Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/19/2001_Regular
CITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA F„... COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS ^ O GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO.6 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS MARCH 19, 2001 7:00 P.M. (3-4) 1) Request for Water and Sewer Extension to Sections 26 and 35 of Rochester Township (5-6) 2) Request for Street Improvements in Connection with Water Quality Program in Rose Harbor Area (7-8) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (9-12) 2) Request for Funding/Star of the North Games (13-16) 3) Request for Funding/Youth Employment Project (17-18) 4) 2001 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award (19-20) 5) Enter into Ground Lease Agreement with Hangar Bar & Grill, Inc. that will Allow Them to Construct a New Restaurant on Airport Property (21-22) 6) Advertise for Bids for General Aviation Ramp Expansion and New Ramp Lighting (23-26) 7) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (27-28) 8) Approval of Accounts Payable (29-30) 9) Banking Item (31-34) 10) Contingency Transfers — 2000 (35-36) 11) Arbitrator's Decision/Fire Supervisory Unit (37-42) 12) Revised Personnel Policy on Funeral Leave and New Personnel Policy on Leave Sharing (43-46) 13) Appointment to Rochester Park Board (47-48) 14) Appointment to Planning Commission (49-50) 15) Real Estate/Right-of-Way Acquisition for Airport Runway Construction (51-52) 16) Owner ContractNVatermain & Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Classic Mini Storage Council Agenda March 19, 2001 Page 2 (53-54) 17) Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Extended Stay America (55-56) 18) Stormwater Management Agreement (57-58) 19) Engineering Services for Street Design/Construction of 50" Avenue NW and a Portion of 55t' Street NW (59-62) 20) Supplemental Agreement #1/Reconstruction of W' Street NW, West River Road to Bandel Road (63-64) 21) Supplemental Agreement #2/Reconstruction of W' Street NW, West River Road to Bandel Road (65-66) 22) Supplemental Agreement #3/Reconstruction of 55L' Street NW, West River Road to Bandel Road (67-68) 23) Supplemental Agreement #1/Reconstruction of 7"' Street NW from 46 Avenue to 1,300' West (69-70) 24) Supplemental Agreement #1/Reconstruction of Wh Avenue SW from 2"d Street to 4th Street SW (71-76) 25) North Broadway Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for Sidewalk Replacement on TH 63 (North Broadway) from 4t�' St. North to No. Heights Dr. NE (77-78) 26) Request Bids for Painting of Traffic Signals, Transit Shelters and Parking Ramps E) HEARINGS (79-80) 1) Vacation Petition by Betty Blanchard & Michelle Durigan to Vacate Undeveloped Right -of -Way of North Half of 5'h St. SE Lying Adjacent to Southerly Line of Lot 2, Block 39, Morse & Sargeant's Addition to East Rochester (81-82) 2) Annexation Petition by Dallas M. Backhaus to Initiate Orderly Annexation of Approx. 20 Acres Legally Described as North Half of NW Quarter of Section 17 of Marion Township (83-106) 3) Fox Knob Special District Ordinance and Rezoning (107-136) 4) General Development Plan/An Amendment to Cook -Thompson GDP to be Known as Fox Knob (137-166) 5) Type III, Phase Il, Restricted Development by 12`h Street Dental/Proposed Expansion and Renovation to Existing Dental Office Including Moving Parking Lot to the South (167-184) 6) Preliminary Plat by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be Known as Kingsbury Hills Second (185-194) 7) Final Plat by City of Rochester to be Known as Bridgeview Addition (195-202) 8) Final Plat by Volunteers of America Care Facilities to be Known as The Homestead First Replat (203-210) 9) Final Plat to be Known as West Century First Replat Council Agenda March 19, 2001 Page 3 F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (211-212) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS (213-214) 1) Center Street Ramp Condition Appraisal Report 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I DATE: 3/19/01 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. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 ' DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters and Petitions City Clerk G' _ r rm DESCRIPTION: Request for Water and Sewer Extension to Sections 26 and 35 of Rochester Township PREPARED BY: Judy Scherr R.L. Hexum and Associates are requesting the City to extend sewer and water to serve the Southeast Quarter of Section 26 and the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35 of Rochester Township. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to adopt the prepared resolution requesting a feasiblity study by the Public Works Department for the petition from R.L. Hexum and Associates for the extension of sewer and water services to serve portions of Sections 26 and 35 of Rochester Township t,.uJNCILACTION: Mobonby: Second by: to: 4 AP CNIiE[TS ' E Y PYEY0P5 March 13, 2001 Ms. Judy Sheer, Clerk City of Rochester 201 SE 4`` Street, Rm. 135 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Ms. Sheer: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS On the behalf of R.L. Hexum and Associates, we would like to request that the city council initiate a Project Feasibility Report for the extension of water and sewer to serve. the Southeast Quarter of Section 26 and the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Sections 35 of Rochester Township. Sincerely, YAGGY COLBY ASS CIAT Michael J. Frtiz, L MJF:bsd YCA #6842E2 cc: Richard Freese ROCHESTER OFFICI 717 Third Avenue 5 Rochester, MN 5590 507-288-646 Fax' 3-505 MASON CITY OFFICI 641424-634 DELAFIELD OFFIC'. 262-646-685 Equal Opportunity Employer yaggy.com REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5- t DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Letters and Petitions City Clerk CO. � 02 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for Street Improvements in Connection with Water Quality PREPARED BY: Program in Rose Harbor Area Judy Scherr A petition was received from Robert DeWitt, Western Walls, Inc., requesting that the City initiate a street improvement project in Rose Harbor in connection with the Water Quality Program currently under way. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to adopt the prepared resolution directing Public Works to prepare a feasibility report on the request for street improvements in the Rose Harbor area in connection with the Water Quality Program. wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-26 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G. NEUMANN This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council. The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs: D-l. Approval of Minutes D-2. Request for Funding/Star of the North Games D-3. Request for Funding/Youth Employment Project rD-4. 2001 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award D-5. Enter into Ground Lease Agreement with Hangar Bar & Grill, Inc. that will Allow Them to Construct a New Restaurant on Airport Property D-6. Advertise for Bids for General Aviation Ramp Expansion and New Ramp Lighting D-7. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-8. Approval of Accounts Payable D-9. Banking Item Contingency Transfers — 2000 •D-10. D-11. Arbitrator's Decision/Fire Supervisory Unit D-12. Revised Personnel Policy on Funeral Leave and New Personnel Policy on Leave Sharing D-13. Appointment to Rochester Park Board --D-14. Appointment to Planning Commission D-15. Real Estate/Right-of-Way Acquisition for Airport Runway Construction D-16. Owner Contract/Watermain & Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Classic Mini Storage D-17. Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Extended Stay America D-18. Stormwater Management Agreement D-19, Engineering Services for Street Design/Construction of 50d' Avenue NW and a Portion of 550' Street NW D-20. Supplemental Agreement #]/Reconstruction of 55d' Strect NW, West River Road to Bandel Road D-21. Supplemental Agreement #2/Reconstruction of 55'hStreet NW, West River Road to Bandel Road D-22. Supplemental Agreement #3/Reconstruction of 55d' Street NW, West River Road to Bandel Road D-23. Supplemental Agreement #I/Reconstruction of 7d' Street NW from 46"Avenue to 1,300' West D-24. Supplemental Agreement # I/Reconstruction of 91' Avenue SW from 2nd Street to 4' Street SW D-25. North Broadway Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing for Sidewalk Replacement on TH 63 (North Broadway) from 4d' St. North to No. Heights Dr. NE D-26. Request Bids for Pai ting of Tr�ffic Signals Transit S�elter d Parking Ramps �( d3 COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION r MEETING DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D_ 21 ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR FUNDING/STAR OF THE NORTH GAMES PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD The Rochester Amateur Sports Commission is requesting $25,000 from the City of Rochester to assist in funding the Star of the North Games. The Star of the North Games will be held in Rochester on June 15-17 and June 22-24, 2001. These games bring a substantial number of people to the City and have a significant economic impact on the community. The City has provided funding for the past games held in the City. The majority of the funding is used to pay for the costs of using the City's recreational facilities. The City's past funding is as follows: 1993 $ 3,000 1994 $25,000 1999 $25,000 I recommend your approval of this funding request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion appropriating $25,000 from the 2001 Contingency Account for the 2001 Star of the North Games. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ID R C C H E 8 T E R September 11, 2000 John Hunziker Board President Rochester City Council Dear Mr. President and City Council Members, A M A T E u R The Rochester Amateur Sports Commission in it's mission to promote Rochester and attract quality amateur athletic events to our city has agreed s R o R T s to host the Star Of The North State Games in June of 2001. The state games have shown a history of strong economic impact on our city. The 1999 games c o M M I S S I o N brought 14,000 athletes, coaches, parents, and fans to Rochester. The hotel 1 5 0 s o u T H industry reported the use of 3,300 room nights in our hotels. B R o A o w A v The Rochester Amateur Sports Commission respectfully requests the assistance of the City of Rochester in the amount of $25,000 dollars in our effort to make B U t T E A this event successful. The State Games of 1999 was able to use this start up fund to assist in the paymen R o C H E s T E R of City venues as follows: 96COEf r@ A M I N N E s o T A Qkn9 Recreation Center $3,172.50 5 5 9 0 4• s s 0 0 Mayo Civic Center $7,300.00 National Volleyball Center $4,878.00 Rochester Park and Recreation $2,136.00 Total $17,486.50 The Star of the North State Games event goes beyond the conservative one half million dollar economic impact on our city. The event is an opportunity for our community to pool our resources and volunteers, and to take pride in putting our best foot forward, and setting an example for the rest of Minnesota. Thank You For Your Consideration Veil -,Sincerely, Carole rown� — Board President RASC 5 0 7- 2 5 2- 9 9 1 4 Chuck Siefert Co- Chair Star Of North State Games 2001 FAX 507.268. 9144 email rase® raches,ercvb.aro or ,at1{ � Recrea�'v � q( , 1-INI March 13, 2001 Stevan Kvenvold City Administration RE: Star of the North Games Dear Steve: Park and Recreation Department City of Rochester 201 Fourth Street SE • Room 150 • Rochester, MN 55904 (507) 281-6160 • FAX (507) 281-6165 In June of 2001 Rochester will host the Star of the North State Games for the fourth time. This event, which takes place over two weekends, is the largest athletic event in the State of Minnesota. Rochester can take great pride in the fact that they have hosted the games more than any other city. First and foremost, the games give everyone, regardless of age, ability, gender, or race, an opportunity to participate and to test their skills against other athletes from around the state. Over the two weekends, close to 8,000 competitors will compete in over 20 different sporting events. In addition, over 4,000 spectators will view these events and spend money in Rochester. The economic impact of this event is estimated at over $500,000.Over the two weekends, close to 4,000 hotellmotel rooms will be rented. There are a number of Park and Recreation Department facilities that are used for these games. These include the Recreation Center, Outdoor Tennis Center, National Volleyball Center, Mayo Civic Center, Graham Arena Complex, soccer fields, baseball fields, McQuillan Complex, golf courses, and the archery range. The Rochester Amateur Sports Commission rents all of these facilities for this event. One of the amazing things about the games in Rochester is the number of volunteers that step forward to make the games happen. Without this support, no amount of money could make the games happen. From our perspective, the commitment of facilities, manpower, time, money, and effort to make the games possible is an investment in our community. The Star of the North State Games is great for the City of Rochester. Roy Sutherland Superintendent REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /3 DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D , 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR FUNDING/YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROJECT PREPARED By. S.KVENVOLD The City of Rochester has funded the Youth Employment Project's Summer Work Project for many years. The YEP Summer Work Project picks up litter in the park system as well as Mayo Stadium. This program has become a vital part of the summer park maintenance program. Since this has become an annual funding program for the City of Rochester and is an essential part of the Park and Recreation Department's maintenance functions, I recommend that this funding become a line item in the adopted 2002 budget. The City appropriated $6,500 to YEP in 2000. For 2001, 1 recommend your approval to transfer $7,500 from the Contingency Account to fund the YEP Summer Work Project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion appropriating $7,500 from the 2001 Contingency Account for the YEP Summer Work Project. