designated as Plateau Drive N.E. The developer of the property is requesting to rename the roadway to Stonehedge Drive N.E. The Addressing/GIS Staff of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning .Department have no objections to a roadway name change for this segment of roadway. There is one lot that abuts Plateau Drive N.E.; Lot 1, Block 1 of Christ Our Rock Subdivision. A new roadway sign of Stonehedge Drive N.E. will need to be installed at the intersection of this segment of roadway and East Circle Drive N.E. (CSAH 22). 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 Plateau Drive N.E., platted in Christ Our Rock Subdivision, to Stonehedge Drive N.E. 2. Direct the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the Ordinance with County Recorder. Attachments: 1. Copy of map to identify location of roadway is attached. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney )UNCIL ACTION: Moton by: Second by: g(40 0 m Y U tie w O F- v7 u 5 ,I ;s 'nYljlX/l� e •�Y I ai 3NNC nr3 Ofl 1 41 III Et y' �feilJ it ^ ijl f `t Ill, fp3 All [; j ! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3? / DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D _ tc) ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Advertise for Bids: Four Water Quality Protection PREPARED BY: Program Projects, J9602, J9746, J9747 and J9748 41 J. Loehr This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk and considered by the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting for the following projects: Project No. 111110-05, J9602 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve Woodland Hills Subdivision." Proiect No. M1-02. J9746 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve Elmcroft Subdivision Area." Project No. M1-03. J9747 "Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area." Proiect No. M1-04, J9748 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area." Note: Projects J9747 and J9748 will be combined and bid as one project. These Water Quality Protection Program projects will be funded consistent with the funding sources outlined in the respective Feasibility Reports prepared for each project. These Feasibility Reports and funding sources were previously approved by the City Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. Att: Location Maps . JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 0 0 ..... Sevuer & Water Sevver Only a Water Only 3 � _ w ni 0 by h 33 ST SW J Project No M1-02, J9746 Sanitary Sewer and Watemiain to Serve the EImcroft Subdivision Area 3 y j� I ! Project No. M1-03, J9747 I I Sub Trunkline Sewer Sub-Trunkline Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area Project No M1-04, J9748 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Forest Hills Subdivision Area '•"• Sewer & Water Water Only REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 41 DATE: 3/5101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA I I Public Works D— j1 =M DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit for a Part of Lots 3 & 4 of Block 1 Bel Air PREPARED BY: Eighth Subd. , J� M. Nigbur I °' Curtis Sanders, the Owner of the above referenced lot has requested a Revocable Permit for the placement of landscape material within a drainage and utility easement. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. In addition to the standard conditions the permit should also state the following: 1. Landscape material shall only be allowed within the City's easement in the following locations and under the following conditions: a. Along the South property line of the Plat located on top of the earthen berm. There shall be no trees or deep rooted plant material used within this location. Permitee agrees to locate and place the landscape material in a manner that will not damage the existing private and public facilities located in the easement and so the material does not impede the surface water drainage; b. Along the Easterly property line of Lot 3 located on top of the earthen berm. There shall be no trees or deep rooted plant material used within this location. Permitee agrees to locate and place the landscape material in a manner so the material does not impede the surface water drainage; c. Along the Northerly 10 feet of the East/West 30 feet wide easement abutting the South property line of Lot 3 lying outside of the drainage channel. Permitee agrees to locate and place the landscape material in a manner so the material does not impede the surface water drainage; 2. Permittee must restore areas on the property that may be disturbed as part of the landscaping 3. Permittee agrees to maintain the landscaping at their own costs. 4. Permittee will not to seek any relocation costs or other damages from the City for any reason should Permittee be required to remove the landscaping from the City's land. The Owner has executed the agreement. 37th Street NVV Easement Area II \ Property / COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit for the above referenced lots. )UNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D i j r-M DESCRIPTION: Revocable Permit for a Part of Lots 3 & 4 of Block 1 Circle Drive PREPARED BY: )V Corporate Park. M. Nigbur �V Mac Hamilton of Circle Drive Corporate Park Limited Partnership, the Owner of the above referenced lots, has requested a Revocable Permit for the placement of a parking lot within future right of way. This right of way was established as part of the plat approval. The construction of the public street is not required at this time and has not been constructed. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend in favor of granting a Revocable Permit. In addition to the standard conditions the permit should also state the following: V J. This permit shall be revoked only if the City Council has approved the feasibility of providing a public d street through these lots. 2. Permittee must restore areas in the right of way that may be disturbed as part of the construction w 3. Permittee agrees to maintain the parking area at their own costs. r 4. Permittee must remove that portion of the parking facility lying beyond the proposed roadway location (12 l feet each side of centerline) at permittee's own cost should the City make such a request. Should t! !1 permittee fail to comply with the above as and when requested by City, then City may at its option undertake said work and permittee agrees to reimburse City all reasonable costs and expenses associated with said work. Permittee will not to seek any relocation costs or other damages from the City for any reason should Permittee be required to remove the parking facility from the City's right of way; and The Owner has executed the agreement. J \alley Kgh Drive Future Roadway Propertv COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Revocable Permit for the above referenced lots. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/5/01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. D- (3 EM DESCRIPTION: Municipal State Aid Street System Revisions PREPARED BY: D. Nelson Based on our annual Certification of Mileage, we have the ability to add additional miles of roadway to our Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) system. All mileage on the MSAS system accrue funding needs in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Transportation rules and resolutions. The Department of Public Works recommends the following street segment, be added to our Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) system: 20' St SW: from TH 63 to CR 125 6053 ft 1.15 miles COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution requesting the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota to add 201h St SW from TH 63 to CR 125 to the Municipal State Aid System. 'FOUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: q(p W N S E REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 201 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p- i i cM DESCRIPTION: Sole Source Procurement of Equipment: Sanitary Sewer Flow PREPARED BY: Monitoring Equipment. D. Nelson In March 1999, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement for an analysis of its sanitary sewer system. The initial focus of this study was to determine the sources of infiltration and inflow of water into the sanitary sewer collection system and identify cost effective solutions to reduce I & 1. As a part of this study, it has become necessary to conduct long-term monitoring of sanitary sewer flow data and rainfall data for periodic updating of system hydraulic modeling. This will enable city staff to determine when pipe capacities are being exceeded or about to be exceeded and to determine remedies to correct these situations. Remedies could include construction of parallel sewer mains, increased maintenance efforts, lining of pipe, or other courses of action. The Public Works Department has identified the need to construct and install 6 permanent sites for sanitary sewer flow monitoring, 4 permanent rainfall -monitoring sites, and a main data storage and analysis site at the Water Reclamation Plant. Our I&I consultant, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., evaluated five different types of flow monitoring equipment and provided us with their recommendations (outlined in their April 21, 2000 report —Attached). Their recommendation based on the configuration of our system and past test flow monitoring, was to use a radar model of flow meters. Additionally, the radar models do not require period calibration or manhole entry to install / maintain. Most importantly, the sensor is not susceptible to blockage and resulting poor data resulting from solids deposition in the sewer pipe / manhole. The consultant representatives conducted an equipment search using technical periodicals and the internet. The consultant did not find any vendors, other than Marsh-McBirney, Inc., of Fredrick, Maryland, that supply radar flow meters. The City purchased two Marsh-McBirney radar flow meters in 2000. We have installed and tested these units for over 6 months. We have been able to confirm the advantages of the radar model through actual field demonstrations in our sanitary sewer collection system. Marsh-McBirney is the only manufacturer of radar -based flow monitors. For this reason, the Public Works staff request permission to sole source our $83,142.00 purchase direct with March-McBirney Inc. The project has been included and approved in the 2001 Capital Improvement Program, Sewer and Water, Project 41, J-2179 and is funded by retained earnings from the Sewer Utility--4330. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City to sole source purchase radar -based sanitary sewer flow monitoring equipment from Marsh-McBirney, Inc. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: `r I 315/01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works D— (5 LM DESCRIPTION: Sewer and Water to Serve the Gluek Property tRED BY: Wellner On February 5,2001 the City Council received a petition, dated January 31, 2001, to serve 'Unplatted Lands in a part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Rochester Township (Gluek Property)' with City water and sewer. The petition was referred to the Department of Public Works for feasibility study. The attached report is this Feasibility Report. Public Works staff finds that construction of the project is feasible, however the costs to complete Phase 1 greatly exceed the benefit for these properties directly affected at this time and for the City. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution allowing the development of the Gluek property on alternative wastewater treatment and water supply systems, provided the property is annexed to the City and that the property owner enters into a Development Agreement with the City prior to development of the property. The �i Development Agreement shall include, among other things, provisions for the future connection of the property to the City's water and sanitary sewer systems and payment for the owner's proportional share of the cost to extend city sewer and water to serve the property. _JUNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: LA r REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 SANITARY SEWER TRUNK MAIN EXTENSION TO SERVE VACANT LANDS OF THE PROPOSED SCENIC OAKS AND PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 32, 33, & 34 OF ROCHESTER TOWNSHIP AND PORTIONS OF SECTION 4 OF HIGH FOREST TOWNSHIP. March 1, 2001 Honorable Mayor & City Council City of Rochester, Minnesota The Public Works Department has received a request made to the City Council on February 5, 2001 to prepare a Feasibility Report to serve the property owned by Robert Gluek. The following represents the Public Works Department's analysis of the constructability, cost and economic viability of the project. Phase 1 is the extension of Sanitary Sewer to serve vacant lands within the City's Corporate Limits to be known as Scenic Oaks Development and to serve vacant lands currently inside the City's Urban Service Area known as the Gluek Property and Phase 2 is the extension of Sanitary Sewer to serve vacant lands currently outside the City's Urban Service Area. Phase 1 will serve areas within the Urban Service Area, but will be constructed at an elevation and in a location to ultimately provide service to lands currently outside but abutting the Urban Service Area. A petition has been filed with the Public Works Department to evaluate the options available to provide gravity sewer service to the land lying southwest of Reservoir WR- 6A known as the Gluek Property. Feasibility Report We report that construction of this project is feasible. The properties requesting service in Phase 1 of the Project can be provided and served by gravity sewer service, however, the costs to complete Phase 1 greatly exceed the benefit for these properties and the City at this time. Phase 1 of the project is within an area proposed for residential development in the City's 25-year Urban Service Area and the area served by the Phase 2 construction is outside the 25-year Urban Service Area. The project will be financially viable when the services are requested for a significant portion of the area to be served by the Phase 2 construction. It is recommended that the developer of the Gluek property evaluate the construction of on -site sewage treatment facilities as a temporary measure until the Phase 2 area also demands the city sewer service. Development of the Gluek Property with on -site sewage treatment should only be allowed upon annexation of the property into the city and execution by the property owner and the City of a Development Agreement that provides, among other things, for the future connection to City water and sewer. 5-1 dM NL1RCx 1, 2001 This project is not included in the City's 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Program. Sewer Service The proposed Phase 1 sewer project consists of the installation of 12-inch sanitary sewer line. Currently sanitary sewer is located within the golf course near the base of the Wlb 6A dam. The total length of the Phase 1 sanitary sewer extension project is approximately 4,400 feet. The sanitary sewer would be routed across the base of the WR- 6A spillway, then along the west side of the spillway. The section across the spillway will require a concrete cap to protect the spillway. The segment along the west side of the spillway will be tunneled the prevent damage to the spillway and minimize the possibility of the sewer trench acting as an outlet for the reservoir. From near the top of the spillway, the sanitary sewer will follow the existing slope around the reservoir to the natural waterway that enters the reservoir from the west. Crossing the waterway will require an inverted siphon to transport sewage from the Gluek property on the south side across to the north side of the waterway. The estimated costs of the Phase 1 project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: 12" Sewer (Open trench installation) 3,300 L.F. $165,000 12" Sewer (Micro -tunnel installation) 800 L.F. $360,000 12" Sewer Siphon 300 L.F. $30,000 Manhole 13 Each $26,000 Concrete Cap at Spillway Trench 450 S.Y. $22,500 Silt Control 3,000 L.F. $30,000 Turf Restoration 3,300 L.F. $13,200 Engineering and Contingencies ii2i= Project Cost $040,710 Two areas served by this proposed Phase 1 sewer are within the City's existing 25-year Urban Serve Area (the southern portion of Scenic Oaks and the Gluek property located southwesterly of WR-6A). The portion of the Scenic Oak development, which will drain to this proposed sewer, is approximately 77 buildable acres in area. Within Scenic Oaks, approximately 1,500 feet of this proposed sewer is required to serve the development and the developer should contribute $41.63 per foot for the 1,500 feet as a front footage charge. The Scenic Oaks developer would pay an availability fee of $1,653.67 per acre for the sewer trunk main charge for the area served by this sewer. This rate is consistent with the Area Charge in other locations in Willow Creek watershed. The Scenic Oaks development would contribute $41.63 per linear foot x 1,500 feet = $62,445 plus $1,653.67 per acre x 77 acres = $127,332.59 or a total of $189,777.59 for Phase I of this project. - 3 - NL�RCI 11, 2001 The Gluck property is southwesterly of WR-6A and has approximately 30 developable acres. Assuming that the Scenic Oaks development utilizes and contributes toward the Phase 1 project costs as discussed above (Scenario A), the associated Gluek property Sewer Availability Charge, using $3,030 per developable area, would be $90,900. The sum of these two contributing areas ($280,677.59) is 33% of Phase 1 and less than the 60% guideline the Council has used to determine the initial economic feasibility of a project. If Phi 1.is not ,con*truMd by_the City before the phase of the Scenic Oaks development that a%oiiTdbe served by the Phase 1 sewer is platted, then the City should re-evaluate the feasibility of its Phase 1 project to determine if it should be constructed in association with the Scenic Oaks development and at the grade and location needed to serve the Phase 1 and Phase 2 areas. Assuming a Scenario B whereby Scenic Oaks is not served by Phase 1 of this project, a $3,W'Iiet acre Sewer Avajability Charge is necessary to recover the Phase 1 and Phase 2 project costs from the developable area (380 acres) served by Phase 1 and 2 of the project. The associated Gluek property Sewer Availability Charge under Scenario B, using $3,530 per developable area, would be $105,900. The remaining $560,032.41 (Scenario A) or $734,800 (Scenario B) of the Phase 1 project costs should be recovered as the Phase 2 areas to the west are developed. This trunk sewer could serve over 700 acres (approximately 350 developable) now lying outside the City of Rochester's 25-year Urban Service Area. The City Council would need to initiate with Olmsted County Board, an amendment to the Rochester Urban Service Area to include the 700-arce areas west of 3151 Avenue and east of CSAH 8. To date, City staff has not received any requests for service to this area. This area is currently shown as Resource Protection on the County Land Use Plan. Assuming that it develops and that 48% of the area is buildable, the remaining balances of costs for Phases 1 could be received as additional ($500 per acre) Sewer Availability Charges from Phase 2 areas and credited to the Phase 1 project. In the opinion of the Public Works Department, it is more likely that Scenario B will be the future development scenario to serve this area, and therefore the Gluek property should be charged a SewerAvailability Charge of $3,530 per acre for each developable acre of that property. The terms and conditions associated with payment of the Sewer Availability Charge should be addressed in a Development Agreement. —4— IvL1RCH 1, 2001 ,53 The estimated costs of the project developed by staff, made without completed plans or survey, are as follows: Project Cost Summary (Phase 1) Project Budget Roadway $0.00 Sanitary Sewer $593,500.00 Water Main $0.00 Storm Sewer $0.00 Services $0.00 Restoration $13,200.00 Subtotal $606,700.00 En ineerin Cont./Interest (30%) $194,010.00 Total Construction & Expense $840,710.00 Project Cost Summary (Phase 2 Project Budget Roadway $5,000.00 Sanitary Sewer $300,000.00 Water Main $0.00 Storm Sewer $0.00 Services $0.00 Restoration $80,000.00 Subtotal $385,000.00 Engineering/Cont./Interest (30%) $115,500.00 Total Construction & Expense $500,500.00 Revenue Sources (Scenario A) Total Revenue Connection/Assessment Charge $62,445.00 Sewer Availability Charge, Phase 1 $217,332.59 Availability Charges, Phase 2 $1,050,000.00 City Share $0.00 TOTAL $ 29 777.59 Submitted for your consideration: Anf�Vellner., 4PE Infrastructure Manager Richard W. Freese, PE City Engineer b4 Sewer Service se 2 Scenic Oak; Pver Phase 1 25 Year Urban Service. Area Boundary REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 65- / 03/05/01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for: (J9777) Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project: Project Number Mt-18 (J9777) Protect Name Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd ITEM NO. a-r( RED BY: R. Kelm Project Background The existing 44' wide urban state aid street was constructed with sanitarysewer, watermain, storm sewer, subdrain, and concrete curbing in 1991. The residents of Fox Valley Drive SW between 23rd Ave SW and Salem Rd have requested that several traffic calming alternatives be evaluated by Public Works staff for possible construction along this corridor. A neighborhood informational meeting was held on Thursday, February 22, 2001, there support for the project has led to this request Estimated Project Costs _—... Project Cost Construction: Traffic Calming 63 700.00 Sidewalk Replacement Storm Sewer RepaimfUrigrades Watemain Replacement Watemain Service Replacement Isamary Sewer Sub Total $63,700.00 En ineedn Interest Contin ndes 30% $19110.00 TOTAL $a2,910%, Project Cost Distribution Distribution__ Special Assessments - Parcel $41 400.00 Special Assessments - Sidewalk Special Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds ,City Street Share $41 410.00 TOTAL $82,810.00 Recommendation We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based on the current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution receiving the Feasibility Report. 