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Youth Employment Project, Inc. March 13, 2001 Rochester City Council c/o Mr. Stevan E. Kvenvold, City Administrator 201 4th St SE Rochester MN 55904 Dear Mr. Kvenvold: Youth Employment Project would like to make an appeal to you for assistance in financing our Summer Work Project for 2001. We are requesting $7,500.00 from the Contingency Fund this year. The Summer Work Project has operated effectively for fifteen summers because it is both a valuable work experience for teens and a service to the community of Rochester. Much of the success of the project is due to the close supervision provided both on-the-job and from the office. The opportunity to work is open to all Y.E.P. members who wish to participate. A project proposal outline and budget is enclosed. This year we are asking for an increase in funding from the city. I look forward to the continued support of the community as we meet the challenge of building a strong foundation for the future of our young people. Thank you for considering our proposal. Sincerely, awn A. Roush Executive Director 300 11th Avenue NW, Suite 120 Rochester, MN 55901 507-529-2708 • FAX 507-529-2715 www.yep-rochestermn.org 10 United way az/usrui iu:uu n _ Ito ory /6� February 6, 2001 Mr. Stevan Kvenvold; Once again, I ant writing to encourage the continued financial support of the summer Youth Employment Program. In the past the Park and Recreation Department has used the services of the Y.E.P, personnel during the stunmer for litter pickup in our parks as well as 'Mayo stadium. This program runs Monday through Friday, mid -June through mid -August Without their continued effort, we would not be in a position to keep our parks as clean as they are. The Y.E.P. program is a vital part of our summer park maintenance operation and without their continued support we would have a difficult time providing the level of service that the public has come to expect. This Department needs and supports the continued funding of the Y.E.P. program. Your consideration would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely; Steve Laws Park Operations Supervisor cc: Roy Sutherland Dave McDonald Summer Work Project Expenses Youth Wages Workers Comp Policy Payroll Taxes T-shirts Mileage Supplies Office Staff Start June 11-August 3, 2001 Wages $ 5,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 450.00 $ 725.00 $ 300.00 $ 50.00 $ 775.00 $ 7,500.00 $6.00 per hour X 4 hours per day = 24 x 3 youth x 5 days per week x 8 weeks= $2880.00 Crew Leader $7.50 per hour X 6 hours per day = $45.00 x 5 days per week x 9 weeks = $2025.00 Office Assistant $8.75 hour x 1 hour per day = $8.75 x 5 days a week 43.75 x 10 = $437.50 Executive Director $13.00 x 25 hours = $325.00 Revenue City $ 7,500.00 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I � / DATE: 03-19-01 AGENDA SECTION: NSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATION 2001 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award March 13, 2001 ITEM NO. D-4 PREPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty The City of Rochester has been advised by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has awarded the sum of $633,000 for the City's 2001 CDBG Program. This amount is $33,000 greater than the City and HUD estimated would be received last fall when the Council approved the 2001 allocations. The additional $33,000 will be placed into the Rochester Area Foundation First Homes Program as part of the $50,000 committed to the First Homes Program by the City Council. The City will need to officially accept the award of the 2001 CDBG Program and execute the Grant Agreement with HUD. The 2001 allocations are as follows: Aldrich Memorial Nursery School $ 5,100 SEMCIL $ 16,400 ARC SE Minnesota $ 6,100 Ability Building Center $ 14,000 Channel One $ 3,200 Olmsted County HRA $ 13,600 Child Care Resource $ 30,700 Samaritan Bethany $ 23,300 Community Youth Mentorship $ 6,300 Senior Citizens Center $ 21,800 Family Action Collaborative $ 13,300 Zumbro Valley MHC $ 11,800 NAMI Olmsted County $ 4,300 Bear Creek Services $ 19,300 Olmsted County CAP $ 6,000 Hiawatha Homes $ 22,900 PossAbilities of Southern MN $ 3,900 City Home Rehab Prg. $ $250,000 Radar $ 5,100 CDBG Administration $ 35,000 City Park and Recreation Dept. $ 45,000 RAF First Homes $ 33,000 Friends of Quarry Hill Nature $ 14,300 SEMCIL $ 28,600 TOTAL $ 633,000 Council Action Needed: 1. Accept the CDBG funding request award of $633,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and approve the Grant Agreement for 2001. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File COUNCIL ACTION: Moton by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION (q MEETING DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport D _ S ITE ESCRIPTION: Enter into a ground lease agreement with the Hangar Bar & Grill, Inc. PREPARED BY: that will allow them to construct a new restaurant on airport property. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Enter into a ground lease agreement with the Hangar Bar & Grill, Inc. that will allow them to construct a new restaurant on airport property. The restaurant will be located adjacent to the new hotel and at the intersection of Co. Rd. #16 and State Hwy. #63. The term of the agreement is for 40 years with annual increases tied to the Consumer Price Index following the first two years of the agreement. The lease rate for the first two years will be $.10 per square foot annually. The Tenant will also pay $.06 per square foot annually for the first ten years to pay back infrastructure investment. Tenant will also pay .5% of gross sales for the first two years and for the remaining years of the agreement 0.5% of the Tenants' Gross Sales that are $500,000 or less and 1.0% of the Tenants' Gross Sales that are above $500,000.01. In addition to the Percentage Rent, Tenant shall also pay 3% of all Catering Sales. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: ReStion authorizing the Mayor, the City Clerk and the Rochester Airport Company to execute the agreements. CIMCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING C2,' / DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport 1)_(0 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for bids for General Aviation ramp expansion and new ramp PREPARED BY: lighting. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Advertise for bids to expand the General Aviation ramp and add new ramp lighting. (J6937) This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 60% State 40% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. wUNCIL ACTION: Motionby: sewnaby: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 0 3 le DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D _l ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA ISCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for -the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT RENEWALS Olmsted County Hockey Association P.O. Box 476 Rochester Mn 55903 PREMISES AT: Rookies Sports Grill & Bar 1517 16" St SW Rochester Mn 55902 North Star Bar 503 N Bdwy Rochester Mn 55906 Shenanigan's Inc. DBA CTs Midtown Lounge 8 S Bdwy Rochester Mn 55904 GAMBLING — TEMPORARY RAFFLE Med-City Aquatics Inc 3609 14'b Ave NW Rochester Mn 55901 RAFFLE 5/4/01 AT: Rochester Athletic Club 3100 19' St NW Rochester Mn 55901 Turn In Poachers 243 Harvest Ave NW Rochester Mn 55901 RAFFLE 4/27/01 AT Knights of Columbus 2030 Hwy 14 East COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: (It� LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 MARCH 19.2001 HEATING CONTRACTOR Inland Plumbing Inc 2105 Main Ave Fargo ND 58103 MASTER INSTALLER Brian Banske 812 Johns Dr Mandan ND 58554 SIDEWALKS — CEMENT Tilford Construction 509 315` St NE Rochester Mn 55906 SOUND AMPLIFICATION St. John's Catholic Church 11— 4`h Ave SW Rochester Mn 55902 Procession of the Cross 4/13/01 5:00 PM to 6:30 PM From Civic Center to Peace Plaza to St. John's catholic Church MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES St. John's Catholic Church 11-4`hAve SW Rochester Mn 55902 Procession of the Cross 4/13/01 5:00 PM to 6:30 PM From Civic Center to Peace Plaza to St. John's catholic Church Rochester Track Club Bamber Valley School to Mayowood Rd to South Zumbro Bike Path Road Race 4/21/01 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Race to Remember — Race in Memory of Someone you Love Run/Walk 4/21/01 10:00 AM to l l:00 AM Douglas Trail - Northwest Park Paws & Claws Humane Society Pet Walk 515101 9:30 AM to 2:00 PM East Silver Lake Pavilion Lourdes High School 621 West Center St Rochester Mn 55902 Habitat for Humanity Walk -a Thon 4/28/2001 South Fork Zumbro Trail REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. t/ CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D-7 ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA JSCHOTT The following ADDENDUM licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. ON SALE 3.2 % BEER LICENSE B & D Midlife LLC DBA Pizza Man 14-17'"Ave NW Rochester Mn 55901 SEWER & DRAIN Brian's Dirtworks 57522 245d' Ave Mantorville Mn 55955 Bisping Construction 6304 Pebble Ln SW Rochester Mn 55902 SIDEWALKS — CEMENT Bisping Construction 6304 Pebble Ln SW Rochester Mn 55902 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Veterans of Foreign Wars #1215 Annual Poppy Day Sales May I I"' & May 12th Streets and Shopping Centers A motion to approve or disapprove the above ADDENDUM lionesses. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE MARCH 19.2001 Rochester Track Club Spring Run (15K Road Race) 5/12/01 Essex Park, 13`h Avenue N.W., 41" Street N.W. American Legion Auxiliary Wm McCoy Post No. 92 Annual Poppy Days Sale May 4'h & May 5`h, 2001 Streets and Shopping Centers COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above -mentioned licenses and miscellaneous activities. o� 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (�'? DATE: 3119/01 n cM D Consent Agenda Approval of Accounts Payable Finance Department Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $3,116,795.60. Less: Any exceptions GVUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Meeting C2? Date: 3/19/2001 "ENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. nsentAgenda/Organizational Business Finance j)-Gq ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Banking Item Bruce Atkinson A. Desianation of Deoositories Respectfully request the list of firms authorized to provide investment brokerage services to the City under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 118A, and the City's adopted investment policy, be amended as follows: Add the firm of R.W. Baird & Co, The required broker -certification form will be obtained prior to the initiation of any transactions with this firm. R.W. Baird is one of the largest regional investment banking and brokerage firms in the United States. Other governments in Minnesota with which R.W. Baird works with are: Apple Valley, Eagan, Coon Rapids, Mankato, and the State of Minnesota. Revise the name of Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Inc., to Miller, Johnson, Steichen and Kinnard. Approved brokerage firms: Dain, Rauscher, Inc Merrill Lynch Morgan Stanley Dean Witter WellsFargo Institutional Brokerage Services US Bankcorp Piper Jaffray Miller, Johnson, Steichen and Kinnard (formerly Miller, Johnson, Kuehn) R.W. Baird & Co. Council Action Requested Request adoption of the prepared resolutions authorizing these changes. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 03/19/01 \GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda/Organizational Business Finance D-10 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Contingency Transfers-2000 B. Atkinson Attached is a resolution authorizing transfers from the 2000 Contingency appropriation pursuant to City of Rochester Charter, Section 11.10 All transfers, with the exception of those listed below, were approved at regular Council or Committee of the Whole meetings, as indicated on the prepared resolution: Planning and Zoning 101-4080-11390 Suburban Development Review $10,600.00 Maintenance -City Hall 101-4096-15300 Carpet Cleaner $3,834.00 Police 101-4110-15300 Transmission Fluid Exchanger (50%) $2,394.12 Approval of the prepared resolution will authorize the transfer of funds from the 2000 Contingency appropriation totaling $319,747.45. The balance of the 2000 Contingency appropriation is $30,252.55. Council Action Requested: Request adoption of the prepared resolution authorizing transfer of 2000 Contingency appropriation as described herein. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: 3�_ RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following transfers from the 2000 Contingency appropriations were approved at cer Council or Committee of the Whole meetings or by administrative approval, as indicated below: Contingency Account 10 1 -4972 Beginning Balance 1/1/2000 $350,000.00 Date Approved Approval Department Purpose Amount 08/17/98 COW 4969-14280 SE MN Initiative Fund (2Id of 3 payments) $25,913.00 O1/03/00 RCA 1980-11390 STB EIS Consultant Services 86,232.00 O1/03/00 RCA 1980-14280 DM&E Mitigation -legislative services 12,870.00 O1/03/00 RCA 4122-11390 Local Share -Local Law Enforcement Block Grant #4 5,942.00 O1/03/00 RCA 4123-11390 Local Share -Local Law Enforcement Block Grant #4 700.00 02/07/00 RCA 4969-14280 YEP Summer Youth Employment 6,500.00 02/07/00 RCA 4969-14280 RCTC Voyageurs Club 10,000.00 02/11/00 S.E.K. 4096-15300 City Hall carpet cleaner 3,834.00 02/14/00 COW 4969-14280 Child Care Resource & Referral 30,000.00 03/24/00 S.E.K. 4110-15300 Police-50% of transmission fluid exchanger 2,394.12 04/17/00 RCA 4010-14701 NLC Transportation Infrastructure & Service meeting 12,000.00 04/17/00 COW 4010-14701 173rd Airborne Convention 29,000.00 05/01/00 RCA 4010-14280 RADAR 9-Ball tournament 1,2( 07/05/00 RCA 4969-14280 215` Century Partnership 10,0[ ___ 07/17/00 COW 4117-11390 Neighborhood coordinator contract extension, Aug -Dec 7,083.33 08/07/00 RCA 1980-14280 "Stop the Coal Train" citizen's group 25,000.00 09/11/00 COW 4010-14280 173` Airborne -Italy delegation 2,500.00 09/12/00 S.E.K. 4080-11390 Suburban Development Review 10,600.00 10/02/00 COW 4010-14701 Mayor's Contingency Account 11,000.00 10/02/00 RCA 4071-11390 Department Head classification audit 10,000.00 10/02/00 RCA 4969-14280 Master Action Plan for Youth Coordinator 5,000.00 10/16/00 RCA 4129-11390 Local Share -Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 45 6,919.00 O1/03/01 RCA 4010-14280 Hwy 14 Partnership 5,000.00 TOTAL TRANSFERS $319,747.45 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, Section 11.10, that: 1. That above listed Contingency appropriations be transferred as of December 31,2000 2. The Director of Finance is authorized and directed to put into effect the provisions of the resolution. DATE. 03/19/01 ,i%GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent AgendaiOrganizational Business Finance Revised f�_'O U ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Contingency Transfers-2000 B. Atkinson Attached is a resolution authorizing transfers from the 2000 Contingency appropriation pursuant to City of Rochester Charter, Section 11.10 All transfers, with the exception of those listed below, were approved at regular Council or Committee of the Whole meetings, as indicated on the prepared resolution: Planning and Zoning 101-4080-11390 Suburban Development Review $10,600,00 Maintenance -City Hall 101-4096-15300 Carpet Cleaner S3,834.00 Police 101-4110-15300 Transmission Fluid Exchanger (50%) $2,394.12 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant -Local Share 227-4117-11390 Additional Local Share $350.12 Approval of the prepared resolution will authorize the transfer of funds from the 2000 Contingency appropriation totaling $320,097.57. The balance of the 2000 Contingency appropriation is $29,902.43. Cotjncil Action Ren c Pd: Request adoption of the prepared resolution authorizing transfer of 2000 Contingency appropriation as described herein. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by to. RESOLLTIO'N WHEREAS. the following transfers from the 2000 Contingency appropriations were approved at certain Council or Committee of the Whole meetings or by administrative approval, as indicated below: Contingency Account 10 1 -4972 Beginning Balance 1/l/2000 $350,000.00 Date Approved Approval Department Purpose Amount 08/17/98 COW 4969-14280 SE MN Initiative Fund (2"d of') payments) $25,913.00 O1/03/00 RCA 1980-1 L390 STB EIS Consultant Services 86,232.00 01/03/00 RCA 1980-14280 DM&E Mitigation -legislative services 12,870.00 01/03/00 RCA 4122-11390 Local Share -Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 94 5,942.00 O1/03/00 RCA 4123-11390 Local Share -Local Law Enforcement Block Grant #4 700.00 02/07/00 RCA 4969-14280 YEP Summer Youth Employment 6,500.00 02/07/00 RCA 4969-14280 RCTC Voyageurs Club 10,000.00 02/11/00 S.E.K. 4096-15300 City Hall carpet cleaner 3,834.00 02/14/00 COW 4969-14280 Child Care Resource & Referral 30,000.00 03/24r00 S.E.K. 41 10-15300 Police-50% of transmission fluid exchanger 2,394.12 04/17,100 RCA 4010-14701 NLC Transportation Infrastructure & Service meeting 12,000.00 04/17/00 COW 4010-14701 173`d Airborne Convention 29.000.00 O5101/00 RCA 4010-14280 RADAR 9-Ball tournament 1.260.00 07/05/00 RCA 4969-14280 2 1 " Century Partnership 10.000.00 07/17/00 COW 4117-11390 Neighborhood coordinator contract extension. Aug -Dee 7,083.33 08/07/00 RCA 1980-14280 "Stoop the Coal Train" citizen's- group 25,000.00 09/11/00 COW 4010-14280 173` .airborne-Ital} delegation 2,500.00 09/12/00 S.E.K. 4080-I 1390 Suburban Development Review 10,600.00 10/02/00 COW 4010-14701 Mayor's Contingence Account 11,000.00 10/02/00 RCA 4071-11390 Department Head classification audit 10,000.00 10/02/00 RCA 4969-14280 Master Action Plan for Youth Coordinator 5,000.00 10/16/00 RCA 4129-11390 Local Share -Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 95 6,919.00 01/03/01 RCA 4010-14280 Hwy 14 Partnership 5,000.00 01/16/01 S.E.K. 4117-11390 Addt'1 City share -Local Law Enforcmnt Blk Grt 43 350.12 TOTAL TRANSFERS $320,097.57 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. Section 11.10. that: 1. That above listed Contingency appropriations be transferred as of December 31,2000 2. The Director of Finance is authorized and directed to put into effect the provisions of the resolution. Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester. Minnesota. this day of "Larch 14. 2001. President of Common Council Attest: City Clerk Approved this day of March. 2001 Mayor of City of Rochester Seal of the City of Rochester. Minnesota 33 e,- Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, this day of March 19, 2001. President of Common Council Attest: City Clerk Approved this day of March, 2001 Mayor of City of Rochester Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3s� DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Human Resources 1>, I' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Arbitrator's Decision - Fire Supervisory Unit PREPARED By. Linda Gilsru Negotiations betweeen the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local No. 3908 — Supervisory, and the Director of HR began in July 1999. Language for the first contract between the City of Rochester and the Fire Supervisory unit was settled over a number of months except for annual increases for 2000, 2001 and 2002 and raises for those promoted to Assistant Chief and Deputy Chief. The union requested mediation which was held on 6/13/00. Mediation was unsuccessful and interest arbitration was held on 12/18/00. The arbitrator awarded the union' s position in an award dated 2/2/01. The award calls for increases of 3.25% for the five members of the unit effective l/l/00, 1/l/01, and 1/l/02. Retired Assistant Fire Chief, Dave Stutz is eligible for a 3.00% increase effective 1/l/00. He retired on May 31, 2000. Salary increases upon promotion will be governed by following language according to the arbitrator's award: Upon promotion to the position of Assistant Chief, the starting salary for a member of the bargaining unit shall be 90% of the average salaries of those bargaining unit members at the top pay in the position of Assistant Chief. After one year said member shall receive the average salary of those members at top pay in the position of Assistant Chief. Upon promotion to the position of Deputy Chief the starting salary for a member of the bargaining unit shall be the average of those bargaining unit members at the top pay in the position of Assistant Chief. After one year said member shall receive 10% above the average salary of those members at top pay in the position of Assistant Chief. Council Action Requested: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 31 / DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Human Resources D _t e2 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Revised Personnel Policy on Funeral Leave and New Personnel Policy on Leave Sharing PREPARED BY: Linda Gilsrud The City's Personnel Policy on Funeral Leave has been revised to include fiancee/fiance, stepparent, and grandchild in the definition of immediate family. A new Personnel Policy titled Leave Sharing has been prepared at the request of City employees who may wish to donate up to 16 hours of earned vacation per calendar year or up to 24 hours of earned compensatory time (bank hours reserve) per calendar year to a coworker(s) who is seriously ill or injured who no longer has paid vacation or sick leave time or compensatory time (bank hours reserve) available to him/her. The City has no additional salary liability because the leave to be shared has already been earned by the donor. Council Action Requested: Resolution authorizing the adoption of the revised City Personnel Policy on Funeral Leave and the adoption of a new City Personnel Policy on Leave Sharing. W� 11 City of Rochester Policy on Funeral Leave Purpose When death occurs in an employee's immediate family, absence from work may be necessary to arrange or attend the funeral or memorial service. Policy Regular full-time and regular part-time (regularly scheduled 20 or more hours/week) employees may request up to three workdays (prorated for part-time employees) with pay to arrange or attend the memorial service or funeral of a member of his/her immediate family. Immediate family as used in this policy includes: Spouse or fiancee/fiance Parent or step parent Parent -in-law Guardian/former guardian Child/step child Grandparent Grandchild Sibling Relative who is permanent member of employee's household In addition to being granted up to three (3) days of funeral leave, the employee's department head or his/her designee, using his/her discretion, may grant up to five (5) days of earned sick leave to supplement the paid funeral leave for the funeral/ memorial service of a member of the employee's immediate family. Time off work for attendance at funerals or memorial services for persons other than those listed in this policy or for time in excess of the three days of funeral leave and five days of sick leave provided for in this policy, must be arranged with the department head as vacation time, compensatory time (bank reserve time), or as an unpaid leave of absence. Procedure The employee is responsible for notifying his/her department of a death so appropriate arrangements can be made to cover any absence from work. Funeral leave should be indicated on a Departmental Leave Request/Report and submitted to the Department Head or his/her designee for approval. Factors the Department Head or his/her designee may consider in granting one, two, or three days of funeral leave and up to five days of paid sick leave include funeral/memorial service 3q 11 location, closeness of the relative, and other pertinent information that the employee chooses to share. Payment will be at straight time, without shift differential added. The time paid does not count as time worked when computing overtime. Revised 3/01 qo l City of Rochester Policy on Leave Sharine Purpose The policy provides a compassionate means of assisting a City co-worker(s) by donating accrued vacation and/or or compensatory time (bank hours reserve) to one or more City of Rochester employees whose leave balances and compensatory time (bank hours reserve) are exhausted because of a catastrophic medical emergency. Polic An employee wishing to donate leave may donate up to sixteen (16) hours of accrued vacation per calendar year and/or twenty-four (24) hours of compensatory time per calendar year (bank hours reserve) to one or more City of Rochester employees who are experiencing a catastrophic medical emergency involving illness or injury or who are providing care for a spouse or dependent child who has incurred a life -threatening illness/injury. A recipient's eligibility based on catastrophic medical emergency is determined by the City Administrator or his/her designee. Procedure An employee wishing to donate accrued vacation (up to 16 hours/calendar year) or compensatory time (up to 24 hours/calendar year of bank hours reserve) to another City empoyee(s) who has exhausted his/her accrued sick leave, vacation and compensatory time (bank hours reserve) should complete the City's approved "Vacation/Compensatory Time Leave Sharing Form" and forward the form to Human Resources. Vacation hours and compensatory time (bank hours reserve) may be donated in increments of four hours or more. An employee is not eligible to become a leave -sharing recipient until he/she has exhausted all accrued benefit time (sick leave and vacation) and compensatory time (bank hours reserve). An employee cannot become a leave -sharing recipient if he/she has been disciplined during City employment for abusing sick leave. The employee who is being paid through leave sharing donated hours does not accrue vacation or sick leave on the hours donated and paid to him/her. Upon donation, Human Resources shall transfer the leave to the leave account of the recipient, converting the dollar value of the donor's leave, based on the donor's hourly rate of pay, to hours of leave based on the recipient's hourly rate of pay. Donated leave reverts to the City of Rochester if for any reason the recipient is unable to use it during the period of catastrophic medical emergency or the employee separates from City of Rochester employment. Amounts paid by the City of Rochester to a recipient pursuant to this policy are includible in the gross income of the recipient. 3/01 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 13 DATE: 3 -/q" O AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational Business Mayor's Office D -( 3 _..1 DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Appointment to Rochester Park Board mayor Canfield I hereby submit for your approval the following appointments to the Rochester Park Board: Craig Johnson 5127 Palmer Place NW Mr. Johnson will fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Robert Lyons. The term will run to June 2005. As of June 2001, John Withers, Chaicman of the Park Board, will have served the maximum term on the Park Board. At that time, Kerwin Engelhart, representing the Fifth Ward on the Board, will move up as Chair, leaving the Fifth Ward seat vacant. To allow a period of time for orientation to the Park Board, I submit for your approval, the appointment of Mark Janes 2409 Viola Heights Drive NE to replace Mr. Engelhart in the Fifth Ward. Mr. Janes will serve "ex officio" until July when the transition takes place. The term will run to June 2005. UNCIL ACTION: Motion Second by: 0%j3/02/U1 09:33 FAX 507 289 1775 LAKEVIEW TECH w r NAhIE: ADORES PHONE: BUS. -Z/P,3 HOME -zfL&25- DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCCHESTER CITY LIMITS? PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: A,¢,e,&j1 I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON P..i BECAUSE: Mayor Chuck Canfield 201 4th Street SE - Room 281 Rochester, MN 55904.5782 Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979 CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, information, +if desired. i how ALL-ANERICA CITY E ITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach additional ar CATE SUBMITTED: 'J.[LrI_L&V.!. SIGNED: _ Return to: Office of the Ma or 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904-3782 waaaaaawa4++*+ra ra•#**a**wa♦+aaiaa*ta+1*awiata a*a+a+a+aa+a 4kvTMENT: r Mayor Chuck Canfield 201 4tlr Street SE - Room 281 Rochester, MN 55904-3782 Phone: (507) 285-8080 Fax: (507) 287-7979 CITY OF' ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: BUS06--0-32 HOME ricYcP C•'�S' 00 YOU RESIDE WITHIN RjjOfJCHESTER CITY LIMITS?? YES , NO 1 PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: 7�1 "-L�xP2t-5S / /it t' ,(cf;¢L I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON Fes. YdSS. PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1EDUCATI00, SPF.'CIAL INT RESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) Attach adaitional information, if desired. _ wiwraf 10 ' }�d►rn }-re�tsQLl tit Y�6ebec,n LQvt_ DATE SUBMITTED: n' -� e7 SIGNED: �,'�..'}C'?j Return to: Office o t Mayor jJ / . ---- 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904-3782 DATE OF APPOINTMENT: TERM EXPIRATION: - OTHER DATA: - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Organizational Business Mayor's Office i i tid DESCRIPTICN: Appointment to Planning Commission MEETING DATE: DATE: ITEM NO. D-14 PREPARED BY:11 r Canfield I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Planning Commission: Leslie K. Rivas 1315 15th Street NE I Ms. Rivas will fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Gerry Werven. The term runs to December 2004. %,.jUNCIL ACTION: Motion by, second by. �`M ROCHESTER ALL-hMYRICA CM W'z 'AW4; z&Ora CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION NAME: I/�;SUE Ir. 42'JAS ADDRESS: p215 j5 COT 1'-1E y Vae� ilaiii Ify , NMI PHONE: HOME l50-1) Z92'gag5 BUSINESS SA-tE DO YOU RESIDE IN THE ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES X NO PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: 55 ID 6, r I AMSEEKINGVOLUNTARY SERVICE ON PI Nt�� ZDl�1i�-1% WMM i 551� IE CAtSsE R�T 1',10 1�6ER FrYb--j0o{�SI01.1A(t wouuD 6�FATLIC.1��E - S�j2JE M i Li t* PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT) ATTACH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IF ni=SIRFr1 201 4 h Street SE Rochester, Mn 55904-3782 ...............................................•..............................� Date of Interview: V;ab .�.%G • /k Other Data: An E W[Opportunity Employer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING f / i DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D_t5 _M DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Right of Way Acquisition for the Airport Runway PR�PARED BY: Construction —J6963 M. Nigbur 7OW As part of the City s project to extend the crosswind runway at the Rochester Municipal Airport additional lands were identified for acquisition. City staff pursued acquisition of the needed 36.88 acres of property using the state acquisition requirements. Based on the continued negotiations between the City and the Owner a preliminary settlement has been reached. The terms of the acquisition include payment of $82,960.00 together with some minor driveway modifications. This acquisition value is approximately ten percent higher than the appraised value. However, the acquisition value is within one percent of the appraised value, if the payments for the interest from the date of offer and the appraisal reimbursement are included. The Owners have executed the agreement. I � Property I( r -� ,lI ' r ; I HWY30 — 1 , Interstate90 ' i — COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the acquisition agreement and allow City staff to accept the Deed for the property from the Menshik Trust. )UNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 51 1 DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION! ORIGINATING DEPT, ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D—/(p DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain & Sanitary Sewer to Serve the PRrPARED BY: �,d Classic Mini Storage (p/o Lot 19, Allendale Subdivision) J9778 M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: David R. Niebuhr (Owner) & Soma Construction, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9778 consisting of "Watermain & Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Classic Mini Storage (p/o Lot 19, Allendale Subdivision)" Classic Mini Storage C J#9778 a FE C COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9778 "Watermain & Sanitary Sewer to Serve the Classic Mini Storage (p/o Lot 19, Allendale Subdivision)'. _ JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6 DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works . M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Extended Stay Y: xi America (Lot 2, & p/o Lot 3, Block 3, Plaza 41 NW) J9776 r Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: ESA Minnesota, Inc. (Owner) & Fraser Construction Co. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9776 consisting of "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Extended Stay America (Lot 2, & p/o Lot 3, Block 3, Plaza 41 NW" 7TJ )RMY �� x4 Q COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9776 "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Extended Stay America (Lot 2, & p/o Lot 3, Block 3, Plaza 41 NW)". 1UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 54;7 DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works . . �M DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT PR PARED BY M. Baker The Department of Public Works has received a request -on one (1) property, to voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. This department has reviewed the information for this property and has determined that there is support for participation. The Owner of the following property has requested voluntary participation in the City's Plan, with the applicable participation fee as follows: Vertical Partners (SDP#01-05) (Antenna Monopole @ Olmsted County Fairgrounds) $ 193.96 The Owner of this property has already provided payment for its respective charges. These funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the property to participate in the City's Plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted property, in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan. )UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT- ITEM NO. Public Works D_1q :M DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services for: Street Design -- C Ave NW and a portion of 55" St NW (J9578) PREPARED BY: D. Nelson The following project has been proposed for construction in 2001 and is included in the 2001 - 2006 Capital Improvement Program (item #22, page 34). Project: Construct 50th Ave NW from Nicklaus Drive NW to 65t" St NW and a portion of 55th St NW from the DNR Douglas Trail west to 52"d Ave NW. (J-9578). HR Green, Inc., has completed initial survey and staking, preliminary design, conceptual analysis and design options, and preparation of the Project Memorandum for MnDOT and FHWA approval from Valley High Drive to 651h St NW. HR Green now proposes to provide Final Design for the initial project phase as described above — preparation of construction plans and specifications, bidding documents, and award analysis for $147,914.00. The design (preliminary and final design) for this first phase of the 50th Ave NW project is approximately 7.5% of the total anticipated construction costs. The proposed cost for design services is lower than other large Federally funded projects we've undertaken recently, which have averaged approximately 10% of the construction costs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with HR Green, Inc. for Final Design preparation services for the construction of 50 Ave NW from Nicklaus Dr to 65th St and for a portion of 55th St NW from the Douglas Trail to 52"d Ave NW, in a lump sum amount of $147,914,00. JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5 DATE: 3/19101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D-P4 M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 6255-4-96 (J2266) Reconstruction of 55th St. N.W., West River Rd. to Bandel Road PR PARED BY - M. Easley The plans provide for the reconstruction of 55" St. N.W., from West River Road to Bandel Road N.W. Soil borings indicated the presence of a natural deposit of granular soils within the excavation limits of the project. This excavated granular was necessary for construction of a stable roadway foundation. During excavation operations it was determined that the granular deposit was neither of the quality necessary or obtainable within the planned excavation limits. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 6255-4-96 (J2266) in the amount of $150,412.50 to cover the cost of : 1. Purchase of granular materials from an offsite source 2. Placement of the granular in the roadway foundation. MNDOT has approved the unit price and Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work, and find them appropriate. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1; In the amount of $150,412.50; Project 6255-4-96 (J2266) 551h St. N.W. )UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: MA l G t0 N O N (D Oi m oh u co 00 �o Q M t N t N ti Cd t� fSc N IT 0 6 M O a m i� T lUV kn � „0 „ � N O N o N m O CA qS Lo 0 P. e m m o Q p, o m LD ,b y R 0 m r O U 7 'u W T C14 co m N O M Pr N m N (mn m N O) N M O is (O O Cl) M N (O n 0I m i F io�cn 000 O� N Ln Ln v T7 e o Lt. 0 o m (h o u ,�, a 0 m co xj [FF o +�+ o CD ocC�o �7 Cr 0 M 0 r Ohm U d O W N a F F aQLQaa En W Fy (D � o C Q W w m o 0 Z N Y m(- r-m 3 ggqqq a ��mmm ar Q V r T 1 ornm N z [� LnmU5 ���tnr 0. 'bo r m . O W o� o a CN O m tm C c �a c c o m 0. 0. Ln Q Q O O O) � N T LO O MI O N m m O cO 0 O O O� O imn orn(Po co W O r� N O f0 co O (Mn ccnn ((DD, coo N M 0 0 1- (7 m 04 N N r T < N m Om O K 001 (mn N m ONE CO M O M v v Lo O ui o vi v 0 N T N T M co m T T T M T O_ O_ O_ d O_ N O p O O O W A F E E E E E a¢¢a¢ C C C C C O 4 N? N N N aaaaD. N____) ��0�� to to r Cly / Rochester Supp. to Contract No. _ Q Department Of Public Works No. 1 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT Page 1 of 2 Comrmor Rochester Fed. Project Project No.'s Sand & Gravel Dept, No.1 2266 Address Location 55th St. NW from Bendel City Project No. 6255-4-96 4105 East River Road N.E. Rd. to W. River Rd. S.A.P. No. 159-132-05 Rochester, MN 55906 This Contract is amended as follows: WHEREAS: The Contract provides for the reconstruction of 55th St. N.W. •3a from Bendel Road to West River Road, and. �a aQ WHEREAS: The Contract further provides that approximately 17,500 M3 (EV) of the pond excavation, would be granular and be placed W�in the roadway section, and. u,E WHEREAS: The pond excavation yielded no material meeting the vW� characteristics or gradation of Select Granular Borrow, and. era g?a WHEREAS: The Engineer has determined that Select Granular Borrow must ;$W be imported in order to construct the roadway section in a� accordance with the plans, and. "u $ NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED THAT; aim J � l�l avu 1. The Contractor will furnish, place and compact Select Granular �BA Borrow Modified, in the roadway section of 55th St.N.W., as directed yr' by the Engineer. All materials will meet the the modified gradation s list in section TR-10 of the special provisions. 0 u 2. Payment for this work will be at the negotiated unit price as shown in the Estimate of Cost. a.s o goeu 3. The Contractor shall not make claim of any kind or character Aea whatsoever, for any other cost or expense he may incur or that may eea be hereafter incurred as a result of work covered by this agreement. 8 CONTINUED Previous Additions index Iten Class Quarter Fund County Amount Requeste Original Contract Prev. Additions Total to Date Approved as to form and execution I Approved By Common Council Resolution Mayor City Attorney Attest Daze City Clerk Dated 19 _ Approval by Project Engineer Dated 19 _ Accepted by Contractor Dated 19 _ Approval by State Aid Engineer Dated 19 _ Dated 19 _ Approval by City Engineer Funds Available Director of Finance 1- CITY CLERK 2-CONTRACTOR 3 - CITY ENGINEER 4 - FINANCE DEFT. ` ,V.1 Rochester Department Of Public Works Supp. to Contract No. / No. 1 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2 Contractor Rochester Fed. Project Prajxt No.'s Sand & Gravel Dept, No.J 2266 Address Locstion 55th St. NW from Bandel Rd. to W. River Rd. City Project No. 6255-4-96 S.A.P. No. 15 9 -13 2 - 0 5 This Contract is amended as follows: 3a Estimate of Cost L; ITEM UNIT PRICE AMOUNT a 2105.522 `u a SELECT GRANULAR BORROW MOD (CV) 15750.00 @ M3 $9.55 $150.412.50 u � r. .a � TOTAL $150,412.50 u u m.- 9 tC u rid a O a e u EL-2 u O � � Y d Y U u c U a: u 9u � V G 9 k G � Q y� 4 `o �a E�3 Q o u 1 (--"i crK APART! el PA-n a,* Previous Additions Index turn I Class I Quarter Fund County None II I I I I 1 Amount Requested $15 0 , 412 .5 0 Original Contract $ 3, 2 71, 3 8 6. 1 Prev. Additions $ 0 . 0 0 Approved as to form and execution City Attorney to Date $3,421,798.61 stage Increase 4.6 % Approved By Common Council Resolution Mayor Attest Date City Clerk Dated Project Engin Project Engineers Dated Accepted by Contractor zoo( �(j •(� Dated b — A r - b30 Zeal Dated 22 49-_ e.., Approval by City E Dated _3 _ 4-9- / % li ' Funds Available Director nl Finauce I-CITYCLERK 2-CONIRACTOR 7-CITYENGINEER 4-FINANCEDEFT. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, CONSENT AGENDA Public Works j) -a( _M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #2; Project 6255-4-96 (J2266) PIR PARED BY Reconstruction of 55th St. N.W. West River Rd. to Bandel Road M. Easley The plans provide for the reconstruction of 55' St. N.W., from West River Road to Bandel Road N.W. It was anticipated that granular materials from the Pond Excavation would be used in roadway foundation construction. When no granular materials were excavated from the pond, this created an excess of unsuitable material on the project and therefore, required that the material be hauled to an off site disposal area. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #2; Project 6255-4-96 (J2266) in the amount of $25,434.90 to cover the cost of : 1. Disposal of unsuitable excavated materials to an offsite location. MNDOT has approved the unit price and Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work, and find them as fair compensation for the extra work accomplished. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #2; In the amount of $25,434.90; Project 6255-4-99 (J2266) 55" St. N.W. )UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 45' DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #3; Project 6255-4-96 (J2266) Reconstruction of 55th St. N.W. West River Rd. to Bandel Road ITEM NO. D -c;2� PARED BY: M. Easley The plans provide for the reconstruction of 55" St. N.W., from West River Road to Bandel Road N.W. , including the installation of pavement markings on the finished roadway surface. It was the intent of the plans to provide for Poly Preformed pavement markings on sections of 55'n St. N.W. that were improved and completed to the full extent, and to provide for Epoxy pavement markings on sections of 55`h St. and 18" Ave. N.W. that were constructed as transitional. It was determined that the plans inadvertently provided for some Epoxy markings where Poly Preformed was intended. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #3; Project 6255-4-96 (J2266) in the amount of $14,590.80 to cover the cost of : 1. Installation of 1,512 Meters of Solid Line White — Poly Preformed pavement markings. MNDOT has approved the unit price and Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work, and find them consistent with Poly Preformed marking on other local projects. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #3; In the amount of $14,590.80; Project 6255-4-99 (J2266) 55th St. N.W. IL ACTION: Motion Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING &? DATE: 3/19101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D—.23 M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 6207-4-00 (J9594) Reconstruction of 7th St. N.W. from 46th Ave. to 1300' West PRgPARED BY, Jry (� M. Easley ) The plans provided for the construction of a new bituminous roadway on 7`n St. N.W., from 46' Ave. N.W. to the west. In recent years it has become the recommended practice to saw and seal contraction joints in new bituminous roadways. The plans and provisions of this contract inadvertently did not provide for the sawing and sealing of the joints. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 6207-4-00 (J9594) in the amount of $4,271.50 to cover the cost of : 1. Seasonal saw cuts in the Bituminous Base. 2. Sawing and Sealing Joints in the finished surface. Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work and find the unit costs consistent to bid prices, on similar local projects. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1; In the amount of $4,271.50; Project 6207-4-00 (J9594) 71b St. N.W. )UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/19101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works 2M DESCRIPTION: Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 6309-3-99 (J9524) PREPARED BY� Reconstruction of 9th Ave. S.W. from 2nd St. to 4th St. S.W. IV M. Easley �1►� The plans provide for the reconstruction of 9" Avenue S.W., from 2"d St. S.W. to 4th St. S.W., including the installation of new watermain along the length of the project. The watermain work required the construction of residential water services to existing residential properties. At one location on the project a 1'% inch water service was encountered, that served two properties not abutting the street directly. The contract did not provide for a service of this size. The Engineer has prepared Supplemental Agreement #1; Project 6309-3-99 (J9524) in the amount of $1,759.45 to cover the cost of : 1. Construction of anew 1'% inch water service from the main to the boulevard. Public Works has reviewed the costs associated with this work and find the equipment, materials and labor costs consistent with industry standards. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Supplemental Agreement #1; In the amount of $1,759.45; Project 6309-3-99 (J9524) 9'h Avenue S.W. _ ]UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/19101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D.. oZ 5- ITEM DESCRIPTION: North Broadway Feasibility Report and Request for Hearing PRE ARED BY: for Sidewalk Replacement on TH 63 (North Broadway) from R. Kelm 4th St. North to No. Heights Drive NE (J9217) This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project: Project Number & Name 6300-N-00, (J9217) State Project 5510-74 Pavement Resurfacing and Rehabilitation on Trunk Highway 63 (North Broadway) from 4th Street to Northern Heights Drive. Project Description The State Project on North Broadway includes resurfacing with a 3" grind and overlay the entire length. The section from 4th to 6th street, and 81h to 12th street, will be widened to provide a continuous left turn lane. The City will Coordinate a sidewalk replacement project with the State Project. An information meeting was held on August 22, 2000 to explain project details to the abutting property owners. Proiect Cost Distribution The estimated Funding Distribution shown in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is 80% Federally funded and 20% Locally funded. The City and MnDOT will enter into a Cost Share Agreement for the non -Federal share of the final project costs. Since the City Sidewalk project is a separate project it's Funding Distribution will be city funds and special assessments. 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 in a sidewalk repair / replacement project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution receiving the Feasibility Report for the North Broadway Improvements. 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 for Sidewalk repairs / replacement. 4. Adopt the resolution ordering an Assessment Hearing for April 16, 2001. Attach: Feasibility Report, Map, Budget & Assessment Schedule COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: r (;L, REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR: PROJECT NO. 6300-N-00 J 9 2 1 7 STATE AID PROJECT NO. 5510-74 PAVEMENT RESURFACING AND REHABILITATION ON TRUNK HIGHWAY 63 (NORTH BROADWAY) FROM 4TH STREET TO NORTHERNH EIGHTS 'DRIVE March 12, 2001 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota The Public Works Department has prepared a Feasibility Report for the following project: Pavement Resurfacing and Rehabilitation on Trunk Highway 63 (North Broadway) from 4th Street to Northern Heights Drive. This project was included in the 1999-2004 Capital Improvements Program (line 15, page 30) and Municipal State Aid funding for engineering services was approved at the May 1, 2000 City Council Meeting. Feasibility Report We report the State Project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based on the current condition of the street. A separate sidewalk project will be completed in conjunction with this state project based on the participation by the abutting property owners. The length of the state project on North Broadway (TH 63) from 4th Street to Northern Heights Drive is 1.49 miles. The project is desirable to the city and state as a minor rehabilitation project in order to prepare for the future state highway 52 project. Roadway history: 1941...... Concrete Pavement Construction ................... 1965...... Widen Bituminous Pavement to 4-Lanes . ...... 1968...... Bituminous Overlay ........................................ 1974...... Bituminous Overlay ........................................ 1979...... Bituminous Overlay ........................................ 1994...... Mill and Bituminous Overlay ......................... ......... 0 Street to Zumbro River ......... Zumbro River to Elton Hills Dr. ....4th Street to Zumbro River ......... Zumbro River to Elton Hills Dr. ......... 12th Street to 16'h Street .........4th Street to I Ith Street Work on the State project typically will include the following: 1. Resurfacing with 3" grind and overlay will include adjusting casting on the entire length. 2. Sections from 4th to 6th & 8`h to 12`h Street will be widened to provide a continuous left turn lane, installing new curb & gutter. Storm sewer design considerations 4. Installation of a new traffic signal at Elton Hills Drive. 5. Boulevard areas disturbed are to be replaced. Work on the City Project will include the following: During steps 2-4 above the repair and replacement of deteriorated sidewalk sections will be completed. The existing sidewalk along the project abuts the property line. MnDOT determined that in order to replace these deteriorated panels, a one -foot construction easement would be needed. The process for MnDOT to obtain the necessary easement would require delaying the project for ?3 ' — 2 — MARCH 12, 2001 a minimum of 2 years. The City negotiated with MnDOT to exclude sidewalk replacement from the State Project and conduct a City Project for the work abutting the property line in order to construct the project in 2001. The City agreed to coordinate the Sidewalk Project with the construction of the State Project. To coordinate this project the Prime Contractor will be contacted for the sidewalk project. The amount of sidewalk work is estimated to be below $50,000 and as such no advertisement for bid would be required. A second contractor will be asked to submit a price for the work as well. This report and the estimated costs for the project are as follows: Protect Cost Construction: Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $i 150 000.00 Sidewalk Replacement $19 600.00 Stone Sewer Repairs/Upgrades Watermain Replacement Watennain SeMce Replacement Sanitary Sewer Sub Total $1,189,600.00 Engineering,Interest Contingencies 30% $350880.00 TOTAL $1,520,480.00 Assessment Distribution: The State Project will not be assessed to the abutting property owners; the City, State, and Federal funds will fund it. The City Sidewalk Project will be assessed. The cost of sidewalk rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be used for this project. Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot replaced and is assessed directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates: Sidewalks 2001 sq. @ sq. tt Total Cost 4' Sidewalk residential $5.15 5" Sidewalk commercial $5.92 2,568.12 $15,203.27 6' Sidewalk at residential drive approaches) $6.70 7' Sidewalk at commercial drive approaches) $7.21 602.06 $4,340.85 Subtotal $19,544.12 credit for long side Subtotal $19.544.12 P:''•,P1, 111:f: S\11 -3— AV RCH 12, 2001 Proiect Distribution: The estimated Funding Distribution shown in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is 80% Federally funded and 20% Locally funded. The City and MnDOT will enter into a Cost Share Agreement for the non -Federal share of the final project costs. Since the City Sidewalk project is a separate project it's Funding Distribution will be city funds and special assessments as shown: Distribution: Special Assessments - Frontage Special Assessments - Sidewalk E544.12 Special Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds City/State/Federal Road Share $1 475 455.88 City Sidewalk Share $25,480.00 Distribution: $1,520,480.00 Submitted for your consideration: Russell Kelm, PE Design Engineet 11APRUI Ii(: Cti`•,,I-I°R )J\19217,•:Ue�i P;r?ues':luasil.�ilin• Rcpon.D(1C Douglas Nelson, PE Engineering Manager 9s - 4 - MARCI1 12, 2001 PAVEMENT RESURFACING AND REHABILITATION ON TRUNK HIGHWAY 63 (NORTH BROADWAY) FROM 4TH STREET TO NORTHERN HEIGHTS DRIVE PROJECT NO.6300-N-00 J9217 STATE AID PROJECT NO.5510-74 T:`,VILU�ICP`'•.J-PRUJ`g9217`;1J:eign`.1)oes'�,La>il •iGty lirpo�t. Ul K; /v — 5 — NL%RCFI 12, 2001 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: 7104-99 Date: March 12 2001 J No: 9217 Description: Pavement Resurfacing and Rehabilitation on Trunk Highway 63 North Broadway) Project Cost Contract Cost Final Cost Construction: Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $1 150 000.00 Sidewalk Replacement $19,600.00 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades Watermaln Replacement Watermain Service Replacement Sanitary Sewer Sub Total $1.169,600.00 Engineering, Interest Contingencies 30% $350,880.00 TOTAL $1,520,480.00 Distribution: Special Assessments - Frontage $0.00 Special Assessments - Sidewalk $19 544.12 Special Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds Ci /State/Federal Road Share $1 475 455.88 Clt Sidewalk Share $25,480.00 Distribution: 1 $1,520,480.00 Note: Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund 11:`.P1LU11.J. LN!, I P R I li',J9_17\IX I)ors"fLA111)113:V ItITXII. U(_)C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /7*7 DATE: 3-19-01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works :M DESCRIPTION: Request Bids for Painting of Traffic Signals, Tra Parking Ramps This is a recommendation to set a bid date for 3 City Projects those being: ITEM NO. D -�(o PREPARED F Ma 1. City Project No. (J-6399) "Year 2001 Traffic Signal Painting Program ". This project is listed on page 315 of the 2001 City budget. The work consists of painting poles, mast arms, signal hardware, and controller cabinets at 10 intersections. 2. City Project No. (J-4961) "Year 2001 Painting of Parking Ramps" This project is the annual painting of various items in the 5 City Parking ramps. The areas designated for painting this year are the stairtowers in the Civic Center Ramp and Third Street Ramp, along with miscellaneous doors and railings in all ramps. This work is funded in the Parking Operating Budget. 3. City Project No. (J-4213) "Year 2001 Transit Shelter Painting ". This project is the annual painting of various transit shelters. The areas designated for painting this year are six of the seven CBD Shelters. This work is funded in the Transit Operating Budget. These three projects will be combined as one bid package to provide efficiency and better prices. The bids are requested for April 10, 2001 with Council approval of bids at the April 16th meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing a bid date of 4-10-00 for;" City Project No. (J-6399) "Year 2001 Traffic Signal Painting Program " and City Project No. (J-4961) "Year 2001 Parking Ramp Painting" and City Project No (J-4213) "Year 2001 Transit Shelter painting" DUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D-A7 ITEM DESCRIPTION: TRANSFER OF ON SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR PREPARED BY: LICENSES AVIARY RESTAURANT DONNA J SCHOTT Application for the transfer of the On Sale Intoxicating Liquor license has been received from Patricia Friederichs for the Aviary Restaurant located at 4320 Hwy 52 N. The name of the restaurant will remain as Aviary Restaurant. Ms. Friederichs is requesting the transfer be effective as of April 1, 2001. Transfer would be pending g the required fees, insurance certificates and all departmental approvals. A confidential investigative report has been returned satisfactorily. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the transfer of the On Sale intoxicating Liquor License of the Aviary Restaurant to Patricia Frederichs. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — Right of Way Acquisition for the 48' Street SW PREPARED BY: Project — J9545 M. Nigbur As part of the City's project to reconstruct 48" Street SW lying West of 11 " Avenue SW to Scenic Oaks Subdivision lands owned by the golf course were identified for acquisition. City staff pursued acquisition of the needed property using the state acquisition requirements. Based on the continued negotiations between the City and the Owner a preliminary acquisition settlement has been reached. The terms of the acquisition settlement include payment of $90,000.00 for the needed land rights together with driveway relocation/reconstruction. This acquisition value is approximately fourteen percent higher than the offer made to the Owner. However, by accepting the acquisition settlement the City and the Owner avoid the expense and uncertainty of proceeding through condemnation. The Owners have executed the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the settlement agreement and allow City staff to accept the Deed/Easement for the property from Valley Golf/Wendal Pittenger. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING -7y I DATE 3-19-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ei , I M DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #01-03 by Betty Blanchard and Michelle Durigan to PREPARED BY: vacate the undeveloped right of way of the north half of 51h Street SE lying adjacent Mitzi A. Baker, to the southerly line of Lot 2, Block 39, Morse & Sergeant's Addition to East Senior Planner Rochester. The property is located west of 101h Avenue SE and affects the properties at 435 and 435 % 101h Avenue SE. March 13, 2001 The Rochester Code of Ordinances (Sec. 20.13 subd. 3) requires the City Council to refer all petitions to vacate streets and alleys to the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission was scheduled to review this vacation on March 14, 2001, but did not have a meeting due to the lack of a quorum. The Planning and Zoning Commission will review this item on March 28, 2001. The Citv Council should continue this riem to April 2 2001 Council Action Needed: I. The Council should continue this item to April 2, 2001. Attachments: 1, Staff Report dated March B, 2001. 2. Map Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: 4. Planning Department GIs Division 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on March 19, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street E. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by. to: AULNUA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANTNING :M DESCRIPTION: Annexation Petition #01-05 by Dallas M. Backhaus to initiate Orderly Annexation of approximately 20 acres of land legally described as the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17 of Marion Township. The property is located along the south side of 201h Street SE, west of 38th Avenue SE. March 14, 2001 MEETING ;9 DATE: 03-19-01 ITEM NO. c - Z- Theresa Fogarty, Planner The applicant has withdrawn this request. See attached letter, dated March 8, 2001. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. City Finance Director 5. Planning Department File 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 19, 2001 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. � � N COUNCIL ACTION: Mouonby:_ Second KEVIN A. LUND THOMAS A. PATTERSON ROBERT W. PA7TERSON LuND & PATr> RSON ArrORNEYs AT LAw HLS7ORR; itm y Buu.OWG 7. FOURTH STREET SGu78EASr ROcHESTER, UINNESDTC 55904 TELEPHONE (507) 288-9122 TELECGPIER (507) 288-7753 Via Facsimile transmission 287-2275 . March 8, 2001 Ms. Theresa Fogarty Rochester -Olmsted County Planning and Zoning' 2122 Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Dallas Backhaus Petition for Annexation Dear Ms. Fogarty: AvAls x,+r/a.4/ d o / by Dallas Back hau5 This letter is to inform Zoning and Planning that Mr. Backhaus w withdraw his petition to annex hus real estate to the City #ochester. He prefers to pro, d with a metes and bounds application in view of the fact that development is further in the fut ire than he had originally mlricipated. It is my understanding that he has paid the filing fee for annexaj.ipn of his property. As his attorney, I would appreciate it if you would take from these fun,A,tl:: $250.00 filing fee for a metes and bounds application and remit the balance to him. Very tr, yours, LC 1' PATEN RWP/js REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 93 DATE: 3-19-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NABaker, PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING I DESCRIPTION: Fox Knob Special District Ordinance and Re -zoning. PREPAMitzi March 13, 2001 "'Please note that the attached Special District Ordinance is a revised version from what the Planning Commission reviewed. It has now been reviewed and edited by the City Attorney. Revisions did not change the context of the Ordinance. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on February 28, 2001 and recommends. Wiesner moved to approve the Fox Knob Special District Ordinance and re -zoning with staff suggested findings, Burke seconded the motion, which carried 6-2. Mr. Werven and Mr. Brede voted nay. There was considerable testimony at the public hearing regarding this General Development Plan and the proposed Special District. Please see the attached minutes for additional detail. Handouts presented to the Commission at the meeting are also attached. Council Action Needed: .., to Council wishes to proceed with the Special District, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare the Ordinance accomplishing the rezoning to the Special District designation. 10 .P /-7 F Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator^ 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Yaggy Colby Associates 7. Christine Schultze 8. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday March 19, 2001 in the Council / Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.� M 1UNGIL ASTION: Motion by: 62 Second by: a`^"*' to: Off C .V. 1191HX3 - NY1d LN31NdMM30 1"3N37 t iFe}li( i+l4 ,'1�� � V1053NNIW'Y3153H�OM >< �� ?j I 'JIM! ( (IOOHW9HD13N 90NX XOj Ail[ 11iI iI lil I _ "r ' NY _ _,\ t •lf=��:�l�1fj f •1„lijiij(',l 1, t� 7it��i�tt�9, jf 7 E !i�{lf if l .= ;t ,ill,i<�it;l a, ,ivj{ fjl i t11 ={ � it I(i�tif�lfl:EE i !� ttijlfllft;tfl I I j 1 r loe March 7, 2001 Rochester City Council RE: General Development Plan #114, an amendment to the Cook -Thompson GDP to be known as Fox Knob. Dear members of the City Council: We, the undersigned, would like to propose changes to GDP #114 that are intended to improve safety and make the development more consistent with surrounding neighborhoods: We are requesting the City Council to direct the applicant, John Klopp, to work with a group of citizens from the surrounding neighborhoods (Foxcroft, Baihly Woodlands, Baihly Heights, and Baihly Meadows, etc.) to modify the current General Development Plan (GDP) proposal to address the neighborhood's concerns. Our intentions are not to stop the development of Fox Knob. We only wish to modify the GDP to address our concerns. We believe a compromise between the current GDP and the original GDP is a reasonable, responsible, and appropriate action. We are asking the City Council to either: (1) deny the applicant's currently proposed General Development Plan (GDP) and the request for a Special District designation for Fox Knob, or (2) delay any approval action until the applicant and neighbors have had a chance to reach a compromise and present a modified GDP proposal. Primary Issues • Narrower streets do not meet fire code standards. This unnecessarily increases the risk to public safety. There is no reason why this development cannot be modified to meet the existing standards for fire codes regarding street widths. Public safety must be our community's first priority. Narrower streets do not meet existing street width standards for new developments. This unnecessarily increases the risk to public safety. The roadways and walkways through the Cook and Thompson properties that will connect Baihly Hills Drive to Fox Valley Drive will be a primary pathway for both pedestrian and auto traffic. The pedestrian and bike traffic will also be even heavier than normally expected (especially with children) since this will be the primary pathway to Younge Park on Fox Valley Drive. There is no reason why this development cannot be modified to meet the existing R-1 standards regarding street widths and achieve the developer's goal of "walkability." Public safety must be our community's first priority. a 10� Secondary Concerns The proposed design standards for the Cook property unnecessarily creates a design incompatibility with the existing surrounding neighborhoods including Foxcroft, Baihly Woodlands, Baihly Heights, and Baihly Meadows (over 350 acres). Further, the Fox Knob GDP should be coordinated with the remaining undeveloped Thompson and Younge properties in an explicit and unified GDP. The primary goal of the Fox Knob "Village Scale" design is to "... create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable streets that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development ". We believe that all of these goals can be accomplished to an even greater extent with a modified design, while also achieving increased compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. Some specific areas of concern include: The front and rear set back requirements for Fox Knob are between 8-12 feet vs. 25 feet for surrounding neighborhoods Narrower streets in Fox Knob than surrounding neighborhoods ➢ Alleys in Fox Knob versus none in surrounding neighborhoods The alley also represents a property line with the Thompson property. Can the city take official action upon the Fox Knob GDP without a formal GDP from the Thompson property? The average lot size of the lower quartile (smallest 25 percent of lots) of Fox Knob is roughly 6100 square feet versus roughly 11,000 square feet or greater for the lower quartile in each surrounding neighborhood. 3/19/01 City Council Hearing on Fox Knob, Special District and GDP (name and address) Council, President and Mayor, thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation on behalf of the applicant. t. Many of John Klopp's goals for this new neighborhood are the same as those of neighbors here. They are; A. A well -designed and constructed neighborhood. B. Excellent emergency access. C. Traffic calming. D. Density and traffic similar to other neighborhoods. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify how this application, as presented, meets these goals. (distribute copies of this summary w/sheet on emergency maneuvers and I I" x 17" plan including Eoxcroft, Baihly and Crocus Hills neighborhoods; and "New Urban News" article) A. A well -designed and constructed neighborhood. will not take your time to summarize each, but trust you have had the opportunity to read the eighteen points of public interest covered by this neighborhood, as summarized in Exhibit B, and that you understand that review of each home's siting and plans is required, to assure a well -designed and constructed neighborhood. Briefly, I would like to show you some boards to give you a visual idea of the neighborhood: 1. Cook GDP & Thompson Preliminary GDP, showing village greens, boulevards, sidewalks, overlooks, etc. (please note that only the Cook property is applying at this time). 2. Acrial of Cook, demonstrating the character of the applicant's property, cropped and open, different from the wooded neighborhood areas which surround it. 3. Two hoards: village -scale residential streets and neighborhood landscapes. 4. Two boards; plans, elevations and details of some village -scale homes, indicating the range of size and style homes which might fit on the different lot sizes in the application. (please note that Exhibit E in the packet has more examples) 11. Rxcellent emergency access. f 1. Clarify the 20-foot clear rule emergency vehicle access rule: a) Presentcul-de-sacmaneuver. b) Present multiple access routes maneuver. c) This neighborhood, as Lyle 1`elsch noted in the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, has no cul-de-sacs or dead ends. The roads are well-connected for excellent emergency access. Mr. helsch, at the Commission hearing, supported the development as proposed. The applicant believes that applying street widths required for the cul-de-sac maneuver to streets with multiple access and no cul-de-sacs, is redundant infrastructure investment, and makes impossible the public safety benefits noted in "(" below. C. Traffic calming (and other benefits of smaller streets). 1. How a smaller street width improves public safety, through traffic calming. ("New Urban News," 3/01) a) What happens on smaller width streets: (1) A 24 to 26 foot (curb -to -curb) street, with parking on both sides, is considered ideal for walkable streets because it slows traffic (traffic calming through street geometry). Walkers feel most comfortable when vehicle speeds are kept to 10 to 25 mph, because slower traffic means safer streets. The wider the street, the more likely cars are to speed - and with faster speeds, accidents become more likely, and more deadly (pedestrians hit by vehicle traveling 15 mph have a 96% chance of survival; at 40 mph, survival chance drops to 17%). (2) Narrower streets reduce neighborhood "cut -through" traffic that is encouraged by wider, faster streets. (additionally: (3) Street trees lining both sides of a narrovver street provide a canopy that almost completely shades the street in summer, producing up to a 10 to 15 degree temperature drop in a sunny climate.) 2. Prevention of accidents and emergencies, in the interest of public safety. ("New Urban News," 3/01) Some points from Longmont, CO, study on their varied street widths (which Charlie Reiter has): Over an eight -year period, there was only one serious fire and a number of smaller fires, with no injuries. By contrast, there were 227 automotive accidents, mostly on wide streets (both car/car and car/pedestrian), resulting in injuries. When the accidents and the fires are counted, you can get a statistical basis for a more comprehensive approach to public safety: That a connected network of narrower streets provides greater overall public e safety. 3. Some additional points, not noted in article: a) Reduce road surface maintenance costs. b) Reduce snow plowing and cubic yards stored on boulevards. c) Reduce plow edge volume at driveway locations. d) Add width to sidewalks, for more comfortable use by neighbors, and still not increase impervious surface coverage. (28' city standard vs. 25' proposed, a 12% reduction) This application establishes street designs that can satisfy both public safety needs: emergency response and slow, safe neighborhood streets. ("Slowing traffic can also save lives," quote from a Portland fire fighter). D. Density and traffic similar to other neighborhoods. The density and traffic production of this application are compatible with R1 zoning_ and with adjoining neighborhoods. Comparison chart of Fox Knob to surrounding neighborhood subdivisions: Note the variety of density in existing "compatible" Baihly neighborhoods ranging from 1.46 dwelling units/acre to 2.27 dwelling units/acre. Fox Knob, as proposed, is 2.21 dwelling units acre. At 2.21 dwelling units/acre, Fox Knob will produce less traffic than three and more traffic than two of the nearby Bailrly Heights subdivisions. All can be handled by the road system as designed. IL Where John Klopp, and the city, based upon intent, ordinances and land use criteria, differ with some of the neighbors here, is on what constitutes compatible. I'he applicant intends to: "Establish a cohesive neighborhood with connected local streets; create village -scale walkable residential streets with inviting public spaces that invite social interaction; include traffic calming; offer diverse housing options in one neighborhood; enhance the existing terrain with neighborhood open spaces, walks, overlooks and retention of woods; and be compatible with and complimentary to nearby neighborhoods, based upon successful, built examples." (from findings, Special District ordinance) In this discussion both the applicant's and the Thompson property are considered. A. Compatibility by sameness is not possible of' this site. I0, The terrain and vegetation are different 6'om surrounding areas, in that the applicant's land is mostly cropped and open, not wooded. Lot layouts like those in Bodily, without the woods, will not look at all similar. So compatibility by sameness is not possible. 13. Varied lot sizes are compatible. 1. Colored map, shows lot size variations in Baihly neighborhoods. 2. 11" x 17" map, shows lot size variations of Foxcroft, Baihly and Crocus I sills. C. Internal compatibility and perimeter compatibility. 1. Fox Knob lot sizes vary from 0030 square feet to 37,148 square feet, or one to six times the area, which support the different life choices noted in the special district ordinance and in the land use manual. 2. The smaller Fox Knob lots are internal, not adjacent to any existing neighborhoods. All lots within Fox Knob are compatible in quality of design and construction. The variation in lot size does not cause incompatibility. 3. The 11-foot front yard setbacks are on streets internal to this neighborhood, not on streets of adjoining neighborhoods -- and that smaller village -scale setback can save 14 feet of woods which line the property. The larger Fox Knob lots are at the perimeter. Perimeter lots which back up to adjacent lots with homes are comparable in size (except at the Tuntland property and down the hill to Crocus Hills) and rear vard setbacks are the standard 25-foot. 4. Two boards: southwest houses on lots less than 6000 square feet, demonstrating that quality, not quantity, makes for compatibility and more home choices. City Council can move forward a compatible neighborhood, which provides options on lot sizes and maintenance for homeowners, at a location with excellent access and desirability; with sidewalks, streets and plantings which will provide a safe and pleasant neighborhood. We hope you do so. w i EWE ■�>r THE CUL-DE-SAC MANEUVER Fire code standard of 20-foot "clear" fire access, between parked cars, medians or other possible obstructions, as shown above, is to allow for the "cul-de-sac maneuver," which works as follows: 'hhe 1st engine responding will get close to the tire, stop along the way to hook up hose to the nearest hydrant, and then drive the rest of the way to the fire, laying hose as they go. The firefighters deploy their truck near the building, opening equipment cabinets along the side of the fire truck. The 2nd fire truck responding follows the same route as the first into the scene of the fire, hooks up to the same hydrant, and must now be able to pass the fully deployed truck already at the scene. "IThe 20-foot clear guideline is intended to provide the necessary space for the second truck to pass the first truck. Ise FsRc --� FI<- 'I2VCJ� m MULTIPLE ACCESS ROUTES MANEUVER ON CONNECTED STREETS To fight a fire at a location on a connected street network, the Ist arriving fire company can assess the situation and direct the approach of the second company, e.g. from the opposite direction, using another fire hydrant, if it does not have room to pass the first truck. Get to 1knowyour lire chief }`oullrlillirrl InrJ rllurnlrlm err !hr kl I Yn burhlilrl lnllll,lll rl rill' .frl'rl� rmJ rn:;ul'in,�l flufl(i�' ?aft it/. MARY 5tALv,FIi, JOHN ANDERSON. AND TOM DIGIOVANNI oecr the I,Ist decade, moliv designers, uiginct'tc, de velolr rs, local ulllcials, emcl„en() ICTO111e pelst-o j not, and neit;hburhoud residenlc hrlce found thtln=clt c< ,nu t,lul" % t (It seu1111nI2,1y coral cWl erbium eµ %%tern it totes to good slicel do 1 ;u. L, 1111ntt k, hone%ol. an1011c tilt' Inane % dues M stll,h Io';fleet design public saint% ah%at, cnle I . % as OIL IIn 11 arbi[u but e%t n %%ilium Illi< Inttmtestable objeclit e, It conl'het has emerged that has omit' rccenthbeen thorum;hly defined loll studied, and "I (Allint; tote Addle ed� tit('M e ollnti (Oolhcl lies he ttcccn tilt' mud for Idilid enie`rl t All Iccponsc le: ins to �i tahDin lod lthrerini,,� In%% sale e% I%dap uelghborhooci rltcets, TH EINGREDIEN TS OF A CONFLICT t he three basic nolghbolhood street type and OICLII11 tiou utodols, ttithin %thith e%III vday and amcrgencv- cchitae circulation takes place, help it, to undetstand tilt' nature of tite problem and to hod possible sources for the ,,nation- - 1. Pre-I9-10s yri(NI'l While posti\ a r ciev'el- opnnent uutdels superccticd this INTO, these old neighhor- hoods still exist and rcyvire eutergelm response ill con linue to function L% thm Itch patterns of natnnv .tiects'. 