2.Adopt a resolution ordering a Project Hearing to be held for April 16, 2001. 3. Adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of the Assessment Roll. 4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for April 16, 2001. Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, petition COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: M-0 i REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR: PROJECT NO. M1-18 19777 TRAFFIC CALMING ONF OX VALLEY DRIVE FROM 23RD AVE SW TO SALEM RD March 1, 2001 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project: Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd, was referred to the Public Works Department on July 10, 2000 for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report. Feasibility Report We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based on the current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners. The residents of Fox Valley Drive SW between 23rd Ave SW and Salem Rd have requested that several traffic calming alternatives be evaluated by Public Works staff for possible construction along this corridor. The existing 44' wide urban state aid street was constructed with sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, subdrain, and concrete curbing in 1991. Work typically will include the following 1. Removal of existing bituminous pavement at traffic calming locations. 2. Construction of traffic calming devices including; pedestrian crossings, speed tables, and median islands. 3. Storm sewer design considerations will be included. 4. Signing and striping of traffic calming measures including stop signs and parking restrictions. This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications: Project Cost Construction: Traffic Calming $63,700.00 Sidewalk Replacement Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades Watermain Replacement Watermain Service Replacement Sanitary Sewer Sub Total $63,700.00 ,Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30% $19,110.00 TOTAL $82,810.00 —2— MARCH 1, 2001 5/ / Assessment Distribution: Assessments for traffic calming measures will be charged against the sixty-nine (69) Fox Valley Drive property owners that have driveway access onto Fox Valley Drive. Total assessments are based on 50% of the total cost of construction of the traffic calming measures selected and would be on a per lot basis Traffic Calming Rates Year 2001 Number Parcels Total Cost Residential Zone $600.00 69.00 $41,400.00 Subtotal $41,400A0 Proiect Distribution: Distribution: Special Assessments - Parcel $41 400.00 Special Assessments - Sidewalk Special Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds Ci Street Share $41,410.00 TOTAL $82,810.00 Submitted for your consideration: P"eV4 !LS—� Russell Kelm, PE Design Engineer Douglas Nelson, PE Engineering Manager Yi:, 1'RUII:CPS\I-PRUJ`:19?';?`;l.hsi.� r;llucs\(casiLilifx Rcport.000 56 - 3 - MARCH 1, 2001 TRAFFIC CALMING ON FOX VALLEY DRIVE FROM 22RD AVE SW TO SALEM RD PROJECT NO. M1-18 J9777 lh\YRO�.F.Cl5\IJ'RUJ\�9T;?`;Ucsigd,U�x.\fca>iUGry Rcp�.n.ULH) am -a- MARCH 1,2001 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: M1.18 Date: March 1 2001 J No: 9777 Description: Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd Project Cost Contract cost Final Cost Construction: Traffic Calming $83 700.00 Sidewalk Replacement Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades Watermain Replacement Watermain Service Replacement Sanitary Sewer Sub Total $63,700.00 Engineering, Interest Contingencies 30% $19 110.00 TOTAL $82,810.00 Distribution: Special Assessments - Parcel $41,400.00 Special Assessments - Sidewalk Special Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds ICU Street Share I$41,410.00 TOTAL $82,810.00 Nate: Make Initlai Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund I''.\PROI I::C.CS�I-PI2(1j `,,,j9 i;''\Uui:;n`:IJurs\ &a.i:.i;ity Report. UUC MI February 26, 2001 City of Rochester Attention: Mr. Russ Kelm, Design Engineer 201 4" Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Fox Valley Drive Traffic Calming Project Dear Mr. Kelm; We reside at 2109 Fox Valley Drive Southwest and have been involved in discussing the Traffic Calming Project. To our knowledge, this project is going to be formally proposed to the City Council for support mid -April, 2001, even though there has been a lack of consensus by all residents along this street and a lack of fair representation for parties who are impacted by this project. At this time, we would like to formally note our opposition to this project. We have grave concerns related to the proposed activities and solutions for the identified vehicle speed issue. We do not deny there are safety -issues related to vehicles speeding, but we do feel that the proposed efforts will not meet the objectives of reducing speed without causing undesirable side -effects which could result in greater problems than the issue of speed for the residents of Fox Valley Drive, for residents in proximity to Fox Valley Drive, and eventually for the City of Rochester as a whole. Our concerns are outlined in the following bullet statements: • Medians Prior to the informational/consensus meeting we attended on February 22, 2001, we had openly shared with residents proposing the project that we were in opposition to having any element placed in front . or near our home that would prohibit on -street parking and/or which had the potential to increase the noise level. We were told earlier by residents that we must agree in writing that we would support to have a median in front of our home and without our signature the median could not be placed in front of our home nor could we be denied on -street parking. Yet at the meeting a median was being proposed directly in front of our home. It has also been brought to our attention that by placing medians throughout Fox Valley Drive these elements may prohibit the access of service vehicles in our neighborhood whether the median is directly in front of your home or placed in other locations. Examples included moving vans, garbage removal trucks, RPU service trucks, department store delivery vans, and snowplows. Our street was never constructed wide enough to implement medians and to provide off street parking. The medians long-term upkeep is also a concern. We have no interest in contributing monetarily or physically to repairs of the medians caused by accidents and weather. We are also not interested in being accessed now or in the future for vegetation to be planted inside of the medians. • "Rumble Strips" As a solution to our opposition of the median in front or close to our home it was then proposed to place a "rumble strip" in the center of the street in front of our home. What we find most interesting is that early on in the discussion process of the traffic calming project "rumble strips" were not selected as a calming option due to the concern that proponents had for the potential noise that they can cause, yet it was perfectly acceptable by those present at the meeting to place one in front of our home. We openly object to a rumble strip being placed in front of our home. • Painting a Centerline Clearly knowing that we were not supportive of a median and/or a "rumble strip" the third option proposed to be placed in front of our home was a brightly colored center line that would alert drivers that they were not remaining in their lane. This suggestion was also made in the opening of the meeting as a calming element that could be done on all sections of the street. It was felt that by painting a centerline in the street it would aesthetically take away the "residential feel" of our street and create more of a "highway" type of feel. Yet again it was acceptable to do this in front of our home by proponents of this project. We again are opposed to a centerline being painted in front of our home. • Speed Tables Although speed tables were not suggested to be placed in front of our home, we want to be assured that one would not be placed in front of our home. Speed tables may prohibit proper water drainage, create icy conditions and make it difficult for snow -plows to effectively maintain the road, particularly since many will be placed on inclines. Failure to maintain the street during icy and snowy conditions may result in an increase in accidents and hazardous conditions on our street. At the meeting it was not confirmed that speed tables would even be able to be installed in an acceptable manner to prevent water drainage issues nor was there clear evidence that speed tables would reduce speed. In fact we raised the concern that some drivers may be encouraged to continue to drive in an unsafe manner and may in fact increase their speed due to the "thrill" one would experience much like a wave motion on a roller -coaster. The traffic engineer, present at the meeting did not refute this point. • Re -salability and devaluation of homes Overall concern of re -salability and de -valuation of the price of our home due to increase of traffic on our street and aesthetic and hazardous conditions caused by speed tables, signage, painted center lines, unsightly maintained medians, and the inability to park on the street due to medians. It was clearly evident to all residents of this street at the time they chose to purchase or build a home on this street that there were speed issues. One could not spend any time on the street without this factor being evident. One also had clear knowledge that the street was wide and was constructed'and engineered to be able to handle an increase in traffic and that Fox Valley Drive SW was and is a major path to the highway for this SW community. Our point is don't make issues worse. Everyone who resides an this street had the freedom of choice and no one is mandated to live here. One does have the choice to take personal responsibility to slow down when driving on Fox Valley Drive and maintain the speed limit of 30 miles per hour. a Reducing the speed to 20 miles per hour on Fox Valley Drive We view this as not a solution but an irritant. If the City of Rochester does not enforce the existing 30 miles per hour speed limit as proven by the speed studies, then we have no confidence that a speed limit of 20 miles an hour would be enforced. Thus for those in compliance of speed limits this becomes a hassle and an irritant, not a solution. Recently in Chatfield a residential section lobbied to reduce the speed limit to 20 miles per hour. After having to live with this constraint themselves they now wish to return the speed limit to 30 miles per hour and the City is refusing. a Lack of fair representation for the purpose of avoiding opposition to the proposal Residents of Baihly Estates Lane have not been kept abreast of this proposal. Although these residents will not be assessed dollars, (nor should they be), they have no choice but to drive on Fox Valley Drive in order to travel to and from their properties. Other residents in the area do have other travel options than to utilize Fox Valley Drive. Are the residents of Fox Valley Drive SW simply shifting the issues of speed and an increase in traffic to other streets like Folwell Drive and Baihly Hills? r. Overall these are our main concerns for not supporting the Fox Valley Drive Traffic Calming Project. We feel that as a resident of this street our rights should be respected. We built our home three plus years ago with full knowledge of the speed issues and the potential for an increase in traffic as a result of our street connecting with Fox Croft. We built with the understanding that we could park on the street and that our home would increase in value even with a potential for an increase in traffic. We feel fortunate to reside in one of the more prestigious neighborhoods in one of the best cities in the country. This is not a money issue and would be supportive of projects that would be proven to enhance the safety and the value of our home and the community as a whole. As you receive the proposal for the Fox Valley Drive Traffic Calming Project we ask that you seriously consider our concerns as an opposing resident of this street, the concerns of other residents opposing this project on our street, and the impact this proposal has on the southwest community of Folweil Drive, Baihly Estates Lane, Baihly Hills, and Fox Croft. Although it was the intent of the proponents to make these changes in isolation, this project has far-reaching repercussions and as residents of the City of Rochester the good of the whole should be considered. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Peter James Kopischke CC: Mr. Charles J. Canfield, Mayor, City of Rochester Ms. Marcia Marcoux, 2°d Ward Councilmember Mr. Richard Freese, Public Works Director Mr. Doug Nelson, Director of Engineering Mr. David Rossman, Traffic Engineer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING / 5 DATE: s 3-5-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works—�� EM DESCRIPTION: Center Street Ramp Condition Appraisal Report PREPARED BY: �} Rossman The City retained the firm of Walker Parking Consultants (WPC) to perform the 4th periodic structural engineering condition survey of the Center Street Ramp. This review has been completed, and WPC has issued their report. The following is quoted from their report; " The Center Street Ramp is considered to be in good and serviceable condition overall. This structure is primarily used for the parking of passenger cars and in our opinion, presently is capable of supporting that load." However, there are necessary preventative maintenance items and alterations that should be completed in 2001. These are funded as City Project 8215-36-01 (J-2592) and which is listed on page 333 of the 2001 City Budget. The project budget is $150,000. Staff recommends that WPC be authorized to prepare plans, detailed specifications, and estimates on the work listed below. Staff recommends the basic program for repairs be completed. These repairs will have a service life of 5-7 years. The project schedule reflects the plans to be prepared by mid -April and bids to be received in May and the work to be completed by October 1, 2001. 1) Recommended Maintenance: Complete all the items listed as Basic Repairs from the report, including repair to the waterproofing membrane, expansion joints, sealants, slab -on -grade, electrical lighting fixtures, mechanical & electrical systems, and miscellaneous concrete repair. 2) Recommended Modifications: Also include the following modifications that have been discussed over the past 2 years, paint the underside of all decks, Modify the cashier windows, replace 4 doors with glass doors for visibility, provide stair landing heaters to improve cleaning capabilities. Additional funds will be needed to cover to cost of the repairs and modifications. The project costs are: 1. Conditional Survey $ 29,150 2. Construction $363,100 3. Design & Inspection $ 59,800 Total $452,050 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1) Accept the 4In periodic structural engineering condition survey report of the Center Street Ramp prepared by Walker Parking Consultants (WPC) 2) Authorize The mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with WPC of 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 425 Minneapolis, Mn 55416, for detailed construction plans and specifications and perform project inspections for the recommended maintenance and modifications listed on page 2, for a fee not to exceed $59,800. 3) Authorize $300,000 additional funds to be transferred from the Parking Enterprise Account to J-2592 to pay for the increase in the project. Vl _OLINCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t0' DATE: 3-5-01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued Hearing PLANNING e 1 M DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development #00-29 Preliminary Plan by PREPARED BY: Waste Management to permit the construction of a 7,140 square foot transfer station. The Brent Svenby, transfer station would accept mixed municipal solid waste and recyclable as well as some Planner industrial and demolition debris type waste. The property is located along the east side of 111h Avenue SW and south of 101h Avenue SW. February 28, 2001 The applicant has requested a continuance of the hearing until April 2, 2001. They are agreeable to waiving the 60-day rule while the item is continued. Council Action Needed: 1. Continue this item until the April 2, 2001 council meeting. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 5, 2001 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. A.B. Systems, Inc. 7. John Arnold, Dunlap and Seeger, PA COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: LAW OFFICES DUNLAP & SEEGER, P.A. RONALD L. SEEGER MARY H. DUNLAP MILTON A- ROSENSLAD 206 SOUTH &ROADWAY, SUITE 605 WILLIAM P. VOLKMAR PAUL A" FINSETH MARQUETTE BANX BUILDINQ MARK E. FOSSE DANIEL E. BERNDT PO BOY 649 KEN D. 9CHUELER JOHN B. ARNOLD ROCHESTER, MINNB&OI'A $6902.0349 GREGORY J. GRIFFITHS PETER C. SANDBERG MICHAEL S. DIETZ TINA L. MOHR TELEPHONE: (507) 288.9111 SHARON C. ZEHE KENNETH R. MOEN FAX• 7) 288.9 KART STONE AM-HOPKINS WILLIAM J. RYAN FAX (57)Y88.0812 Y a4 AARON T. ALBOLD PAUL W. BUCHER DOUGLIS A. BOESE BOBERT R. DUNLAP ojCowurl THOMAS W. JACOBSON (2915.1992) A.M. 'SANDY' KEITH February 28, 2001 VIA FAX 287-2275 and US MAIL ROCHESTER/OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN BRENTSVENBY 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 RE: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development #00-29 Preliminary Plan by Waste Management to permit the construction of a 7,140 square foot transfer station Dear Mr. Svenby: On February 27, 2001, the Olmsted County Board postponed a decision on the request for approval to award the Olmsted County Recycling and Self Hauler Drop Off Center contract until its March 13, 2001 meeting, As a consequence, we are again requesting continuance of the Council hearing currently scheduled for March 5, 2001 to April 2, 2001. For purposes of this request, we are waiving the requirements of the 60 day rule. Very truly .com JBA/ck cc Troy Healy, via fax 282-8961 Dan Rigazio, via fax (608) 784-4464 TOTAL P.01 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3-5-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO., PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #01.01 by B & N, LLC. The applicant is PREPARED BY: proposing to zone approximately 5 acres of land from the H (Holding) zoning to the M-1 Brent Svenby, (Mixed Commercial -Industrial zoning district. The property is located along the south side Planner of 19'h Street NW, west of 32" Avenue NW and east of West Circle Drive. February 26, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 14, 2001, to consider a zone change request to rezone approximately 5 acres from the H (Holding) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) 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. Brede made a motion to approve Zoning District Amendment #01-01 by B & N LLC with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated February 9, 2001. uncil Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by'findings'l ased on the criteria list in.the staff report. if the.Council wishes. to proceed with the zone change As petitioned, it should instruct: 11 the City,: Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by. findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1, Staff Report dated February 9, 2001 2. Minutes of the February 14, 2001 CPZC Meeting l k (1 rr,, 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, March 5, 2001 in the Council / Board Chamber at the Rochester — Olmsted Government Center Building 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Seconded by: to: YZIO1VE GHA1V GE EXIJI I 26, DESCRIPTION: L y�. .ti v) SEE ATTACHED: 22ND ST —EXISTING CITY LIMITS NW CORNER — NE 1/4, SW 1/4 SEC. 28-107-14 N SCALE 1" = 600' 9TH ST FOR : B&N, LLC C/O GREG NESLER 2728 7TH STREET NW ROCHESTER, MN 55901 19TH �� d 4i 5.0 '--ACRES 4 l —EXISTING CITY UNITS 4 c - r Od m ST NW McGhie CanaWtin9 Engineers t&a0 3rtl DOE. S.E. Betts,Inc..4 LanL Surveyom onrt 5 Rocholar, MN. 59Ga 507-209-1919 SCALE. 1 " = 600, DRAWN Br JJJ . 01;1700 ACDr. 140.: 6989.5 051 CARD Na 0854=CE R FS `ORiH 13 3 sv.ww s q� - (O COUNTY OF =c ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 50W285-8232 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 DATE: February 9, 2001 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment #01-01 by B & N, LLC to amend the zoning district for 5 acres of land located along the south side of 19'h Street NW, west of 32"d Avenue NW and east of West Circle Drive. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning designation from the H (Holding) District to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial — Industrial) District. Plannin4 Department Review., Petitioner/Owner: B & N, LLC 2728 7U' Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the south side of 191h Street NW, west of 32 Avenue NW and east of West Circle Drive. Requested Action: The petitioner is requesting to rezone approximately 5 acres from the H (Holding) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district. Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped and is designated for Industrial development on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Proposed Land Use: The applicant has submitted a General Development Plan for this property that shows this site being developed with commercial and industrial uses with no specific uses designated. Uses allowed will be limited to only those in M-1 district which are characterized by an AM peak hour distribution with a percentage of inbound trips at 70% or greater and uses are limited which have a typical trip generation rate of 125 trips/acre or less. A neighborhood meeting was held on February 1, I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ..,mu Page 2 Zone Change 01-01 February 9, 2001 2001 to discuss this project with area residents and landowners. Adjacent Land Use and North: The property across 19'h Street NW to the Zoning: north is zoned M-2 (Industrial) in the City. It is designated for Industrial uses on the Land Use Plan map. South: The property to the south is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. The floodway and flood prone districts cover a great majority of this land. It is designated for Industrial uses on the Land Use Plan map. East: The property to the east is zoned A-4 (Agricultural — Urban Expansion) district on the Olmsted County zoning map. It is designated for Industrial uses on the Land Use Plan map. West: The property to the west is zoned AA (Agricultural — Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted County Zoning Map. The floodway and flood prone districts cover a great majority of this land. It is designated for Industrial uses on the Land Use Plan map. Transportation Access: The property has access to 19`h Street NW. The applicant is proposing two access openings to 19'h Street. One of the openings aligns with the access opening for existing Goodin Company Building on the north side of 19'h Street NW. The other access opening proposed is at the easterly property line. It is anticipated that at the time the property on the north side of 19'h St. develops its access opening would be moved to the west to align with the opening shown on this GDP. Wetlands: The Olmsted County Soil Survey indicates the presence of hydric soils in the southwest corner of the site. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information prior to or at the time of platting. Referral Comments: 1. No objections regarding the rezoning were received. Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Proposed General Development Plan Map Page Zone Change 01-01 February 9, 2001 Analysis and Staff Suggested Findings: The property is currently zoned H (Holding). The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan indicates this property as being designated for "Industrial' types of uses. According to the accompanying GDP, the applicant is proposing to use the site for uses permitted in the M-1 zoning district. The proposed M-1 zoning district is consistent with the Industrial designation on the land use plan. 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 riled by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. The present zoning of the property is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "Industrial" types of uses. The proposed zoning of the property to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district would be consistent with the 'Industrial' land use designation. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and The permitted uses allowed within the M-1 zoning district would be appropriate on the property and compatible with adjacent properties. The entire surrounding area is designated of Industrial types of uses on the Land Use Plan. b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single tot 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 M-1 district would be appropriate on the subject property and would be compatible with adjacent properties. The amendment to M-1 is consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and would not be considered spot zoning. Page 4 Zone Change 01-01 February 9, 2001 Staff Recommendation: The ability to consider the Zone Change and General Development Plan concurrently allows the City to consider this development proposal as a package. Based upon the accompanying General Development Plan for this site and the findings above, Staff recommends approval to rezone approximately 5 acres from the H (Holding) to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning district. Piannina Commission Action Required: The Planning Commission must make a motion to recommend approval or denial of this request. The Planning Commission must also make findings to support this recommendation. This recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council and heard at a later public hearing. n Page 6 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 V, Mr. Slaver stated that he noticed that som Vfth ubstantiai land alteration overlays some of the decorah edge shale area. He indicatewas looking forward to a presentation on decorah edge shale. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval Design Modification, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Staver seconded the motloEff TM motion carried 7-0. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff reports, dated February 9, 2001, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the Commission would need to make two separate motions: one on the general development plan and the other on the zoning district amendment. Mr. Svenby explained that, at the time of annexation, the property was placed in the holding zone. He also indicated that the site is currently undeveloped. Mr. Svenby explained that staff would use the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual to determine what types of uses would be permitted on the site. Mr. Svenby stated that there was a neighborhood meeting held on February 1, 2001. He indicated that one resident attended the meeting and stated that they were not concerned with the proposal. Mr. Svenby described what the surrounding sites were presently zoned. Mr. Svenby stated that the flood prone district cuts across the southwest corner of the property. Therefore, depending on what the applicant intends to use the land for, they may need to come back for a conditional use permit for any filling within the flood prone district. Mr. Burke asked if the AM peak hour distribution and trip general is standard for the M-1 zoning district. Mr. Svenby responded that the requirement was based on the current capacity of 19th Street. He stated that there were similar notations on the Quinstar GDP and the Billman-Orr GDP. The applicant's representative, Bill Tointon of McGhie and Betts, addressed the Commission. He stated that the zoning district amendment is consistent with the land use of industrial, which is found throughout the area. Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 Mr. Tointon stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on February 1, 2001. He indicated that there was one person in attendance. The individual did not express any concerns with the proposal. Mr. Tointon stated that he met with Mr. Charlie Reiter and Mr. Svenby to discuss the issue of traffic. Because they do not have specific uses designated for the area at this time, the limitation was put in place. He explained that they agreed to a stipulation to restrict the amount of inbound traffic, until such time that they could identify specific uses. Mr. Tointon requested that the Commission modify condition number 1 to state that "19`h Street, through the platting process, will have a controlled access. It will be limited to two driveways to 19'h Street." He explained that the general development plan is not a recorded document that sets controlled accesses. He explained that it occurs in the platting process. Mr. Svenby asked Mr. Tointon if the following language would be appropriate: "identify on the general development plan that access is limited along 19h Street NW to two access openings in the approximate locations shown on the general development plan." Mr. Tointon responded that the language would be fine. Mr. Tointon stated that the rest of the conditions were acceptable. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Brede moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #01-01, by B & N LLC, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of General Development Plan #161 by B &N LLC to be known as B & N Properties, with staff -suggested findings and conditions as modified between staff and the applicant's representative. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. CONDITIONS: 1. The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department: Identify on the general development plan that access is limited along 19th Street NW to two access openings in the approximate locations shown on the general development plan. 2. The property shall be platted. At the time of platting, controlled access shall be dedicated along the entire frontage of 19`h Street NW with the exception of the two access openings approved on the GDP. 3. Stormwater management shall be provided for the development. If stormwater management is not provided, a Stormwater management fee shall apply to the development. Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 At the time of development the City Public Works Department will review the existing condition of the pedestrian facilities along the south side of 19th Street NW. Any needed repair work will be required to be completed concurrent with the development of this property. 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, stormwater management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, extension of utilities and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. Prior to platting this property, the applicant shall investigate the property for wetlands and submit the information to the LGU for review and approval. Ms. Mitzi Baker present the staff reports, dated February 9, 2001, to a Commission. The staff reports are on file at\on er Olmsted Planning Departm Ms. Baker stated that the ers should have a petition their desk, which was delivered to the Planning DTuesday. She indi d that there were over 100 signatures opposing the a Ms. Baker explained the history of the Ms. Baker explained that, if the Commissio nd C cil do not approve the zoning district amendment, it would not be appropriate to ap the substantial land alteration and general development plan, as they are based on a prop I to develop in the R-2 zoning district. Ms. Petersson asked if three separate moti s woul eed to be made. Ms. Baker responded that the Commis n could make o motion for the substantial land alteration and general development n. Mr. Burke asked why staff woulApprove of R-1x zoning and noN2-2 zoning. Ms. Baker responded it ecause the base permitted density of permitted outright wit ny public review or without any further n Discussion ensueeZAarding the possibility of rezoning the site to the R-1x Ms. Baker a ed that, when the site was rezoned in 1985 to the R-1 zoning ceased to %i t that is staff level. district. the PUD REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 77 DATE: 3-5-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. - PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING e - 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #161 by B & N, LLC to be known as B & N PREPARED BY: Properties. The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 5 acres into uses which Brent Svenby, are permitted in the M-1 zoning district. The Plan identifies access locations to 19th Street Planner NW and the pedestrian path along 19th Street. The property is located along the south side of 19th Street NW, west of 32nd Avenue NW and east of West Circle Drive. 26, 2001 )C-- See, CPS m"A'+es -Po, peedio" AG p4h'c hearl� February 1 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On February 14, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this General Development Plan. Bill Tointon, McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. He explained the proposal and stated that they have worked with staff on traffic issues and that's why there is a restriction on the amount of inbound traffic. 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. Mr. Quinn made a motion to approve General Development Plan #161, to be known as B & N Properties, with staff - suggested conditions, as revised in discussion and staff -suggested findings. Mr. Breda seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. n " Conditions: lyro✓ " r_,�4<� y C Who General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department: ➢ Identify on the general development plan that access is limited along 19'h Street NW to two access openings in the approximate locations shown on the general development plan. 2. The property shall be platted. At the time of platting, controlled access shall be dedicated along the entire frontage of 19'h Street NW with the exception of the two access openings approved on the GDP. 3. Stormwater management shall be provided for the development. If stormwater management is not provided, a stormwater management fee shall apply to the development. 4. At the time of development the City Public Works Department will review the existing condition of the pedestrian facilities along the south side of 19th Street NW. Any needed repair work will be required to be completed concurrent with the development of this property. 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, stormwater management, traffic Improvements, pedestrian facilities, extension of utilities and contributions for public infrastructure. .Prior to platting this property, the applicant shall investigate the property for wetlands and submit the information to the LGU for review and approval. COUNCILACTION: Motionby: Second by: to: Page2 /V RCA ( 1 February 26, 2001 Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated February 9, 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 February 9, 2001 2. Minutes of the February 14, 2001 CPZC Meeting (s.- Z- c" 5c) 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, March 5, 2001 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. IN ♦V �v TO: FROM: DATE: RE: City Planning and Zoning Commission Brent Svenby, Planner February 9, 2001 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 General Development Plan #161 to be known as B & N Properties Planninq Department Review., Petitioner: Consultant: Location of Property: B & N, LLC 2728 7`h Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 The property is located along the south side of 191h Street NW, west of 32 Avenue NW and east of West Circle Drive. Proposed Use: The General Development Plan includes approximately 5 acres of land. The applicant has filed a zoning petition to zone 5 acres to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district. This area is shown as being developed with uses permitted in the M-1 zoning district. Uses allowed will be limited to only those in the M-1 district which are characterized by an AM peak hour distribution with a percentage of inbound trips at 70% or greater and uses are limited which have a typical trip generation rate of 125 tripslacre or less. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as suitable for "Industrial" types of development. Zoning: The property is currently zoned H (Holding) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. The property was placed in the Holding zoned when it was annexed. The petition to amend the zoning district for this �Y AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER O� Page 2 General Development Plan February 9, 2001 property is being reviewed concurrently with this application. Streets: The property has access to 19th Street NW. The applicant is proposing two access openings to 191h Street. One of the openings aligns with the access opening for existing Goodin Company Building on the north side of 19�h Street NW. The other access opening proposed is at the easterly property line. It is anticipated that at the time the property on the north side of 19`h St. develops that its access opening would be moved to the west to align with the open shown on this GDP. Sidewalks: A pedestrian facility is already constructed along the northern portion of the property. At the time of development the City Public Works Department will review the existing condition of the pedestrian facilities along the south side of 19th Street NW. Any needed repair work will be required to be completed concurrent with the development of this property. Drainage: The General Development Plan identifies existing topography. The property generally drains to the south. Storm water management must be provided for this development. A storm water management fee will apply if on -site detention is not provided. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Olmsted County Soil Survey indicates the presence of hydric soils in the southwest comer of the site. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information prior to or at the time of platting. Public Utilities: Services are available to serve this property. The Northwest High Level Water System is available to this property along the north side of 19'h Street NW. If the extension of public sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and/or additional hydrant(s) and watermain is required for this development, the execution of a City - Owner Contract will be required. Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works 2. RPU Water Division 3. RPU Operations Division 4. Planning Department —GIS Division 5. Planning Department— Wetlands 6. MnDOT Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Copy of General Development Plan 3. Flood Insurance Rate Map 4. Referral Comments (4) 5. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative i Page 3 General Development Plan February 9, 2001 Summary: This GDP includes approximately 5 acres of land to be developed with uses permitted in the M-1 zoning district. The GDP indicates that there is the potential for three lots. The uses permitted would be limited to uses which have the following characteristics: ➢ Having an AM peak hour distribution with a percentage of inbound trips at 70% or greater. ➢ Uses which have a typical trip generation rate of 125 trips/acre or less. According to the GDP narrative, an investigation of wetlands will be completed as soon as the weather permits but will need to be completed prior to development occurring on the property. Depending on the type of uses proposed on the area of the site that is in the flood prone district, a conditional use permit might be required. Section 62.800 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual will need to be complied with. Criteria & Staff Suaciested 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 mixed commercial -industrial development, which is consistent with the land use designation for the property. The proposed M- 1 (Mixed Commercial -industrial) zoning for the property is 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. There is limited access to the site. No specific uses are shown on the General Development Plan, except for those uses which are allowed within the M-1 (mixed Commercial -industrial) zoning district A notation on the GDP further limits the types of uses too only those (in the M-1 zoning district) which are characterized by an AM peak hour distribution with a percentage of inbound trips at 70% or greater. The current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual shall be the primary reference source for making this determination. Uses permitted shall be further limited to those in the M-1 district which have a typical trip generation rate of 125 trips/acre or less, as reported in the ITE Trip Generation Manual or where the calculated trip generation based on the proposed site development plan will be less than 125 tripslacre. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. Zq / 7C%V/�� Page 4 General Development Plan February 9, 2001 No housing is proposed for this development. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. Access to the site will be provided by 19'" Street NW, which is designated as an Arterial on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan. Nineteenth Street was reconstructed as an arterial roadway approximately 5 years ago. 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. No specific uses are shown on the General Development Plan, except for those uses which are allowed within the M-1 (mixed Commercial -industrial) zoning district. The uses which would be permitted In the on the property would only be those which are characterized by an AM peak hour distribution with a percentage of inbound trips at 70% or greater. The current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual shall be the primary reference source for making this determination. Uses permitted shall be further limited to those in the M-1 district which have a typical trip generation rate of 125 trips acre or less, as reported In the ITE Trip Generation Manual or where the calculated trip generation based on the proposed site development plan will be less than 125 trips/acre. 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 Citys 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 available to serve this property. The Northwest High Level Water System is available along the north side of 19t° Street NW to serve Page 5 General Development Plan February 9, 2001 this property. If the extension of public sanitary sewer, storm sewer, andlor additional hydrant(s) and watermain is required for this development, the execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required. 