2. I'%Ir,Irr:I >ubdiri aln, (i.e. curvilinear layout, ad -de - sacs, dead end,, hwi,it, hical street system). Most cut lent nnrscncv responsc manctners have been developed to 1•e•rcc the uu-nchaorketl street patterns of this era -- ma- Ilcuvers which necessitate e\tremuk %ride streets In turn, nctc equiplIMIt size greallr ineleascd during this time, since new teihnulol;ies teen; developing within the curl- Icxt Of the note yetc %tide sheen. Often, over time, rest- dentsofthtse abut%i,%%nsreyuesttile installation othat- tic-calming features to sill\v speeds generated by m erl_v V, ide streets. 3. Neoh-adi?ienal m i erkrd n cil�lrbor?loods. ivlany new neighborhood designers are returning to the design itI telligcnce found %\ Milli the traditOnal neighborhoods' in- tetconnected network of narrow-, tree -lined, slate, safe streets. however, then then find themselves in conflict j with the nnanem ers file departments Ilave established to get their equipment to tie emergencies on wide dead- end streets. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S VIEW If you live in the West, your state has probably adopted what is called the " lVestetn Fire Lode" — Dr elsewhere, a similar equivalent. I'his code says that streets should have a minimum 204001 "clear` fife access way.— meaning be- tween parkeii cars, medians or any other possible obstruc- tion. The rationale behind this guideline is to allow for a specific, bill widely accepted, firefiRliting milieu eer, the "cal-c9e-sac maneuver" evhich works as follows i C Uri ' The Cul-de-sac maneuver. A- Illc lit 'I engine responding %till got ilou to the lire, t4op flung the %cot' to hook up hose to the nc ucsL h% Llr.ull, and lhlal dri%e the rest of the v, IN to the fire, tat frog hose as Iht% go. t he (ircfighters dcl',Inv their It Ill .lI the Puildill" ;. opcoing equipinenl cabinets along tho ,idc of Ill e lire truck - 'I he second fire truck responding follows the "ante route as tile first into the SQ1nC of the fire, hooks up to the same ht dram, and must note be able lu pass the Ill II%deplovedtrLick aheadvaltile scene. fhe20-footelear %;uidclirte is inhCnded Io pro%iJe tit(' ncaSSAI V space Col. the second truck to pass the firs[ truck. I her(, Ilare been su!,gestions Lhat the solution to the "dtinnc- WAS N s.411I-Ile-[LCkS" problem Is,`,11 tcl- lim, lire dcl+arlmen[s to purchase sloallet't%hones. As in elanA other.lreaSof%ehicleand constructiontedloologN, nlamn•eIsintilt' indLISII feel bigger ishcurr.sinceIhrnow, bt,.; trucks hate Al the latest best ItThlicr, one vcld(le dots it all (ladder' and pump, etc ). I'll(' dep.nintents nrly be rcluctanl to incest in new equipment that i; solnlzhokv "It's" then the best Icaitablc [[his, in fact, cxlllaim %thy sonic small towns with no bUildinl� IIip;Lot than ttso sto- ries might have a fire truck fit Iry lkt kiting mid -rise tour uu ICial), Tu think this is going to %II nr} o signllicantly any time soon is probably naive. And eVul if totems immcdi- alely chose to change to smaller vehicles, it would lake Ncills lot' most Ileets to lulu m cr, consideriut the sticker pl Ices for new equipment. for all o[ these rcautn , It seems that large Ore apparatus will rcnnan it eharactel lStIC of tn- do I nrtments for many teals to Cottle. '1'herefnre, other so- lutions nnust besought. THE DESIGNERS' AND USERS' VIEW prom the point of view of urban designers, clevelopels and residents, narrow streets are highly desirable forin 1) 1t'ith slow, safe, hunnan-scaled, well -landscaped st Iect residents walk mote anTnore likee7i' to incel t ten net �hbots arc feel a strongul sense of commune v, tv M-1caeatolessctinwand increased overall safety.Also, h1 health experts say that integrating walking into regular daily patterns is a very effective way to incorporate exer- cise into busy, modern lives. 2) A 24 to 26 foot (curb -to -curb) street with parking un _ MARCH 2001 ~ Wt. e44,ant. v R1111 III �! ®_ loth Side' iscunsideredideatfi+lwalknblestertsbe nsc for it) <ustainingtrtupoeaerMCrdesignsfur11,111,wsit ccts II slows haIIie (([,III1C (ahlllll' tillULltall shell c0ialICtI 1. II1 plaimcd dert'lopnlenls Ita ICC19iii11Udat( thCll' •,CLII ill' doo'alkers ccl must tomlurta le when vuhiLe spew s art aC nu LCMV1 " Ihcv are often Ilnl a, sucu lul in uo-ol •Jil be 21USP Sietf lY I1NffIL'RItllrl•"I ill' I n111, I l Iit]oint:re'sldCnts' labut demands fill' ictrofiltiligstree s 111 I - kl'It lOI4fasLeig-specc w widr(I file uuxc likely cars are to 'peed ti afhc-calrnin del ICes to slot\, overall trallic s feeds Its alld Wits acclt eats eCorIC allure i e V', ti1171111e, licighbol'P are often able to point Its acILIB[ al c1- more c cadly (ped'sh ians hit by cehic e ttaie Ing la nlph dCi11< ulµules, and near rage e ICs as lace utcurruc ern have 196 per cent rhann•uf surcita; at'4Umph,sLn I rso l�ct'rI t'sa icq ass re s,anC iClt cacc x tnls lu uu; I C hike e It' Is its i ptrcun[h �llt Il�yvI th n t e tJrSC UgB 111 tilt' SCC011d III0 IT Il y ,i It -roll VhCBts ledllCC neighboillood "CLIL-011'0tL,11" �"� a . V IoCjnoIj al the IIIaAIn1L1111 speed (e.g. Seattle tl�lll- urnsicc irathrctt stung strategy urduce'c accidents bl natfic that Is encouraged by (vide, fas'tstteets. pie 4) Street (lees lining both sides of a narrow street pio- { ra percent In tr❑ Ic-ca uiee areas) tier, oral the prutcsl �I do a canopt that almost Winplelely shades the shrcl in Ile err deparhuent, s IeC L C cslgnus are tasked to im,(al suniniut rature tl al[iL. calleing barriers to slop all vehi( Ies ern these l l 1111) I11 .i .fmC1t (he II111 a.i CV it'll 1 ( (or ecanlpl , ibis ran sale up to 2-1 percent ern cnergi con Ilia of the uuguing stet t l dash Il Jild refit 1 ;R tole. In 6 sumptiun JIllln,, lt,lrm months- nlatnsitualions, file Ine lrul k iq the a1o1 Iliat th ,)tLyAmWg) N;ua ull sti(cts gtLiciate less noise because ut lhr part nlen s emergL nCy met LL 0 77mn ao rids, h Iver ends rind the lack ut need for speed bumps and ' tr line( ne 1 , a Crs b(t to L mil nu ( Ica I Ca Is. ishlIC li int; 4L1-lout lung ladder trick to respond to nual—ic7 up sicm bulb of +l blab inarisi traffic noise tl a tipacr Ihat is usuallt (uusum �rl be street pacenicnt unugencles i at' not require the " [l-foul r car" to>I le caul ilk' ti;ulslcrredfit t"]dcnlialallccsluprovi(lcrvdrn- s177ctiniciso'1 iCa lusurcicallr.11usinmc(li(allc�l���iiC ( err. c: tv lelo t era age (gal a;lt•sl Imo parkin Ill the rear of (he IOIIWs. y RESPONS"ND F� SAFE STREETS In the uiici-VI(l0s, Peter Swift, of tie civi Cny;incering and own planning firm Swift and Associates, undertook to compile and analyze accident data ill [lie town of Long moat, try It' al ming ICalums such 1, as speed bumps and gulp signs -- installed in tilt' I't - vious stage of the to to to slow down the ocerh -v idC streets — great[\, III emergency response times. 135' contrast, sh'cels [flat are esignec orslorv,safeeverl'- ` aynelgalurhoodecallihnn 1 Colorado and published the Fire trucks have nmltip[e access routes on an interconnected grid. snake such tl albC-cnlnun ; lt-inalalet-titlul'Resi_ rollersunneress-uy. WAIT s a IaI dential Street Tppolop;y and hijwy Accident Free uency" (littp:/i item lers.au .col , lsrvi wI t-street.hLml; emai 1llswivooLoom): Ihisiesearchpaperiscurrentlyundmpeel t ICt icw for JILINicah011 through Institute of '1'ra nspurtalinn. 1'.n;incvl ] the resaarch shoirs that ovel. the eight year i turfy peuuJ them e,as only cn seliutLs flrr and a number ul`snlallel luCS, with no ❑ll1.1110 by contra t there were 227 autoniotiie 1CCitlentS (both car/car and (at/pedestrian) basis for nl m cries, nn>s[Iv on wide streets. 'I leis kind of Cncan provide local tire Cliief ll ith a publicsaf streets still be built When the accidents and the fires are Coupled, you call get a statistical basis for a more counirelaensive aI'pruach toL - lic safet [hat a connected networ o narrower streets pro- vides greater overall per is sa ety. ' EMERGENCY RESPONSE VS. TRAFFIC CALMING IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS [Vhile in most situations fire departments are success - GETTING TO SOLUTIONS Local Inunicipalilies arc suhpllsrcl to abide by the Inc Codes the) adopt. '111011nsurancolatiegtcIll considcl [,lc- I tors like emergent)' Icsht,mc limes, fire and ambulance Cytripllaent staffing let e I., stall t 1perienee, and trainnll; 1 lo(al file chief has diSCIetion In applriug file code, but will need to be able to make a case for maklnl departures front that code in the interest of uhlcdSinl, uccrall public ilett.'[helcfole, the solution must lit' in Cst lHishill � s(reel fit suns that can salisf 1 both public sa f0l, nt ens — e CL- gcilcv response, and slow, safe nci gliborhouei sh(lets. I he 1 suu[fonta espaceattwoscales:ihecityvvideurtrlcvnwide I scale and the neighborhood scale. NETWORK DESIGN AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ROUTES The most basic solutions to ensuring emergency re- sponse access without compromising traffic safety mast be established at the citywide scale. Town planners and fire depaitnienls each have their own role in this effort, and must work together on overlapping issues: 1) Circulation Networks: The first role bclom,Is to 611an MARCH 2001 Letiv -1� I,IaIIlicts m of C ,I,I!; tit, ,losign and expansion of cit%1%ide sections will be free of obslnictionS circulation nel,c(III .I- A syStenl Of nvt'll-con nrcled sl reels with an overall fit, rarchy of clear, main res noose routes is most critical to cnx'rgcncv ICSponsc. FVifh such let woI s, the e\acI conditions on the IaT5oe Of SO are Hot criticaI, because there are mu lip e access-wa}ys to am one Dea- 1 t,it)[] on that ill,,.-r 2) Working fo,gvthcr. Within the interconnecled net- work, planners and lire ufl'icials can tvurk LogeO,er Io cre- ale, Inap and ensure CnfOtlelnt,nl of well -established Lri- mnrr entrrgencv reslonSe rPnleS On ft'ee-[IOcvine, mnlb- slructcd ayenecs aHd buulleval'ds, us- pcciallc along, routes to hospitals. hurtlu'r, whereas in a conventional slice( hierarchy system (arterials, col- leclors, minor collectors, residential ,lrcels), limited route options to any ,in};Ic location often force emergency vehicles to Ieace tilt, arterials streets soonbr, With a denseh micrcolmected nctwori, of shect" Ihoc can opt to ,lac on the main too It'. Innger because of the nnW n)dilfer- ont option, tin npproa,.-11 1Il sgcts Them closer to the emer- gulIev location bciVtc thc_c turn onto the slower, narrower neighborhood streets. 3) Fire Departments Location and Enforccnunt. fire Departments play an important role in the success of slow, safe narrmN street scsicnu by locating fire stations on the edge of neighborhoods, ensuring quickest access on what are appropi iatcly tilt, slowest sheets. Fire officials should also regulorly rev ictc theostablishcd main routes forsafely issues Witt cntorccnx:nl (site lines, illegal double parking and deliccry parking, etc.). STREET DESIGN SOLUTIONS AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE Just as Wt the city scale, an interconnected network of =frets is very important to emergency response within the neighborhood, The fire truck maneuver described earlier makes sense if the fire is on a col-cie-sac or within a hierar- chical street system. I'{iic+ever, to fight a fire at a location on a connected street network, the first aniving fire com- pany can assess the situation and direct the approach of the second company, e.g. from the opposite end of the block, using another fire hydrant if it does not have room to pass the first truck. In fact, many fire departments have already adapted their operations to do just this in the Ol(.1er, pre-1940s neighborhoods. y Co ible with TND design, which in turn can be used to e - 1) Intersection visibility: Small curb radii are workable, but keep street trees and other landscaping 20 feet from intersections. Also, the placement of "bulb -outs" at inter- sections, which prevent parking within 30 to 40 feet of an intersection, will reassure Ilse fire department that inte'- 2) hear illevs: A staple of I ND 1101h;hbnr1101111 dc"ign, lilt' use ill allcvs can also hell, I,crsuado fire nhit iuls That all-slracl Larkin}: 110S fucn a(LIcquatcly I>rm idyll W. Iherehl- reducing{ the nerd for obstructive on-,Shrcl I'm k- n,:; loads. 