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. There currently is a pedestrian facility along the northern boundary of the site. At the time of development the City Public Works Department will review the existing condition of the pedestrian facilities along the south side of 19th Street NW. Any needed repair work will be required to be completed concurrent with the development of this property. Stormwater management will need to be reviewed further for this development. The GDP does not propose any on -site stormwater detention ponds on the property. Storm water management must be provided for this development A storm water management fee will apply if on -site detention Is not provided. 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 does not propose any storm water detention ponds on the property. Storm water management must be provided for this development A storm water management fee will apply if on -site detention Is not provided. 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. Recommendation: If the CPZC and Council approve the Zoning District Amendment, staff would recommend approval 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: 1. The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department: gV/ Page 6 General Development Plan February 9, 2001 ➢ Controlled access shag be shown along the entire frontage of 19t8 Street NW with the exception of the two access openings shown on the plan. 2. The property shall be platted. At the time of platting, controlled access shall be dedicated along the entire frontage of 19t6 Street NW with the exception of the two access openings approved on the GDP. 3. Stormwater management shall be provided for the development. If stormwater management is not provided, a stormwater management fee shall apply to the development. 4. At the time of development the City Public Works Department will review the existing condition of the pedestrian facilities along the south side of 19th Street NW. Any needed repair work will be required to be completed concurrent with the development of this property. 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, stormwater management, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, extension of utilities and contributions for public infrastructure. 6. Prior to platting this property, the applicant shall investigate the property for wetlands and submit the information to the LGU for review and approval. ..a 9e ROCHESTER Minnesota DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740 07-287-7800 2122 Campus Drive SE 5-507-281-6 FAX — 507-261-6216 Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 2/l/01 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for General Development Plan #161 & ZONE#01-01 on the B&N Properties (19'h St NW) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Grading & Drainage Plan approvals are required prior to development of this property. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development, and a Stormwater Management Fee will apply if on -site detention is not provided. 3. Dedication of Controlled Access is required along the entire frontage of 19a' St NW, with the exception of the access opening(s) approved on the GDP. 4. The existing access openings should be removed. 5. The condition of existing pedestrian facilities along the south side of 19" St NW will be reviewed by Public Works staff. Any needed repair work is required to be completed concurrent with the development of this property, at the Owner's expense. 6. If the extension of public, sanitary sewer, stormsewer, and or addition of hydrant(s) and watermain is required for this development, the execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required. 7. This property should be platted. 8. Execution of a Development Agreement is required prior to development of this property. 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 developable acre •: Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Connection Charge @ $73.13 per foot of frontage Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge @ $61.80 per foot of frontage ❖ Stormwater Management Charge, TBD - if on -site detention is not provided. r C:\TEMP\GDP161 BN Properties 19th St NW.doc gq rpuf. a we pledge, we deliver January 25, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: General Development Plan #161 by B & N, LLC to be known as B & N Properties and Zoning District Amendment #01-01 to zone 5 acres of land from H to M-1 zoning district. The property is located in the 3300 block of 19a' St. NW. Dear Ms. Garness: 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. Northwest High Level Water System service is available to this property along the north side of 19th St. NW with anticipated static water pressures just above 100 PSI. We recommend the installation of pressure reducing devices within each building on the domestic water lines. 3. Preliminary water system computer modeling indicates adequate fire flows are available in this area for this type of use. 4. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours,D. 0644r,� 1(`�LOC -- Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention BN, LLC McGhie & Betts, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile ,507-280-1542 0 J WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: C)'I -) 11(a I "(- &' U'a-Q,c. '61-DI 9 -�p- tJ f .f.,Cj-,d a 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. OEM,_JL. From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative General Development Plan for B & N, LLC in Section 28 of Cascade Township Rochester, Minnesota Prepared for. B & N, LLC 2728 NW 7TH Street Rochester, Minnesota 55901 Prepared by: McGhie & Betts, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Planners 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 January 15, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................I................1 2.0 BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................1 3.0 SITE ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................2 3.01 _ Access.............................................................................................................................2 3.02 Wetlands..........................................................................................................................2 3.03 Floodplain........................................................................................................................3 4.0 PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.01 Project Description and Scope........................................................................................3 4.02 Response to Section 3a-3f of Section E of Appendix.....................................................3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 q3 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B, Item E of the Informational Supplement to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual as adopted by the City of Rochester on January 8, 1992, amended December 27, 1999, and the Appendix update of November 20, 1995. A General Development Plan (GDP) is a document, which, through the combined use of site, grading, utility, and landscape plans, and written materials, will serve as a guide to the future development of a site. A GDP establishes street access, lot pattern, drainage controls, utility service, and land use for the property under consideration with the GDP. A GDP is processed through the Type III Review procedure under a Phase III hearing process. A presentation will be made at the Planning and Zoning Commission review meeting and at the public hearing before the Common Council. A General Development Plan (GDP) is required for this site in accordance with Section 61.211 for up zoning to the M-1 Zone. There are no specific uses identified for the site, however, the anticipated uses range from trade shops to light industrial, which are similar uses, located in this area. The current land use is industrial and the proposed M-1 Zoning is appropriate for the land use. The property was recently annexed to the City of Rochester and at the time of annexation the property was placed in the "If' zone or holding zone. 2.0 BACKGROUND The site was formerly part of the land owned by Whitings Nursery and has been vacant for some time. A Metes &t Bounds subdivision split was approved in May of 2000, which separates this parcel from the original Whiting Farm. General Development Plan for B & N, LLC Page t r A GDP is required for the up zoning to M-1. A Meeting was held with Mr. Svenby of the Planning Department and Mr. Charles Reiter, Transportation Planner to discuss the issues the GDP must address even though there is not a specific use or lot pattern identified at this time. 3.0 SITE ANALYSIS 3.01 Access The property is located adjacent to 191h Street NW. Access openings to 19a' Street NW are limited. There are two access openings planned for this property. They are located per discussions with Mr. Reiter and match the openings to the property to the north. At this time, no internal public roads are planned on the site. 3.02 Wetlands The National Wetland Inventory maps do not show wetlands on the 5.0-acre tract. The soil maps for the Olmsted County Soil Survey indicate the presence of hydric soils in the southwest comer of the site. As soon as the weather permits, the investigation of wetlands can be completed. The hydric soils appear to lie within the limits of the 100-year floodline. 3.03 Floodplain The FEMA Maps prepared in February of 1998, delineate the 100-year flood limits across the southwest corner of the site. This line is identified on the GDP. General Development Plan for B & N, LLC Page 2 4.0 PROPOSED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.01 Project Description and Scope The attached GDP contains the basic elements as required by code. Until such time that a specific use is identified a more detailed plan is not available. A site plan will be required for each use if the property is subdivided. Access control is shown on the plan. The plan also includes a stipulation regarding trip generation. Should these thresholds be exceeded a traffic analysis beyond what is currently provided may be necessary. 4.02 Response to Section 3a — 3f of Section E of Appendix. The following items are addressed as required by the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. 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: There are no known soil conditions that will create problems with street, drainage, building construction. Soil borings will need to be completed to make specific recommendations for footing and foundation systems. The topography is such that normal grading practices can be followed to prepare building sites. 3. b. Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs. General Development Plan for B & N, LLC Page 3 i Surface storm water control can be handled with storm sewer similar to other projects along the 19`h Street corridor. The natural drainage is to the south towards the fioodplain and Cascade Creek. 3. c. Identification of potential off -site drainage problems. We do not anticipate any off -site drainage problems as much of the area currently drains southerly to the creek and development of this site will not alter this drainage pattern. The site is relatively small and should not significantly increase the runoff compared to the overall drainage basin. 3. d. Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration. Sanitary sewer and watermain are located in or along 19`h Street NW that can serve development of this site. 3. a Identification of possible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of the applicant. The soils found on the site are highly erodible and precautionary measures must be taken to control erosion during construction. It is anticipated that normal erosion control measures will be utilized to control erosion. 3 f. A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. Phasing of the development of the site is possible, however, given the size of the parcel, it may be developed as one use. General Development Plan for B & N, LL.0 Page 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a1 / DATE: 03-05-01 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING 4 DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #01.01 by Leslie A. Lurken to be known as North Park �,rventh Subdivision. The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide approximately 12.75 acres into 45 lots for single family development and one outlot. This Plat will include dedication of right-of-way for three roadways, including Hillsboro Drive NW. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit concurrent with the Plat to permit grading work associated with this development that will result in changing grades by 10 feet or more. This property is located north of North Park Second Subdivision, south of February 26, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: E.q REPAIRED BY: Theresa Fogarty, Planner J The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 14, 2001 to consider this preliminary plat. The applicant's representative, Mr. Josh Johnson of McGhie and Betts, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant is agreeable to the staff -suggested conditions. Mr. Johnson also stated that Hillsboro Drive is a major connection from the north to the south and that the developer will be contributing towards traffic calming measures within the area. 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: a. Changing the name of the roadway labeled "Birmingham Drive NW" to "Birmingham Lane NW". b. Increasing the roadway width of "Hillsboro Drive NW" to 60' from Birmingham Drive NW to the northerly extent of North Park 11e. 2. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways including along the road frontage of Outlot A. 3. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities; contributions for public infrastructure. Grading and Drainage plans must be approved for this development. A Traffic Calming contribution shall be required for this development. A contribution for the North West Transportation Improvement District (NWTID) will be required for this development. Mr. Stever moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01-01 by Leslie A. Lurken to be known as North Park Eleventh Subdivision, with staff suggested conditions and findings. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0, with Mr. Ohly abstaining. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit concurrent with the Plat, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Stever seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0, with Mr. Ohly abstaining. Planning Department Recommendation: Gee attached staff report, dated February 9, 2001. Page 2 Cie RCA - Prelfoary Plat #01-01 North Park Eleventh Subdivision 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion thafat least one of the fifteen findings for denial in paragraph 61.225 can be made. 2. The Council should include a motion to adopt Endings to support eithef approval or denial of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity, Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated February 9, 2001. 2. Minutes of the February 14, 2001 CPZC Meeting. 3. Copy of e-mail received from a resident, dated February 14, 2001. 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, March 5, 2001 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie & Betts N1 Theresa From: Roger Dearth (dearth@us.ibm.com] 0--6. Wednesday, February 14, 2001 9:23 AM fogarty.theresa@co.olmsted.mn.us Subject: Leslie Lurken North Park 11 th Subdivision Theresa, I live on Cobblestone Lane NW and I am opposed to the proposal submitted by Mr. Lurken. While I support the continued development of single family housing, the traffic impact of this on Villa Road and the 55th St. Intersection of W Circle drive will be untenable. People will come out on Villa, go west on Circle drive and then U turn at 55th st making the intersection a mess, Putting a light in and an intersection at Kwik Trip would make trafrice even worse in this congested area. HILLSBORO LANE SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED. The traffic should either be directed up Fairway or preferably directed through the first subdivision west of Highway 52 (Harbor Ridge?). A light is needed at Harbor Ridge with or without the thruway. Also, in the near future a light will be needed at 55th and Fairway Drive. Thank you. Roger Dearth IBMUSM07/DEARTH 507-253-2286 / 8-553-2286 Internet ID: dearth@us.ibm.com COMMENT ABOVE RECEIVED FROM RESIDENT •T NORTH PARK 11TH SUBDIVISION J. ... REDUCED COPY NOT TO SCALE \mil •,` .. " * �- P,-':. \ � .r -S- .` r �A• . I •, yam- � • • . Notes P4 b vu-'a PIA �,-- 19013 - —I 0 w N tm`l mm r P i ---- -� 3 - y I-N 03NOZ All FI -— X `, � p •! I in W I Q ) M ) It, ,I a h = r Ir-g 1j i I K z Z g I b i l LI �a i ll a ! e _f1 o W 71-i 0 z zLai W d !11 Q q Soil z _;. cx N. 01 g I T ��1S add pS TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: February 9, 2001 ROCVIFSTF.R�1 I Ct Rq TED:p UG*'U' 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 WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Preliminary Plat #01.01 by Leslie A Lurken to be known as North Park Eleventh Subdivision. The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide approximately 12.75 acres into 45 lots for single family development and one outlot, This Plat will include dedication of right-of-way for three roadways including Hillsboro Drive NW. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit concurrent with the Plat to permit grading work associated with this development that will result in changing grades by 10 feet or more. This property is located north of North Park Second Subdivision, south of the Orchard Ridge Development and allows for the continuation of Hillsboro Drive NW. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Leslie A. Lurken 1027 NW 7t' Street Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: RPLI Water Division Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department - Addressing staff Rochester Fire Department AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIN/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Mw.�. a� Page 2 Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 2001 Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (5 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. North Park General Development Plan 5. Memo from McGhie & Betts Inc., dated January 17, 2001. 6. Copy of Substantial Land Alternation Map Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located north of North Park Second Subdivision, south of the Orchard Ridge Development. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 12.75 acres of land to be subdivided into 45 lots for single family development and one outlot. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for the continuation of one roadway and two new roadways. The first roadway labeled "Hillsboro Drive NW" is designed with a 56' right-of-way. This roadway is a continuation of "Hillsboro Drive NW" from the south (North Park 2n° Subdivision). The right-of-way width for "Hillsboro Drive NW", north of "Birmingham Drive NW" must be increased to 60' in width. The second roadway labeled "Birmingham Drive NW" is designed with a 50' right-of-way and a 51' cul-de-sac radius. This roadway intersects "Hillsboro Drive NW" and continues to the east, then northerly direction. This roadway in an Incorrect roadway type. The roadway type will need to be changed to "Birmingham Lane NW". The third roadway labeled "Cotswold Hills Lane NW" is designed with a 50' right-of-way and a 51' cul-de-sac radius. This roadway intersects "Birmingham Drive NW" and continues in a northerly direction. Pedestrian Facilities: In accordance with current City policy Pedestrian Facilities are required for this development along both sides of all new public roads Including along the road frontage of Outlot A . Drainage: The elevations of this property range from 1090' along the southern portion of the plat to approximately 1120' along the center and northern portion. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to the submittal Page 3 Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 2001 of the final plat. Drainage (Continued): Storm water management will be required for this development. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The site was studied for wetlands and no wetlands were found. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to 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 54 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: A combination of dedication of land (Outlot A) plus cash in lieu of land. The existing 6.5 acre park located west of this plat is owned by the City and remains unplatted. Staff is suggesting that the park be included as an outiot when the area to the west of this proposed preliminary plat is developed. General Development Plan: This property is included within the North Park General Development Plan (GDP). Substantial Land Alteration: This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 61.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alteration as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat, subject to making findings established in Section 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 grade is proposed to be changed, approximately 12', will occur on the southeastern portion of the site (Lots 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, Block 3) and also on a small portion in the middle of the site (Lots 7, 8, 9, 15, 16 and 17, Block 3). The maximum fill would be approximately 12' occurring on the northeast corner of the site (Lots 23, 24 and 25, Block 3). Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. ( Page 4 Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 2001 Staff Suqqested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alteration, staff recommends the following findings to Section 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The slopes on the site will be a maximum 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 in the northeast corner 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. It will not be necessary to truck in fill or haul fill from the site, which will minimize the impact on the surroundings roads. 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 is being re -graded to provide adequate slopes for single family 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 one phase taking approximately 6 weeks. 8) The grading will only take place during one phase taking approximately 6 weeks. There are homes in the immediate area that will be visually affected by the grading activity for only a short time during the grading process. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 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 required for the development. 11) The areas of grading do 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. Page 5 Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 2001 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. If grading is to occur prior to an owner -contract, a separate surety will need to be provided. 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 Staff Review and Recommendation: Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions / modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. Changing the name of the roadway labeled "Birmingham Drive NW" to 'Birmingham Lane NW". b. Increasing the roadway width of "Hillsboro Drive NW' to 60' from Birmingham Drive NW to the northerly extent of North Park 11r". 2. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways Including along the road frontage of Outlot A. bPage 6 ( t 8 Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park I Ith February 9, 2001 3. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: The combination of land (Outlot A) plus cash in lieu of land. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City and the developer shall grade and establish the outlot to turf prior to deeding the outiot to the City. 4. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities; contributions for public infrastructure. Grading and Drainage plans must be approved for this development. A Traffic Calming contribution shall be required for this development A contribution for the North West Transportation Improvement District (NWTID) will be required for this development. Reminder to Applicant: Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City I Owner Contract for construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. This Plat Is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans will need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the applicant intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of infrastructure improvements. Page 7 (O�' Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 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 i ___PageB Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 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 _ Page g Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 2001 Land Development Manual Excerpts Substantial Land Alteration 62.1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are ade, in addition to those li trsted in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; I I (� Page 10 Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 2001 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. Page 11 - - Preliminary Plat #01-01 North Park 11th February 9, 2001 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. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated bearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146. 6 - rpm we pledge, we deliver January 31, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Preliminary Plat #01-01 by Leslie A Lurkin to be known as North Park Eleventh Subdivision. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. 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, "M R Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau McGhie & Betts, Inc. Leslie A. Lurken Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 11!5� ROCHESTER PARK AND R.W'REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 2001 TO: Jennifer Gamess Planning RE: North Park 110 Preliminary #01-01 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 12.75 acres Number of dwelling units ............................................. 45 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 3.53 units/acre Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.10 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. $15,000 / acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Combination of dedication of land (Outlot A) plus cash in lieu of land. The applicant should be given credit for the dedication of Outlot A which will serve as an access to the existing 6.5 acre park. The applicant should grade and seed the outlot to turf prior to dedication. The existing 6.5 acre park located west of this plat is owned by the City and remains unplatted. If Planning prefers to have the park included in a plat at some time, the park should be included as an outlot in this plat or deferred until the last North Park plat. Applicant Leslie Lurken 1027 70 Street NW C:\TEMP\N PARR 11.DOC i 1(b ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 2/1101 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 Preliminary Plat Request #01-01 on the North Park Eleventh Subdivision property. The following are Public Works revised comments on the proposal: 1. Approval of Grading and Drainage Plans is required for this development. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 3. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 4. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed concurrent with this development, at the Owner's expense, along the entire frontage (including Outlots) of both sides of all new public streets within this subdivision. 5. Outlot 'A' should be dedicated to the City for park access. 6. A ROW width of 60' is required for Hillsboro Dr NW, from Birmingham Dr NW to the northerly extent of North Park 11t'. 7. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's Engineer, 8. A Traffic Calming contribution will be required for this development. 9. A contribution will be required for the North West Transportation Improvement District (NWTID). C:\TEMP\PP01.01 North Park 11th.doc r'd ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and include: S J9173 NW Trunk Sanitary Sewer s• J9265 Watertower & Trunk Watermain to Serve High Level NW Area (Note: A portion of this property has previously paid for Tower charges) Contribution to NWTID •S Traffic Calming Contribution of $40.00 per platted lot S• Stormwater Management (if on -site detention is not provided) Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 4 Street name Signs 1 Dead End Sign QWEMPIPP01-01 North Park 11th.doc l(9 ir � A Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS1Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904.4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507)287.2275 PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: January 29, 2001 TO: Jennifer Gamess FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: RE: NORTH PARK ELEVENTH SUBDIVISION A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. Incorrect roadway type used in Birmingham Drive NW. RECOMMENDATION: Change roadway type from Drive to Lane. (Birmingham Lane NW) 10 January 17, 2001 Rochester Ms. Mitzi Baker Consolidated Planning Department M i n n e s o t a 2122 Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Exemption from Section 62.1101.2 (a) for North Park Eleventh Land surveying Dear Ms. Baker: Urban - Land Planning Section 62.1101 of the Rochester Land Development Manual and Zoning Ordinance contains new standards for substantial land alteration projects. The Consulting- civil Engineering grading of the North Park Eleventh site will result in exceeding a 10-foot vertical cut and a 10-foot vertical fill over various portions of the site. This project meets the definition of Section 62.1101.2.a,1(d) where the cut/fill involves a grade Geotechrical urine 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 cut would Construction Material Testing be approximately 12', which will occur on the southeastern portion of the site and also on a small portion in the middle of the site. (See grading plan.) The Landscape Architecture maximum fill would be approximately 12' and occur on the northeast corner of the site. 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: 1648 Third Avenue S.E. �ochester, MN 65904 Tel. 507.289.3919 Fax. 507.289.7333 e-mail. mcghlebehs.com 62.1105(1-151. 1. The activity necessary to grade the portions in excess of 12400t vertical cut/fill will not result in unstable slopes or unsafe access. The slopes on the site will be a maximum of 3:1 and only a small portion of the grading would involve a 12-foot out. The cut/fill 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 east side of the property. 3. There is access to the site from the south. It will not be necessary to truck in fill or haul fill off of the site, which 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 General Development Plan, but the overall scenic quality will be maintained. V mil; rt,l u' i Established 1946 i ��;_ bch..,;iI,.L..iI tag FA 6. The grading is compatible with the proposed adjacent neighborhood developments. 7. The grading will be confined to the North Park Eleventh site, 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 short time during the grading process. 9. 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 is such that run-off is directed to appropriate locations in the street and handled through the City storm water plan. 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 ail 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. Joshua J.Johnson JJJ/bd q,ap-4q PC: Mr. Lucky Lurken Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 Mr. Brede moved to recommend a1roval of Annexation Petition #01-03 by Roland Graves. Mr. Stever seconded them tion. The motionAarried 7.0. Township. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the st report, date staff report is on file at the Ro ester -Olmsted P Ms. Baker noted that th fanning Department n regarding the annex n. She further explained petition by BARC . February 8, 2001, to the Commission. The knning Department. Mr. Burke ved to recommend approval of Am Scaffe,%Wrger, Cassidy and Fogarty. Mr. Stever PUBLIC HEARINGS: a memo from Haverhill Township o memo referred to the first annexation Petition #01-04 by td the motion. The motion Preliminary Plat #01-01 by Leslie A Lurken to be known as North Park Eleventh Subdivision. The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide approximately 12.75 acres into 45 lots for single family development and one outlot. This Plat will include dedication of right-of-way for three roadways including Hillsboro Drive NW. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit concurrent with the Plat to permit grading work associated with this development that will result in channing Grades by 10 feet or more. This property is located north of North Park Second Subdivision, south of the Orchard Ridge Development and allows for the continuation of Hillsboro Drive NW. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated February 9, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker indicated that staff placed an e-mail, from a concerned resident, at their desk. The applicant's representative, Josh Johnson of McGhie and Betts, addressed the Commission. He explained that the request conforms to the adopted general development plan and that the block, lot, and street layout is consistent. He stated that the applicant is agreeable to the staff - suggested conditions. Mr. Johnson showed where the substantial land alteration would occur. He asked that the Commission approve the substantial land alteration. Mr. Quinn asked Mr. Johnson to comment on the e-mail received from a concerned resident. Mr. Johnson stated that Hillsboro Drive is a major connection from the north to the south. Mr. Burke asked if the connection to Orchard Ridge would be made right away. ��(pL Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 Mr. Johnson responded that he was not sure. He explained that the developer is paying for traffic calming measures. Discussion ensued regarding traffic calming measures. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Staver moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01-01 by Leslie A Lurk( to be known as North Park Eleventh Subdivision, with staff -suggested conditions and findings. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0, with Mr. Ohly abstaining. CONDITIONS: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. Changing the name of the roadway labeled 'Birmingham Drive NW" to "Birmingham Lane NW". b. Increasing the roadway width of "Hillsboro Drive NW" to 60' from Birmingham Drive NW to the northerly extent of North Park 111s. 2. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways Including along the road frontage of Outlot A. 3. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: The combination of land (Outlot A) plus cash in lieu of land. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City and the developer shall grade and establish the outlot to turf prior to deeding the outlot to the. City. 4. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating, but not limited to; storm water management; park dedication; traffic Improvements; pedestrian facilities; contributions for public Infrastructure. Grading and Drainage plans must be approved for this development. A Traffic Calming contribution shall be required for this development. A contribution for the North West Transportation Improvement District (NWTID) will be required for this development. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit concurrent with the Plat, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 6.0 with Mr. Ohly abstaining. / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING IR j DATE: 03-05-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PT TBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING S - 5 M DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #01-02 by Badger Development LLC to be known as PREPARED BY: esadger Ridge Second Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide 19.90 acres of land into Brent Svenby, 78 lots for residential development and also proposes right-of-way dedication for three Planner roadways. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet within the development. The applicant is also requesting a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to not provide mid -block pedestrian connections as required in Section 64.227. The property is adjacent to the westerly side of Badger Ridge Subdivision, south of Valleyhigh Road NW and west of West Circle Drive. February 27, 2D01 City Plannindgand Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 14, 2001 to consider this preliminary plat Staff stated that the City Public Works staff and City Park and Recreation Department staff are agreeable to waiving the mid -block pedestrian connection requirement, based on the topography of the site. Mr. Mack Hamilton, Chief Manager of Badger Development, addressed the Commission. Mr. Hamilton stated that they agree with staff -suggested conditions, except that they would like some latitude with conditions #1 a, 2 and 4 to be able to work with the Public Works Department. 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: a. Providing an easement that is of adequate width for a 8" public water main needed between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1 for network looping according to the memo from Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division, dated January 25, 2001. b. Changing the name of the roadway labeled 'Tomah Drive NW" to 'Tomah Place NW". c. Changing the name of the roadway labeled "Ashland Drive NW" to "Ashland Place NW". 2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, with payment due prior to recording the final plat, as recommended by the City Park and Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated February 2, 2001. 3. A temporary turn -a -round and associated easement shall be provided for a turn -a -round at the southerly end of Ashland Drive NW prior to recording the Final Plat documents. 4. Stormwater Management must be provided. An off -site drainage easement shall be dedicated over the unplatted land to the southwest of this property for the outlet from the storm sewer running between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1. This outlet may need to be extended further off -site to prevent erosion on the adjacent slope. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01-02 by Badger Development LLC to be known as Badger Ridge Second Subdivision, with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Mr. Hodgson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. "--IUNCILACTION: Mobonby: Second by: to: Page 2 �Q` RCA - PI Plat #01-02 Badger Ridge Second Subdivision Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit concurrent with the Plat, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of a Design Modification, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Stever seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated February 9, 2001. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with condrfions, or deny the; land subrl Y., Won permit The, Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria includede°fhe staff%ieport A,r motion to deny must include sup In reasons fora conclusion. that at /east one of the fifteenrrndings for denial in paragraph 61.225 can li`a made. The reso/utio 'should"also= include approval or denial of the Resign Modfricafion 2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to s_ upport either approval ordemal of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated February 9, 2001. 2. Minutes of the February 14, 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. the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. Yaggy Colby Associates on Monday, March 5, 2001 in the Council Chambers at $ R wVIJ a3Wd 73A30lYHe \ f k l�,• ]] �' \ w� m� o_o_ _ ■ % 'u //may ~ e ./|= | � d §s �«2 7 w: Wiz•\�/}� �� RIM! ` 1Vld MIMINIl321d V1053NNIW 'N3153H70M S j NOISIAIO9f1S CINOD35 39OI21 21300V8 Jill is , M ft Y1053NNM'M3143N70! �.,s =1Er�� 1111 NOISIAI49f15 ON0�3S 3DQIb a3Jotl8 VPJ I I I 19 -ow TO: FROM: DATE: RE: City Planning and Zoning Commission Brent Svenby, Planner February 9, 2001 Iisi��i��+:a■:its •�iiCin'i�iiCCina ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGMRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 Type III, Phase II, Land Subdivision Permit #01-02 (Preliminary Plat) to be known as Badger Ridge Second Subdivision Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Badger Development LLC 400 South Broadway #100 Rochester. MN 55904 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Yd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: RPU Water Division RPU Operations Division Park and Rec. Dept. Planning Dept. — John Harford Planning Dept. — Addressing Staff Rochester Public Works Department Fire Department MnDOT Environmental Resource Services Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (6 letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of GDP 5. Copy of Preliminary Plat Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located west of West Circle Drive and south of Valleyhigh Road NW. �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ^ i Page 2 Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 Zoning: The property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) in the City of Rochester. Proposed Development: This development consists of approximately 19.90 acres of land to be subdivided into 78 lots for single family residential development. Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for three new public roadways. The first roadway is "Monroe Drive NW", a roadway that connects with Ashland Drive NW. This roadway is designed with a 37' wide surface with a 60' right-of-way width. The second roadway is "Tomah Drive NW", a north/south roadway ending at Monroe Drive NW. This roadway is designed with a 33' wide surface with a 56' right-of-way width. The third roadway is "Ashland Drive NW" a north/south roadway which will eventually continue into the Hart Farms GDP. This roadway is designed with a 37 wide surface with a 60' right-of-way width. The proposed roadways meet the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual The roadway names need to be revised to be consistent with the names in Badger Ridge First Subdivision. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the new streets in the subdivision. Drainage: The elevations of this site range from 1,080' in the southwest corner of the plat to 1,140' in the northeast portion of the property. The property generally drains to the southwest. Stormwater management must be provided for this development either through on -site detention or through participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. It appears that the Decorah Edge Recharge Area underlies a portion of the proposed plat. General development recommendations for the Decorah Edge setting should be considered for this site. Specific grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a Final Plat application. Off -site drainage easements will be required over the unplatted land to the southwest of this property for the outlet from the stormsewer Page 3 Badger Ridge Subdivision p February 9, 2001 running between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. It does not appear that hydric soils exist on this portion of the property. Public Utilities: Water and sewer will need to be extended to serve this property. A wider easement is required between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1 for a necessary 8" public water main loop to the west to network into the adjacent property. 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 94 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 satisfied by cash in lieu of land. General Development Plan: In March 2000, the city approved the general development plan for this property. The 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 following are the lots where the grade is proposed to be cut more than 10 feet: ➢ Lots 4-7, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, Block 2 ➢ Lots 5-7, 13-16, Block 3 ➢ Lots 4-5, Block 4 The lots where there is proposed to be fill greater than 10 feet: ➢ Lots 16-18, Block 1. Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Staff Suggested Findings: Page 4 Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 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 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 materials will be used to fill in the low area of the site or moved to the parkland that is adjacent to the site. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. All excess material will be used on the site or on the adjacent property 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 the summer of 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 the summer of 2001. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater management will be provided for the development. 11) The areas of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and should not effect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed this summer. The duration seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. N ' Page 5 Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 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. If grading is to happen prior to the Owner Contract, a separate means of surety will need to be provided. 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 Design Modification. The applicant is also requesting a design modification to the requirement of Chapter 64 (specifically 64,227) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 64.227 requires mid -block pedestrian connections across any block exceeding 800 feet in length. Section 64.227 Trail Thoroughfares and Sidewalks: Trail thoroughfares and sidewalks are a vital element of the City's transportation system — providing access throughout the City for pedestrians and bicyclists, reducing traffic congestion, facilitating access to the transit system, and reducing emissions from automobiles. Unless otherwise exempted by these regulations, all new development shall provide sidewalk and trail thoroughfare improvements that are consistent with the City's adopted Thoroughfare and Sidewalk, Bike Path and Pedestrian Facilities Plan. A. In addition to trails designated in the City's adopted Plans, the City shall require dedication of trails needed to maintain connectivity between and through subdivisions under each of the following circumstances, except where unique topographical conditions make the trails unfeasible: 1. Across any block exceeding 800 feet in length; 2. Between lots on a cul-de-sac or dead end street that abut a collector or arterial road. No more than one trail shall be required per cul-de-sac; or 3. Across any block exceeding 600 feet in length which abuts a school or park site. Page 6 Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 The applicant's consultant has stated that the topography of the subdivision would make it difficult to provided the mid -block pedestrian connections. Also that the slopes of the mid -block connections would be an attractive nuisance for rollerbladers, etc. Both the City Public Works Director and the Assistant Superintendent of Parks agree that with the topography of the area the requirements for mid -block pedestrian connections should be waived for this subdivision. Staff would recommend approval of the design modification. Please see the attached excerpts from the LDM which outline the Design Modification provisions Staff Recommendation: Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions / modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised. a. Providing an easement that is of adequate width for a 6"public water main needed between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1 for network looping according to the memo from Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division, dated January 25, 2001. b. Changing the name of the roadway labeled "Tomah Drive NW" to "Tomah Place NW. c. Changing the name of the roadway labeled "Ashland Drive NW" to "Ashland Place NW': 2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, with payment due prior to recording the final plat, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated February 2, 2001. 3. A temporary turn -a -round and associated easement shall be provided for a turn- around at the southerly end of Ashland Drive NW prior to recording the Final Plat documents. 4. StormwaterManagement must provided. An off -site drainage easement shall be dedicated over the unplatted land to the southwest of this property for the outlet from the storm sewer running between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1. This outlet may need to be extended further off -site to prevent erosion on the adjacent slope. 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. 133 Page 7 1 Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Findings 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: 1) The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance, 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) 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. 5) 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. 6) 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. 7) That the proposed subdivision, if in a residential zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. 8) That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimension are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. 9) That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. 10) That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. 11) That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. 12) 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; Page 8 l3s ' Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 13) That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. 14) That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. 15) That any land located within Zone A as shown on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. SUBSTANTIAL LAND ALTERNATION 62.1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; (Ap Page 9 Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10)The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11)The proposed activity will minimize Impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12)The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity Is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and Interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will Impose a significant burden upon public facilities. Page 10 Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 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. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146. 60.420 DESIGN MODIFICATIONS: It is the intent of this ordinance to recognize that in certain instances it may be in the public interest to provide an expedient method to modify the site design and public facility standards of this ordinance as applied to certain types of development. 60.421 Purpose: The purpose of the design modification is to permit relief from the strict application of ordinance standards where there is no defined hardship, the proposed modifications will not result in identifiable loss of protection to adjacent properties, or where the proposed development results in an improved design solution to a site design problem and in doing so, still meets the intent of the site design or public facility standards. Guidelines are provided for the approval authority to assess the impact of the proposed design modification. This ordinance also provides for certain types of development identified as incentive development and restricted development which, though not consistent with normal zoning district standards, will be permitted in certain instances. These developments are supported by the Land Use Plan, but may necessitate relaxation of certain design standards in order to meet site constraints. Design modifications will be considered as part of the normal review of these developments, subject to standards established in this section. 60.422 Review of Design Modifications: Design modifications will be processed through either the Type I or Type 11 review procedures, according to the guidelines established 57 Page 11 Badger Ridge Subdivision February 9, 2001 in this section. Where a design modification request accompanies a permit or certificate request that requires processing through a Type III review procedure, the request shall be considered by the Commission and Council as part of the Type III review. 60.423 Guidelines for Approval: The following paragraphs identify specific policies or standards for each type of design modification permitted by the Ordinance. The approval authority shall consider these policies or standards in making the findings to approve or deny a request for a design modification. In addition, the following standards shall apply to all requests for Type II Design Modifications: 1) The burden shall be upon the applicant to show the design solution will result in an improved use of land while preserving the purposes for which the original regulation was enacted. 2) Any such modification shall consider the relationship of the development to its surroundings and shall avoid creating any adverse effects due to noise, traffic circulation, building height or bulk or lack of screening. 60.424 Specific Policies: The following paragraphs contain the guidelines applicable to specific types of design modifications which shall be considered by the approval authority. 9) Public Facility Standards: a) Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 may be approved as part of the review of any General Development Plan, land subdivision permit or final plat where the applicant can show by reason of exceptional topography or any other physical condition that strict compliance with these regulations would cause undue hardship or that such relief would not be a detriment to the public welfare and would not impair the intent and purpose of the regulations. r. ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 211 /01 13� 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 Preliminary Plat Request #01-02 on the Badger Ridge Second Subdivision property. The following are Public Works revised comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 2. A Grading Plan and Drainage Plan must be submitted and approved for this development. 3. An off -site drainage easement will be required over the unplatted land to the southwest of this property for the outlet from the stormsewer running between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1. This outlet may need to be extended further off -site to prevent erosion on the adjacent slope. Final determination will be addressed through Grading & Drainage Plan review. 4. A temporary tum-around, and associated easement is required at the southerly end of Ashland Dr NW. 5. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's Engineer. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the executed Development Agreement, with the exception of: Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 4 Street Name Signs C:ITEMP1PP01-02 Badger Ridge 2nd.doc we pledge, we del6✓er January 25, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Preliminary Plat #01-02 by Badger Development LLC to be known as Badger Ridge Second Subdivision. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. A wider easement is required between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1 for a necessary 8" public water main loop to the west to network into the adjacent property (toward the future cul-de-sac shown on the approved GDP). 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 , 06VA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Badger Development, LLC Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 1-1 �OCHESTER PARK AND RWEATION DEPARTMU T 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 2, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Badger Ridge 2nd Preliminary # 01-02 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 19.90 acres Number of dwelling units ............................................. 78 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 3.92 units/acre Density factor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.90 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. $13,500/acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land Applicant: Badger Ridge Development Suite 100, Riverside Bldg 400 S Broadway C:\TEMP\HADGER RI➢GE 2ND.D0C Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS1Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: January 29, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: RE: BADGER RIDGE SECOND SUBDIVISION A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. Tomah Drive NW is using the incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change Tomah Drive NW to TOMAH PLACE NW. (Ibis is the roadway designation that was agreed to and recorded on Badger Ridge Subdivision.) 2. Ashland Drive NW is using the incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change Ashland Drive NW to ASHLAND PLACE NW. (This is the roadway designation that was agreed to and recorded on Badger Ridge Subdivision.) 1 �3 ' ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE SERVICES 2116 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER, MN 55904-4744 507/285-8339 FAX 507/280-4799 Date: February 1,2001 To: Jennifer Gaarness From: Tony Hill 6 RE: Preliminary Plat #01-02 - Badger Ridge 2Id Subdivision, Badger Development LLC Preliminary Plat Review Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area: Is present within the proposed Preliminary Plat (please see attached map). This assessment is based on information using the Olmsted County Geological Atlas, field observations, well log data, 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 at the Badger Ridge Subdivision. • General development recommendations for the Decorah Edge setting should be considered for this site. Decorah Edge Recommendations 1. Limit the extent of grading that can occur where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. 2. Develop vertical and lateral setbacks to minimize the disruption of groundwater recharge where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. 3. In areas where the Decorah shale does become disturb, require that intercepted recharge water be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of recharge processes. 4. Clay plugs be installed in utility trenches as means of maintaining dispersed groundwater recharge flows. 5. Preserve the unique hydric features of the site. For more information or further assistance, please call 285-8982. is g� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER w 4ellminary Plat 111-02 - Badger Ridge%nd Subdivison ' Badger Development LLC +'4f'C})- ,.}.„`...'\:_._.r•r `!. '.^-i i.+,.�_. .. -.. }, \ll }�\\:il la _J%n\ Njlil "�'.._.__.i lJ.�r i/ •\•\t'+1.ry��Y+.r t\ 11ht, �-./lir._...•.'. 1 ``��'�.Y\.\\, n.-.1\1. I!\\. ^:n.-. �;;'r �_ r. li 1;I \,.+54�^r., .l\ill I i♦ ..._----'- '111Ej( ff 'Jr•-__'\.\..._._ ,l!i �,`.�!\• LI ((l rt. �'`. _:�r• lff lt•, 1'\ }i`%111! I II...`\�\\I +l, �l(�fif �.i J _ ��: - ♦•^�\.\\. \n j.\�::�\ IIi�L .J/�^�...\ \.+.ta♦ i i; i i j 'r. `\.'\\}l. l+; '! r __ -_ - ''*="h.SsY�.`•'i�\ /.-.,: `.. i•2:_=: �:..'}F 11! t11 /i�~i_�' If-OVi? tl�•1'::�;. lltl iiij111i!II i, tt``�. .\' 4i :t \ 11 ii\a•.�.. ,a.�_ 1 J'r+fl!i +.\' 'r.��.�\: �.:�: '+\l,\\iii �'a.r.\. !ji lllll-•.`\.\:r•r. '"..": t l,�r r.,'�' i}1 li•rl'rl.It �:: '... „ !rrlrir %!,� 1 J �}�II{r liJii�i i�•J�r ; �. t t/}\f :�y�N. i,`, •„ : � !•�I�INillf!! �-J;i ydr/��dl�', \` 5- J a ..\ a r�,j]il 1 �iS ili',lr t,'4'i S�C'�" P"��'��I��Jdq _,n .."' •.4``-�.—......`a...y. y J. tt �y 45 `:. :'•-zrl,r✓,Ca:p `JiJ �iJj%iii5! J �:=: �:�}�.� '.,.,. ��.�.:"�='�`. i.\mat U�`¢b .`.\—/i IR lil, h!'i !'ram !1 \ \\.' ��.,}•--:..^.•. `'� •'+ t: J�' \�� }\i�J\ ••\�{fJ'11. \�'..,1.r .. �.. st i a \ \ y\ IIJ�rJ�- Sca�.\.,t!\Jt!l �`,\•\�'::,'`, .:_C'_^� - J'`l �'li Illi,vll!I ��;.r Il}1{\{1N I r! � Ii \:r \• `. \+ \ .--•..-.- '� ! r!111111s1t�,1 yf+tli{4\�\�\•.:\�•. \. \, \'\....-.- -- - ..--._-�i !!i111tI�yYIlqef1!.;. ♦yia.ata`a�-�.\;.;\�. \,'`..—._. - _ _•:^ .y lr'IINr7' Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ! Decorah Shale Platteville Formation Glenwood Formation Based on Olmsted County Geological Atlas, well log information, field observations, and Arc/View Coverages of two foot contour elevations. Decorah Shale Elevation 1123'-1160' Platteville Formation Elevation 1098' - 1123' Glenwood Formation Elevation 1090'- 1098' More accurate geologic informaSon regarding elevation of the Decorah Edge contact may be available from borings completed at the Badger Ridge Subdivision. a ARCHITECTS) / SURVEYORS r- January 10, 2001 Ms. Mitzi Baker Olmsted County Planning 2122 SE Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Substantial Land Alteration Badger Ridge Second Subdivision Rochester, Minnesota Dear Ms. Baker: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS This letter is to serve as a request for substantial land alteration approval for the above referenced preliminary plat. The existing agricultural land will be regraded to be suitable for residential applications. Generally, the top of the existing hill will be cut down and be used to level the site to more suitable grades. The materials will all stay on -site, except that some excess topsoil will be moved to the parkland that is adjacent to the site, and some cut from the site may be used on Badger Ridge Subdivision. PLANNERS ROCHESTER OFFII 717 Third Avenue Rochester, MN 559 507-288-64 Fax 507-288-50 The grading would be completed in Summer 2001. A permanent pond is the park will be graded as a part of the Business Center's work. The street and utilities would be completed in Summer 2001. Generally, the streets will be graded to six percent (6%) slopes or less, except for 3:1 slopes as noted on the plan, which will be stabilized with wood fiber blanket when seeded. MASON CITY OFFIt Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES William S. Anderson, PE WSA:bsd YCA #7330-010-2 Attachment: Grading Plan with 10' cuts and fills marked JAN 1 8 2001 641-424-63 DELAFIELD OFFIS 262-646-68. Equal 0pporruni1y Employer Ya86Y.can 4 48 11 ARCHITECTS / January 30, 2001 Brent Svenby Olmsted County Consolidated Planning 2122 SE Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Request for Design Modification Badger Ridge Second Subdivision Dear Brent: V YAGG COLBY ASSOC14i11 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS The owners of the proposed subdivision hereby request the approval of a Design Modification under Section 60.424, Par. 9 for the Mid Block Walkway Requirement, Section 64.227. The topography of the subdivision would make it difficult to provide a walkway. We also believe that a walkway at this slope would be an attractive nuisance for roilerbladers etc. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES William S. Anderson, PE WSA:bsd YCA 47330 PLANNERS ROCHESTER OFFI 717 Third Avenue Rochester, MN 5M 507-268-6A Fa*88-5C MASON CITY OFFII 641424-63 OELAFIELO OFFR 262-646-68 l J Equal Opportunity Employer yaggy.com t Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Couunission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 Mr. John n responded that he was not sure. He explained that the developer is paying for traffic calm measures. Discussion ens d regarding traffic calming measures. With no one else hing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the publi earing. Mr. Staver moved to r ommend approval of Preliminary Piat #01 by Leslie A Lurken to be known as North k Eleventh Subdivision, with staff-su sted conditions and findings. Mr. Quinn seco ed the motion. The motion carrie -0, with Mr. Ohly abstaining. CONDITIONS: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. Changing the name of the r dway la ed "Birmingham Drive NW" to "Birmingham Lane NW". b. Increasing the roadway width o illsboro Drive NW" to 60' from Birmingham Drive NW to the northerly ext o orth Park 111'. 2. Pedestrian facilities are requi d along b sides of all new public roadways including along the road fr age of Outlot 3. Parkland Dedication sh be met via: The com ' ation of land (Outlot A) plus cash in lieu of land.`Outlot shall be dedicated to the ity and the developer shall grade and establish a outlot to turf prior to dee the outlot to the City. , 4. The Developers Il enter Into a Development Agree t with the City of Rochester the utlines the obligations of the applicant lating, but not limited to; storm water anagement; park dedication; traffic improv ents; pedestrian facilities; tributions for public infrastructure. Grading a Drainage plans must be appr d for this development. ATrafbc Calming contrib ion shall be required for thi evelopment. A contribution for the North West Trans rtation Impr ement District (NWTID) will be required for this developm Mr. Vrke moved to recommend approval for a Substantial Lana Alteration poiWit cojiEurrent with the Plat, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Staver seconded th otion. T e motion carried 6-0. with Mr. Ohly abstaining. Preliminary Plat #01-02 by Badger Development LLC to be known as Badger Ridge Second Subdivision. The Plat proposes to subdivide 19.90 acres of land into 78 lots for residential development and also proposes right-of-way dedication for three roadways. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet within the development. The applicant is also requesting a Design Modification to the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual to not provide mid -block pedestrian 1011 Page 4 City Planning and Zoning Comu fission Minutes Hearing Date; February 14, 2001 Drive. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated February 9, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby stated that the applicant submitted a revised plat with all of the lots on the land owned by the applicant, since they do not own the 40 acres to the west. Mr. Svenby stated that the Director from Public Works and the Assistant Superintendent of the Parks Department indicated to him that they are agreeable in waiving the mid -block pedestrian connection requirement, based on the topography of the site. Mr. Burke asked if the applicant had used all the credits the Park proposed in the subdivision. Mr. Svenby explained that, in Badger Ridge Subdivision, the applicant dedicated an outlot to the City approximately 15 acres in size. A certain percentage of the parkland dedicated needs to be 4 percent or less. The land dedicated in the first subdivision was only for the first subdivision. He explained that the proposed subdivision had its own dedication requirements. Mr. Burke asked what the basis was to waive the mid -block pedestrian connections. Mr. Svenby responded that it was due to the topography of the site. The applicant indicated that the topography of the site made it difficult to establish the mid -block connections. Ms. Petersson asked where the water and sewer connection would come from. Mr. Svenby explained that it would come from the Badger Ridge Subdivision. Mr. Stever asked for the status, from the Planning Department, regarding groundwater recharge areas. Mr. Svenby responded that the Water Coordinator plans to present the findings of the study to the Commission in a few months. Ms. Baker clarified that waiving the mid -block connection is actually achieved through the public review process. She explained that staff relies on Public Works and the Park and Recreation Department's input. However, only the Commission and Council can actually waive the requirement. Mr. Mack Hamilton, Chief Manager of Badger Development, addressed the Commission. He explained that the first phase, to which the second phase would connect, does not have mid - block connections. Mr. Hamilton stated that his consultant advised him that, even though there is some of shale rock present on the site, the topography of the site is such that it is not an issue. Mr. Hamilton explained that Denny Stotz did not know, based on how the land is developed, exactly what part of the park credits might be used and/or required. Therefore, Mr. Stotz suggested that cash in lieu of dedication payment be made. i Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 Mr. Hamilton stated that they agree with the staff -suggested conditions, except that they would like some latitude with conditions 1a, 2, and 4 to be able to work with the Public Works Department. Mr. Burke asked for clarification of "an easement with adequate width." Mr. Svenby responded that he wrote the condition that way because he asked Donn Richardson, from the Water Division, where the comment came from. Mr. Richardson indicated that he was not sure of how wide the easement needed to be and that it depended on how it was designed. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01-02 by Badger Development LLC to be known as Badger Ridge Second Subdivision, with staff - suggested findings and conditions. Mr. Hodgson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. CONDITIONS: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a) Providing an easement that is of adequate width for a 8" public water main needed between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1 for network looping according to the memo from Rochester Public Utilities -Water Division, dated January 25, 2001. b) Changing the name of the roadway labeled 'Tomah Drive NW" to "Tomah Place NW." c) Changing the name of the roadway labeled "Ashland Drive NW" to "Ashland Place NW." 2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, with payment due prior to recording the final plat, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated February 2, 2001. 3. A temporary turn -a -round and associated easement shall be provided for a turn- around at the southerly end of Ashland Drive NW prior to recording the Final Plat documents. 4. Stormwater Management must provided. An off -site drainage easement shall be dedicated over the unpiatted land to the southwest of this property for the outlet from the storm sewer running between Lots 15 & 16, Block 1. This outlet may need to be extended further off -site to prevent erosion on the adjacent slope. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of the Substantial. Land Alteration permit concurrent with the Plat, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. f Page b tt City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 Mr. Staver stated that he noticed that some of the substantial land alteration overlays some of the decorah edge shale area. He indicated that he was looking forward to a presentation on decorah edge shale. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of a Design Modification, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Mr. Brent Svenby p sented the staff reports, dated February 9, 2001 o the Commission. The staff reports are on fil t the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Depart t. Mr. Svenby explained that a Commission would need to mak o separate motions: one on the general development pla nd the other on the zoning dis ct amendment. Mr. Svenby explained that, at the a of annexation, the perty was placed in the holding zone. He also indicated that the site currently undev ped. Mr. Svenby explained that staff would us a Instit of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual to determine what types us would be permitted on the site. Mr. Svenby stated that there was a neighborho^eeting held on February 1, 2001. He indicated that one resident attended the me e ' g an toted that they were not concerned with the proposal. Mr. Svenby described what the surrounfjfng sites were prefttly zoned. Mr. Svenby stated that the flood Therefore, depending on what tl back for a conditional use oermi Mr. Burke asked if the AM district. 06 district cuts across the so west corner of the property. )plicant intends to use the landXr, they may need to come any filling within the flood prone Xtrict. hour distribution and trip general is standaXfor the M-1 zoning Mr. Svenby responded at the requirement was based on the current capacity of `" Street. He stated that there 9fere similar notations on the Quinstar GDP and the Billman- rrV4pP. The applicant's r resentative, Bill Tointon of McGhie and Betts, addressed the Commis He stated that le zoning district amendment is consistent with the land use of industrial, is found throudhout the area. r. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 SI DATE: 03-05-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. LIC HEARINGS PLANNING T� _ (0 'IWM DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #01-04 by Schaffenberger, Cassidy PREPARED BY: and Fogarty to annex 58.98 acres of land located north of the Emerald Hills Development Mitzi Baker, Senior and south of 48`h Street NE (County Road 124) in the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Planner Section 19, Haverhill Township. February 26, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on February 14, 2001. The Commission found that this property is adjacent to the city limits and can be served by City services. The Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of this request. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Annexation Petition #01-04 by Schaffenberger, Cassidy and Fogarty. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated February 8, 2001. Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township. For the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and 10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township Taxes on this property for 2000 is $6.95. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN Planning IOfflce of Strategic and Long Range Planning. Attachments 1. Staff report, dated February 8, 2001. 2. Minutes of the February 14, 2001CPZC meeting 3. Memo from Haverhill Township, dated February 13, 2001 { - e.: I L' Distribution: 14 f' 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 4. City Finance Director. Tax Information Attached 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 5, 2001 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie & Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: C 169 I To: Theresa Fogarty, Planner From: Tony Ebert, Chairman Haverhill Township CC: Mitzi Baker, Senior Planner; Ron Livingston Date: 02/13/01 Re: Annexation Petition #01-02 by BARCCO Development Company and Annexation Petition #01-04 by Schaffenberger, Cassidy and Fogarty Haverhill Township objects to the above Annexations and General Development Plans for the following reasons: Final authority for Planning and Zoning for Haverhill Township resides locally in the township with its own Planning and Zoning commission and Town Board. Since the General Development Plan covers a larger area then will be annexed and that will affect the rest of the Township the GDP must be approved by the Township. Please resubmit the GDP to the Haverhill PAC as a first step in this process. The watershed area for most of these properties lies completely in the Township and will continue to do so even after development . This will have an affect on other township residents and other township natural resources that are in the watershed area. Before approving of any GDP a storm water and soil erosion plan must be submitted. Some of the proposed area can be served with gravity sewer to existing trunk lines but much of the proposed annexed area and GDP area will require lift pumps to conned to central sewer to the south. With the current escalating costs of sewer and water services this will put an additional cost burden on lot prices. There are other areas around the city that do not require this expensive infrastructure and it would serve the city better to provide reasonable priced housing elsewhere. Haverhill Township is not in agreement with any plan to serve this area from the north. Much of this area to the north was removed from the Urban Service Area. With the recently added 5100 additional Urban Service Area acres it is clear that Rochester's plan is to grow to the NW. The Township and city need to reevaluate the 48"' Street area. Tony Ebert TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi Baker, Senior Planner _M& DATE: February 8, 2001 • ��o i�� i�dll� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GISIADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINC/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Annexation Petition #01-04 by Schaffenberger, Cassidy and Fogarty to annex 58.98 acres of land located north of the Emerald Hills Development and south of 48"' Street NE (County Road 124) in the West Half of the Northeaster Quarter of Section 19, Haverhill Township. Planning Department Review., ApplicantstOwners: Kathleen and John Schaffenberger Dorothy and Ralph Fogarty Eugene and Joanne Cassidy 3322 Oxford Lane NW Rochester, MN 55901 Location of Property: The property is located north of the Emerald Hills Development and south of 481h Street NW (County Road 124). Existing Land Use: This property is currently undeveloped land. Size: The property proposed for annexation is approximately 58.98 acres of unplatted land. Existing Zoning: The property is zoned A-3 (Agricultural) District on the Olmsted County zoning map. Future Zoning: Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning map. Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "low density residential" uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Adjacency to the Municipal The property is adjacent to the city limits along its southern Limits: and easterly -southern boundary. AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .wv.a. Page 2 Annexation ##01-04 SCF February 8, 2001 Sewer & Water: The westerly portion of this area is within the Northeast High Level Water System and a small area at the NE portion of this property is within the Main Level Water system. Sanitary sewer and water will be available to serve this property from the north, as development on the adjacent property occurs. Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric utility service may change if the land is annexed to the municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant. Townbcard Review: Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public hearing on this item on March 5, 2001. The City Clerk has sent the certified 30 day notice. Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division 2. Rochester Fire Department 3. Rochester Public Works Department Report Attachments: 1. Annexation Map 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comments (3 letters) Staff Recommendation: This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary sewer and water lines as development occurs on the adjacent property. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3). .pw., we pledge, we delver January 25, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Annexation Petition #01-04 by Scaffenberger, Cassidy and Fogarty to annex 58.98 acres of land located north of Emerald Hills and south of 48a' St. NE in the W '/2 of the NE /4, Section 19, Haverhill Township. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced petition 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 westerly portion of this area is within the Northeast High Level Water System with pressures ranging from the low 60's PSI to over 95 PSI (approximately 95 PSI at Elev. 1135). In the areas over 95 PSI we would recommend that either the builder install pressure - reducing devices within each house or if the area is large enough a system pressure reducing station in the street could be installed by the developer. A small area at the NE portion of the property (below approximate elevation 1080) is within the Main Level Water System, which is not currently available (with the proper setup, this area may be temporarily served from the high level system if need be). 3. Networking this area with adjacent properties is extremely important and we will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06.4A RIM04-, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 FA /59 ' ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 2122 Campus Drive SE WORKS Rochester, MN 55904 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287.7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur Date: 2/02101 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Council Initiated Annexation #01-04 on the Scaffenberger, Cassidy & Fogarty (NE'/4 , Sect 19, Haverhill) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: This property is planned to be served by municipal sanitary sewer from the north. The timing for municipal sewer service extension, in part, is dependant on development occurring adjacent to this property. C:\TEMPWNNX01.04 Scaffenberger etal Sect 19 Haverhilt.doc i6�b Paget ` City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 14, 2001 Mr. Brede moved to recommend approy of Annexation Petition #01-03 by Roland Graves. Mr. Staver seconded the mot The motion carried 7-0. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated February S, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker noted that the Planning Department received a memo from Haverhill Township regarding the annexation. She further explained that the memo referred to the first annexation petition by BARCO. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Annexation Petition #01-04 by Scaffenberger, Cassidy and Fogarty. Mr. Stever seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff re rt, dated Fe ary 9, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-OA&ted Plaaffina Department. Ms. Baker indicated that staff placed an e-maftom a concerned resident, at their desk. The applicant's representative, Josh Jo on of Mc a and Betts, addressed the Commission. He explained that the request confo o the adopted era] development plan and that the block, lot, and street layout is consi nt. He stated that th plicant is agreeable to the staff - suggested conditions. Mr. Johnson showed where t substantial land alteration would occ He asked that the Commission approve the s stantiai land alteration. Mr. Quinn asked Mr. JgOrnson to comment on the e-mail received from a concAmed resident. Mr. Johnson /tateat Hillsboro Drive is a major connection from the north to Mr. Burke ask connection to Orchard Ridge would be made right away. AGENDA K1--G2Ut5T FOR C:UUNCIL AGIIUN PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING -M DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 62.273, Accessory Building in Residential Districts - General. February 1, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: Mtt I INU DATE: 3/5/01 ITEM NO. S _% PREPARED BY: John Harford. Sol On October 25, 2000 the CP&ZC initiated text amendments to Section 62.273. A public hearing was held by the CPZC on January 10, 2001. The question addressed by the CPZC has to do with detached garages in residential developments where a floor area ratio is used to determine the intensity of development permitted. The current ordinance requires the use of the floor area ratio applied to residential development in the R-3, R-4, CDC — Residential and Fringe districts. The current ordinance is contradictory in whether garages should be counted as a part of the floor area ratio. Staff presented a text amendment that clarifies the language and excludes detached garages from the floor area ratio calculation. Detached garages serve to meet the parking requirements, and therefore covers about the same amount of land with impervious surfaces. The current setback and landscape area standards, and the amended height requirements provide reasonable controls on the intensity of development. The CP&ZC discussed the application and voted to approve the proposed text amendments. inning Department Recommendation: See the attached staff report dated February 5, 2001. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment. Council Action Needed: The Council should pass an ordinance approving the text amendments. Attachments: 1. Staff report dated February 5, 2001 and attachments: 2. Minutes of the CP&ZC meeting of January 10, 2001 Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. City Administrator 4. Planning Department File )UNCIL ACTION: motion by: second IHarford John To: tadkins@ci.rochester.mn.us Subject: Text Amendment #00-04 - Floor Area Here is the suggested revision to the last sentence under 62.273(2)(b). The problem as you pointed out is mixing two different measurements - gross floor area and landscape area, and two different scales - percentage versus square footage. That makes it difficult to write a simple sentence covering the standard. Here goes, after a dozen different attempts. Detached garages for residential uses shall be included in the calculations to determine lot coverage by buildings, structures, and paved surfaces. The development must comply with the minimum percent of landscape area specified in the standards for uses in the residential zoning districts. Thanks for pointing out the problem with the proposed language. The CPZC understood what is intended so I see no problem with their understanding of the change. I know what I intended but it did not read that way. I think these sentences covers it. John TO: CITY PLANNING AND FROM: JOHN DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2001 COMMISSION ..0�.4OC E5TER. 04: ••.... •'c.T' 47ED•AUGUST` 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 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287.2275 RE: Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amendment #00-04 to the applicable sections of the zoning ordinance that address accessory buildings (garages), floor area, and floor area ratio definitions and requirements. The text amendment will consider the requirements of the residential zoning districts. Applicant: City Planning and Zoning Commission Proposed Text Amendment: The CP&ZC initiated a text amendment to Sections of the zoning ordinance that address accessory buildings and floor area. Land Use Plan: The Land Use Plan does not specifically address this issue. Zoning: Currently, Sections 60.200, 62.115, 62.240, 62.250, 62.272, 62.300, 62,420, 62.430, 62.440, 62.273(2)(b) and 62.273(2)(e) address floor area ratio and the related requirements for accessory buildings, specifically garages. Referral Comments: Rochester Public Utilities Operations Division and Water Divisions, and Rochester Public Works have no comments. Analysis: The CP&ZC discussed this issue with the planning staff and initiated the ordinance amendment to those sections of the ordinance that apply to floor area ratio and its r AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER application to garages for residential development. The residential zoning districts where a floor area is applied have been the primary focus. However, multi -unit residential development is permitted that is controlled by a floor area ratio in the B-1, CDC — Fringe, and CDC -Medical districts. The staff provided an analysis at your October 25, 2000 meeting. On January 10, 2001 the CPZC directed staff to prepare detailed language amending the ordinance to exclude garages from the floor area ratio calculation Proposed Text Laneuaee: Strikethroughs represent language to be deleted, and proposed changes are italicized and bold type. 62.273 Accessory Building in Residential Districts - General: The following general regulations apply to garages and accessory buildings and structures in residential zoning districts: 1) Location: Garages and accessory buildings accessory to a residential use may be located: a) in the buildable lot area; b) in the required rear yard to within 18 inches of any lot line of adjoining lots that are within a residential district, or to within five (5) feet of any lot line separating the lot from an alley, except in the case where the wall of the accessory building facing an alley contains doors which will permit the parking of vehicles or recreational vehicles within the accessory building, in which case the setback shall be 18 feet; c) in a side yard to within 18 inches of the lot line where the adjacent lot is developed with a principal building and the front wall of the accessory building is located at a greater depth from the front lot line than the rear wall of the principal building on the adjacent lot, or where the side yard abuts the rear yard of an adjacent corner lot; d) in a side yard at a setback equal to one-half (1/2) of the required side yard setback (for new garages) or 18 inches (for garages existing on the effective date of the ordinance) where the distance from the front wall of the accessory building to the front lot line is greater than 40 percent of the lot depth and the front wall of dwellings on the adjacent lot are developed nearer to the front lot line. 2) Lot Development Standards for Accessory Buildings and Structures: a) Coverage: When located in the rear yard, accessory structures shall occupy no more than 35 percent of the rear yard. b) Floor Area: The sum of the individual gross floor area of each principal and accessory building on a lot should not exceed the maximum floor area ratio, if any, for the applicable zoning district. In any residential district detached garages for residential uses shall be excluded from the t7oor area ratio. Landscape area as regulated in each zoning district shall not be exceeded by the gross floor area of all principal and accessory buildings and structures on a lot for non- residential or residential uses in a residential zoning district. c) Setbacks shall be measured from the wall of an accessory structure. A roof may not extend beyond the wall more than 6 inches where located within 98 inches of a side or rear lot line. d) Separation of accessory structures from principal structures shall be as required by the Building Code. e) No accessory building or structure shall exceed the following heights: 1) In low density residential districts - 15 feet. 2) In medium and high density residential districts - 25 feet. Detached garages located in medium and high density residential districts shall not exceed 95 feet. f) Accessory buildings shall not be located on a utility or drainage easement. 3) Accessory buildings and structures associated with a non-residential use shall meet all setback requirements for the principal building on the lot and shall not interfere with providing the total landscape area requirements on the lot. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the CPZC the changes made in Section 62.273. Staff does not recommend that other sections be amended. Other parts of the ordinance reference floor area and there is a need to account for the floor area of other types of accessory buildings in the zoning districts, so no changes are recommended for the definitions or descriptions of floor area or related standards. 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 state specifically the requirements of the ordinance regarding the calculation of floor area as applied to accessory buildings in residential districts. 2. The amendment will allow for the appropriate amount of landscape area and recreation space while allowing for interior storage and parking of vehicles. 3. The determination that floor area ratios in residential districts where a floor area ratio is established as a standard will not include detached garages, has been determined to be reasonable and can be applied in a consistent and fair manner, and the proposed change is reasonable and lawful. Attachments: 1. Report dated October 4, 2000/December 18, 2000 2. Zoning Ordinance text — Sections its •�-N• n�ius►�fi��M i�fvpf, mt�i INS- VIa� I � . ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 TO: ROCHESTER PLANNING ND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING FROM: JOHN HARFO HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2000; CEMBER 18, 2000 AX VSEPTIC 507/285834 -5 507/267-227275 RE: GARAGES AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE Attached to this memo is a letter from Lisa Wiesner requesting that the CP&ZC review the requirements of the zoning ordinance covering accessory structures in a residential zoning district. Specifically, the question is whether garages that are not a part of an existing principal structure should be included in the calculation of "floor area" when the floor area ratio requirement is applied to a multi -family residential use. In the case at hand, the Willows, the developer has proposed construction of accessory garages along with multi -family residential dwellings. The R-3 district requires that the floor area ratio be used to review the proposed project. There are a number of standards that are used to review the proposed development and that are of some consequence in this discussion, including, 1) the definition of "floor area", "accessory building", and "garage" in Sec. 60.200, and the description of "floor area ratio" in Sec. 62.115; 2) the table of standards Sec. 62.240, 62.250, 62.300, 62.420, 62.430, 62.440 3) floor area reference in Sec. 62.273(2); 4) landscape area as covered in Sec. 60.200 and 63.130; 5) recreation space as covered in Sec. 63.140; and, 6) required off-street parking in Sec- 63.400. Floor Area In Sec. 60.200 "floor area' includes the sum of all floors of a building that is "intended for human habitation or service to the public". It excludes interior parking spaces, loading spaces, mechanical space, porches, etc. No specific mention is made of accessory buildings in the definition. The intent is to reflect, in part, mass of a building or development, but more, the intensity of use of a land area. Mass is also addressed by �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER height and setback requirements, and landscape area. Site Capacity Calculation, a required calculation where floor area dictates the intensity of development, may also affect overall density of residential development where a property has characteristics such wetlands, floodplain, steep slopes, etc. that may result in an increase in the landscape area. Garage is defined as a detached accessory structure or part of a principal building used for parking and storage. Accessory building, structure or use is defined as being located or conducted on the same lot as the principal building, structure, or use and is clearly incidental to the principal use and is for the convenience of the lot residents/users. Standards Table — Section 62.240 and Related Residential Sections This table provides a list of permitted uses and the standards by which they may develop within the R-3 Medium Density District. Multi -family residences are a Type I use although a Performance Residential use is normally reviewed under a Type III process. Number of units per acre, floor area, setback requirements, lot size, landscape area, recreation space, maximum height, and parking requirements are all specified for this use in the R-3 district. In the other sections cited in #2 above standards for each district are listed including the floor area ratio requirements and the process used for review. Again the intensity of development is covered through the several standards mentioned above. Accessory Use — Residential Districts and Floor Area In Sec. 62.270 — 62.276 the ordinance provides detailed standards for accessory structures in a residential zoning district. Sec 62.273 sets standards for the location of accessory structures, e.g., setback requirements. An administrative decision was made several years ago to apply the standards of Subs. 2 to residential accessory structures, although single family dwellings are not affected by the application of a floor area standard. Floor area is specifically mentioned in this section of the ordinance and applies to accessory structures. It states that the sum of the gross floor area of principal and accessory buildings should not exceed the maximum floor area ratio where applicable. Landscape Area — Sec 63.130 Landscape area is defined in Sec. 60.200 as lands set aside for plantings and ground treatment that does not include buildings or hard surfaces. In the R-3 district, for a multi- family residence use that is 2 stories in height the landscape area, or green space, is set at 40%. So 40% of a development must be free of buildings or paving. In the other districts the landscape area is 42% to 20%. Most of the standards in the residential districts range from 42-38%. In Sec. 63,137 the ordinance specifies that landscaped area include required yards, courts, and bufferyards free of structures and paving for more intensive uses. Site facilities not considered landscape area include roofs, right-of-way, "open parking areas or parking garages". The minimum setback requirements for buildings establish, indirectly, the landscape area on a property. By this set aside, the mass of buildings and structures on a property is limited depending on the use and the zoning district. Recreation Area — Sec. 63.140 Landscape area and recreation area may overlap on a specific project thus not increasing the total no developed portion of a site. However, in some cases, not all landscape area can meet the requirements of "useable recreation area" due to the design standards required in Sec. 63.146 - 63.147. In the R-3 district the minimum landscape area required is 12%. The minimum size of recreation area is 10,000 square feet with a minimum width of 30'. Off Street Parking Regulations — Sec. 62.240 and 63.400 Off street parking requirements apply to any use of a property and the minimum requirements are established in the district table of 62.240. Parking requirements may be met by locating parking inside a principal building, an accessory building, or on an open parking lot.. In Sec. 63.422 "Floor Area" is identified as one of the units of measurement. In this section it addresses non-residential uses such as offices and retail uses. However, the section states that the gross floor area is determined by identifying the area use by tenants for their primary business activity or for service to the public. Again, storage or mechanical areas, etc. are not counted in the calculation. Setback Requirements in Residential Districts Section 62.273 provides detailed standards for accessory buildings in residential districts. Another section that establishes some setbacks and distances between buildings is Section 62.283 and 62.284. In section 62.283 accessory buildings are required to be located in the buildable area or they can be located in a side yard, or rear yard if certain conditions are met. They cannot cover more than 35% of the rear yard. There are also additional standards for corner lots that limit the location in the rear yard. Performance Residential development also establishes setbacks between buildings and setbacks from lot lines. The Willows is not a performance residential development so the standard setback requirements would apply. (Staff is not aware of any recent developments under the performance residential standards that used detached garages.) Summary The ordinance addresses the intensity of use of a particular property through a variety of standards including floor area, landscape area, setbacks, etc. The ordinance is somewhat ambivalent on the use of floor area as the primary method of addressing the intensity of use. � !f In the city zoning ordinance in effect until 1995 floor area, landscape area, and recreation space were closely linked as they are in the current ordinance. Floor area as a method of computation specifically excluded parking area. The arguments for excluding garages that are separate from the principal buildings are: 1. the definition excludes interior parking spaces from the floor area calculation; 2. the previous ordinance did not include garages as part of the floor area; 3. other provisions of the ordinance address intensity of use and the amount of lot coverage that is permitted in a specific development (landscape area, recreation area, setbacks, building height); 4. blacktop for parking or a garage has similar impacts on the amount of landscape area or open space on a property. The arguments for including garages that are separate from the principal buildings in the floor area calculation include: 1. a garage is part of the lot coverage and total mass of buildings/structures on the property; 2. floor area covering accessory structures is specifically mentioned in 62.273 and should be included in the calculation based on this subsection; 3. garages add building mass to a property even though it is not habitable space. Furthermore, in a medium density or high density district the maximum height is 25 feet rather than the 15 feet in the low density district. Staff requests that the CP&ZC provide comments on the interpretation of the ordinance sections covering floor area and accessory buildings. October 2, 2000 Planning 8 Zoning Chairman 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Requested clarification on the Floor Area calculation for garages. Dear Commission and Chair: The question has arisen whether or not "interior" parking spaces would be calculated in the allowable floor area ratio for a given site. An interior parking space is an enclosed parking area with a floor, walls, and a ceiling. Within the L.D.M., there is a section which states not to include the area (pg. 28 - definition of "Floor Area'D; yet by definition, (pg. 27 - "Garage") a garage is an "Accessory Building" which constitutes floor area per section 62.273 (pg. 166). Could we get a consensus? Sincerely, Lisa S. Wiesner Architect PH: 507) 2 0-19 8 * 93T 37TH AVE W * R CHE TER N 55 01-66 5 * F X: (50 ) 280 1993 170 i Page 19 f.. City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: January 10, 2001 r- Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual text amendment #00-04 to the applicable sections of the zoning ordinance that address accessory buildings (garages), floor area, and floor area ratio definitions and requirements. The text amendment will consider the requirements of the residential zoning districts. Ms. Wiesner stepped down from the platform, due to a conflict of interest. Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated December 1, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Harford stated that, if the Commission is agreeable to his suggestions, he could come back to the Commission with specific language for the next meeting. Mr. Burke questioned if the text amendment is a major change orjust a clarification. Mr. Harford responded that it was mostly for clarification. He indicated that there is some inconsistency in the present Ordinance. He explained that the reason Ms. Wiesner stepped down from the platform is because she has a project named the Willows that is affected by the text amendment. He indicated that it is the only project, at this time, that could be affected by any decision. Ms. Lisa Wiesner, of Design Construction Options located at 937 37'" Avenue NW, addressed the Commission. She indicated that, if garages are not included in the floor area ratio, she could possibly put 10 additional garages on the site. She explained that it is more than just adding some walls around some exterior parking stalls. Ms. Wiesner stated that some places say that you do not include interior parking spaces in your floor area and other places that you would because a garage is an interior parking space. She indicated that she would just like some type of clarification. Mr. Brede asked if the text amendment would only affect apartments. Mr. Harford responded yes. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Staver moved to direct staff to prepare detailed language;stating that garages are not... calculated as part of the floor area ratio, where floor area is applied to'residential development as supported by staff suggested findings. -Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Mr. Harford asked if the motion included the 15 foot height limitation. Mr. Staver responded ves. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING i/71 DATE: 3/5101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works —S cM DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from Edison Neighborhood PREPARED BY: D. Rossman� This is a Public Hearing to establish Permit Parking on 5' Street SW /800 block. The residents have petitioned 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. 4138 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 24n5 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. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to the Comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution Book: A) adding paragraphs (5) to Zone #6 (Edison Neighborhood) of section L "Residential Permit Parking to be effective from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday thru Friday" (5) Vh Street SW / 800 block, on the south side of the street. B) delete paragraphs (119.1) of section B "No Parking Zones" which read: (119.1) 5'h Street SW / 800 block, on the south side of the street, from 9am to 10 am, Monday thru Friday. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: r) Y Z n ay a- W N c W o J n W a M1 Y O a R iO e' MSRAYS � �IM1 M1 I w' I M63AY9 t' R p. � � S � a >S ^ MS SAY 6 'r p 8 R � CR R R 'a R e a r� i e m ^ 1.4 N ^co i to to w rl- (11 i I I I I I i I ^D W LL Q 0 0 r� 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 173 - DATE: 03/05/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: EG O. SOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE It M DESCRIPTION: RED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES ADKINS G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). 1 a) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 62.212, 62.222, 62.225, 62.232, 62.242, 62.252, Clause (c) of Subdivision (2) of Section 63.222, Sections 63.225 and 63.226 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to Lighting of Area Accessory Development Signs in the ( Residential Districts. ' b) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property from the R-1 District to the R-1X District, and Amending v I Ordinance No. 2765, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. c) 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. d) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 60.760, 60.761, and 60.762 of the Rochester "k�}V Code of Ordinance, and Repealing Sections 60.763 and 60.764 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Procedure and Scope of Review for Planning and Zoning Decisions. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS Motion by: Second by: to: le INFORMATIONAL ITEM5 1) Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes from Meetings of 01108101, 01117101, 01122101, 02112101 and 02126101 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, JANUARY 4:15 CITY HALL 8, 2001 P.M. 1) Presentation of MnDOT T.H.52 Economic and Staging Study A presentation was made by MnDOT staff on four different alternatives that had been studied by MnDOT. The staging plans ranged from a high of 11 years to 4 years. After discussion, the Council indicated their consensus to support the 5 year construction staging alternative. This alternative provided for continued traffic flow and access to properties along Highway 52 throughout the construction period. Staff was requested to prepare a resolution and an RCA for the next meeting endorsing the five year staging plan. Respectfully submitted, COMMI'fYEE 07 YHE WHOLE ROOM 1e4, CITY HALL WE➢NESDAY, jANUARY 17, 2001 4:15 P.M. 1) Review of ➢M&FO In -City Mitigation Costs V COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001 4:15 P.M. Page (1-15) 1) Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Temporary Signs and Banners Ordinance (attachment) /t �G'r�G>r:+vi'-./ �i 'c..a G�-1- tip% /L/-�C _C 'i-.-��t..✓ �U 2) Performance Evaluation City Administrator for the e PAGE (1-54) 2) COMM OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL FEBROARY a 2001 4.15 PA Report on Affordable housing/Rochester Area Housing Gouncil Gonsiderafion of Employee Recogmim Recommendations 1 COMMITTEE OP THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL EEBRUARY 26, 2001 4:15 P.M. i) DM&E Update /////�/ ten/>GO►o �tti'_��r-41-LC�-�'.�C. c