3) Shorter blocks: hose Icngths can extend up l0 11"II1 feel. Mock lengths under 300 feet allow fire f ightets to get to a Imalion from eilher end of the block in tilt' unlikely circumstance of a street blodcegc. d) I.,one term infrastructure vs, shorter -term pradicc: If the hire Derailment still does Hot agree to narrower street design, pro- pose a 26 fool curb-to-culb design will) one-sided parking to create lilt, 20 foot clearance required. Then, in the futwe, when altitudes change, the desired narrow street intrastlUdtllc is in place — lust renuwe the "Ho parking" signs! CONCLUSION With these strategies of aannumica lion, CPnRidel a l 1, Ill and aanprehensive design solutions, street design ,ail accommodate all pieces Of the publicsafich goal that have placed designers, developers, neighborhood residents and umcigcncc responders at odds. "I lie kec is to become an 111c of your local fire officials in the important civic responsibility of protecting the public. Learn more about their needs and perspectives, and use clesign talent to brio:; about a solution in your community or project And It' hen certain fire departmeus continue to sal; "No -- we cant and will insist on the wide streets because we sate lives," TND designers and dcvchtyers should (on- tiuuctoOflertheresamse "Slowin;trafficcall also save lives quote tom a I'orllund fire fighter). AIaruStalkerand`;,wL)iGiotoarmiatewilhNeritn,�,cl'nrinrrs, it nrW to l)(mist r mid diluclopntent (irm in Chico, C:all- On1111. (ahu Anderson is with Anderson Lamb & Associates in Chin, r JliiIOrlid. A lmyland FROM PAGE 3 ecological areas and wildlife corridors. ('art of the proposed $145 million appropriation would go to land acquisition. Ina related development, Gov. Glendening recently an- nounced that Thomas Downs has been selected to lead the Center for Smart Growth Education and Research in Col- lege Park (see January/hebruar} 2000 issue)- Downs has previously served as Chairman and CEO of Atvl'1'RAK, CEO of the National Association of I -tome [3uilders, Com- missioner of Transportation for the State of New Jersey, and City Administrator for Washington, DC. Launched in 2000, the center offers Smart Growth Leadership courses for officials from Maryland and other states. MARCH 2O01 02/23/01 YCA #6590 COMPARISON CHART OF FOX KNOB 3 TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISIONS FOX KNOB (Typically 47' Right -of -Way) Cook Thompson Acres Lots Dwelling Units/Acre 18.54 41 2.21 Acres Lots Dwelling Units/Acre 23.35 56 2.40 AVERAGE TOTAL 1 41.89 197 1 2.32 DU/Acre SURROUNDING PROPERTIES (Typically 66' Right -of -Way) Baihly Woodland Acres Lots Dwelling Units/Acre 5th 11.48 22 1.92 6th 10.61 20 1.88 7th 9.18 15 1.63 8th 23.1 30 1.3 Baihly Heights Acres Lots Dwelling Units/Acre 2nd 11.19 25 2.23 3rd 11.44 26 2.27 6th 16.24 36 2.22 7th 8.47 15 1.77 8th 12.45 27 2.16 3aih1y Estates Acres Lots Dwelling Units/Acre 12.33 18 11.46 Baihly Meadows Acres Lots Dwelling Units/Acre 2nd 12.69 26 2.05 3rd 4.77 10 2.09 AVERAGE TOTAL 1 143.95 1270 1 1.87 DU/Acre t' / ♦♦ YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES BAIHLY VALLEY HIV �Z/ Exhibit B, Summary of Intent and Effect J--Krr) Fox Knob Special District 3 ,1q,ol As required in the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Section 62.900 Special Districts, and in the Fox Knob Special District Ordinance, below is set forth a summary of the nature of the public interest involved and the objectives to be promoted by special regulations or procedures within the Fox Knob Special District. The Fox Knob Neighborhood Fox Knob worked closely with City Staff, the Department of Natural Resources and adjoining landowners interested in complimentary development, while actively researching examples of neighborhood design and the opportunities more traditional neighborhood's home and lot options can offer to suit a mix of people and their living preferences, young and old, with children and without, in laying out this neighborhood. The Fox Knob Neighborhood design, while innovative for new development in Rochester, is compatible with and complimentary to nearby neighborhoods in that it takes lessons from the "village -scale" homes, siting and streets of older southwest Rochester and works to maintain and enhance the terrain, vegetation and western valley views of the property. The Cook property and the Thompson property, jointly shown with a preliminary Thompson General Development Plan, will form a highly walkable larger neighborhood, with diverse home siting opportunities, a slightly more compact layout at the center than the original development plans on file, and good connectivity to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The neighborhood will provide excellent walkability and access, while minimizing street lengths, dead end streets and discouraging through traffic. The layout of the Fox Knob Neighborhood, as described above; the diversity of lot, plan and siting options; the "village scale," connected residential streets, with traffic calming built-in; the distribution of walkable and viewable neighborhood park spaces throughout; and the focus through the neighborhood by path and view to the western valley and overlooks, are made possible by select variations from city standards on street layouts, intersections and lot setbacks, as identified in the Special District Ordinance. Other communities, using some similar variations to standards, have and are successfully building new village -scaled neighborhoods. Liberty on the Lake, Stillwater, is one Minnesota example. Select details regarding the nature of the public interests identified and addressed by the Fox Knob Special District are outlined below: 1) Rochester Land Use Principles and Policies provide for a mix of densities within a compact settlement pattern, as social trends indicate that there will be a need for a variety of housing to satisfy the demands of diverse family structures. 2) Todd Zimmerman, national housing and real estate market researcher, has identified 36 different market segments, rather than the 4 or 5 commonly used in real estate. 3) Rochester/Olmsted County's 21st Century Partnership, Neighborhood Task Force Report, includes the following, 1) pertinent findings: (a) the elderly, those living alone and "empty nesters" are the fastest growing population groups; (b) new development often does not incorporate housing for diverse groups; and c) new development often does not connect roads, sidewalks and trails to other areas; and 2) pertinent goals: (a) create neighborhoods which provide easy and safe pedestrian access for all ages; and (b) support the preservation and maintenance of natural landscape systems. 4) Rochester Street Layout Standards provide for connectivity of local streets, between and through adjacent residential neighborhoods, while discouraging through traffic. 5) Rochester Street Layout Standards provide for alleys with no access along the lot frontages paralleling the alley, which, in the opinion of the applicant, will focus neighborhood architecture on homes, not garages, where there are alleys in the neighborhood. 6) Traffic calming: Fox Knob's reduced street widths, select curves, couplet streets, and encouragement of on street visitor parking, naturally incorporate traffic calming in the neighborhood. 7) Connectivity: Fox Knob's connectivity benefits residents and emergency services. S) Slightly more compact development, with more homes served along given street frontage, benefits emergency services, balancing the fact that the narrower streets, with select curves, will slow emergency vehicles slightly. 9) Fox Knob's site design works with the natural and cropped site characteristics and the contours of property. 10) Select vegetated areas will be conserved during development; and management of same will be encouraged following home construction, based upon Property Resource Survey by DNR, "Conserving Wooded Areas in Developing Communities," and General Management Recommendations for Home owners from DNR. 11) Boulevard and couplet planting of closely spaced canopy trees, maintaining vehicular sightlines, by the developer, will establish future street canopy and enhance village character. 12) Possible reduction of lighting on the open hilltop and along the newer portion of Fox Valley Drive, through a pilot project of Rochester Public Works and RPU. This pilot project will consider the use and location of fully -shielded public street light fixtures, based upon designs and installations in other communities and Dark Sky guidelines. The fixtures can improve visibility, reduce glare and energy usage, and improve security according to some preliminary data collected. Other communities in the northern Midwest, such as Madison, WI, have used the fixtures in new development and are now retrofitting older neighborhoods, based upon the success of installations to date. 13) Parks are small, distributed and well-connected for easy, walkable use by all ages. 14) 5'-0" neighborhood sidewalk width," with greater width justified by slightly more compact center with smaller lot frontages. Existing city sidewalks, in older active southwest neighborhoods with some similar lot widths, were measured and 5'-0" is fairly common. The 5'-0" width supports uses such as two adults walking abreast, children bicycling and family walks. 15) Research has demonstrated that each lot, small to large, could accommodate a well - designed two+ bedroom to five bedroom home; master bedroom on first or second floor; one -floor or two floor living; and two or three car garage. 16) Research has demonstrated that siting homes on the smaller lots to provide the opportunity for private open space opportunities, such as front fenced courtyards and/or terraces off roofed porches toward the middle of the home's length will provide maximum benefits; zero lot lines (V-0" one side yard, 15'0" other, enhances this option). 17) Fox Knob can provide diverse housing options, suited to changing demographics and compatible with other neighborhoods by combining: 1) a slightly more compact center, of smaller lots, greens and paths, in presently cropped or wooded areas of the site; 2) larger lots at property perimeters, where older growth woods and prairie exist; and 3) careful siting of homes. 18) Fox Knob's village character will, in part, be created by smaller streets; homes closer to the street; mail delivery to distributed neighborhood center boxes, rather than rural style street boxes; view to the parks, overlooks and valley; careful siting of homes to create and retain additional views; and neighborhood encouragement of the following, a) porches, b) 12' wide driveway aprons, widened at sidewalk, if necessary, c) shared driveways, d) "hollywood" drives (center planted) beyond sidewalk, and e) unobtrusive garage locations, including side -loaded and end -loaded garages, and two car garages. Exhibit C, Variations to Setback Standards Fox Knob Special District As required in the Fox Knob Special District Ordinance, below is set forth a summary of the select variations from lot setback standards which help to make possible the layout of the Fox Knob Neighborhood, as described in Intent and Effect, Exhibit B. The Fox Knob Neighborhood The select variations from setback standards in Section 62.222, R-1 Site Appearance Standards, summarized below, are requested to help make possible the general layout of the Fox Knob Neighborhood, including the focus through the neighborhood by path and view to the western valley and overlooks; the diversity of lot, plan and siting options; and the "village scale" residential streets. Please see Exhibit E, "Village -Scale Examples, Generally Demonstrating the Effects of Variations and the Intent of Fox Knob Neighborhood." Fox Knob's village character will, in part, be created by homes closer to the street than in many newer developments; careful siting of the homes, based upon identified setbacks and covenants, creating and retaining views and saving and maintaining select vegetation; careful siting of the homes, based upon identified setbacks, to provide the opportunity for private open space opportunities; and neighborhood encouragement of. a) porches, b) 12' wide driveway aprons, c) shared driveways, d) "hollywood" drives (center planted) beyond sidewalk, and e) unobtrusive garage locations, including alley, side -loaded and end -loaded garages. The setback variations requested will help to accomplish each of these. Application for building within the Fox Knob Special District will require submission of a Fox Knob Architectural Quality Control document, indicating review of siting and plans for compliance with Special District intent, including effects on the characteristics of the lot and good site interrelationships, as outlined in the Covenants. The identified setback variations, in addition to this required review, will aide the Fox Knob Neighborhood in accomplishing neighborhood goals. The select variations will also help Fox Knob Neighborhood to respond to Rochester Land Use Principles and Policies, which provides for a mix of densities within a compact settlement pattern, as social trends indicate that there will be a need for a variety of housing to satisfy the demands of diverse family structures; and to the 21st Century Partnership's Neighborhood Task Force Report's findings that new development often does not incorporate housing for diverse groups and that the elderly, those living alone and "empty nesters" are the fastest growing population groups. Summary of Variations from City Setback Standards 1. Building setbacks, at ROW's, whether front yard or side yard of corner lot, shall be 11'-0." This setback establishes a minimum of 69'-0," face of home to face of homes, on a typical two-way street. Homes shall be built to the front yard setback, for some % of the length, as determined by the Fox Knob Architectural Quality Committee, or the entire length, except where building to that setback will damage significant vegetation as determined by the Fox Knob Architectural Quality Committee. Covered porches and garage side walls shall be counted in % when building to the front yard setback. No extensions, except for steps and eaves, shall be permitted in the required front yard setback. 2. Building setbacks, side yards, other than at street ROW's, are summarized for specific lots in (5). For all sideyards no extensions, except for steps and eaves, or fences, walls and hedges as permitted in the covenants and approved by the Fox Knob Architectural Quality Committee, shall be permitted in the required side yard setbacks. 3. Building setbacks, rear yard, are summarized for specific lots in (5). For all rear yards no extensions, except for steps and eaves, or fences, walls and hedges as permitted in the covenants and approved by the Fox Knob Architectural Quality Committee, shall be permitted in the required rear yard setbacks. 4. Required setbacks for front loaded garages on street ROW's, shall be 20'-0." Otherwise, setbacks for garages shall be the same as general building setbacks identified for the Fox Knob Neighborhood. 5. Setbacks specific to lots are summarized below: A. Lots #1 to 17, Block 1 1) Sideyard least width of 4'-0;" sum of sideyards remains 16'-0." 2) Rear yard setback remains at 25'-0." However, it is noted that saving and maintaining significant vegetation, as determined by the Fox Knob Architectural Quality Committee; building setbacks from the Decorah Shale edge; and building to the front yard setbacks, for some % of the length, except where building to that setback will damage identified significant vegetation and as determined by the Fox Knob Architectural Quality Committee, will, essentially, keep most building for lots # 1 to 15 at a distance from the rear yard setback. B. Lots #1 to 4, Block 2 1) Sideyards, except at ROW's, 8'-0." 2) Rear yard setback remains at 25'-0." C. Lots # 5 to 8, Block 2 1) Sideyards, except at ROW's, 8'-0." 2) Rear yard setback of 23'-0" (for buildable length of 81'-0," taking into account 1120" front yard setback, same as Lots #1 to 11, Block 4). D. Lots #1 to 5, Block 3 1) Lot #1, West and South sides, 8'-0" setbacks. 2) Lot #2, East and South sides, 8'-0" setbacks. 3) Lot #3, North, 12'-0" setback; East, 25'-0" setback; South 4'-0" setback. 4) Lot #4, North, 12'-0" setback; West, 25'-0" setback; South 4'-0" setback. 5) Lot #5, Northwest, 12'-0" setback; North, 25'-0" setback. E. Lots #1 to 6, Block 4 1) Sideyard set backs (a) North side 1'-0" setback (essentially zero lot line, allowing 1'-0" for footing; easement for maintenance at 1'-0" setback is covered in Ordinance). (b) South side 15'-0" setback, creating space for private outdoor space in the length of the lot. No extensions, except for eaves, shall be permitted in the 1'-0" side yard setback. 2) Rear yard building setbacks at alley ROW's, shall be 8'-0"(for buildable length of 81'-0," 3 taking into account 1120" front yard setback). This setback establishes a minimum of 34'-0," face to face of garages, on alley, and provides pull -off space for service, etc., at garage entries front loaded off alley ROW. No extensions, except for eaves, shall be permitted in the required rear yard setback. Fences and hedges, as permitted in the covenants and approved by the Fox Knob Architectural Quality Committee, shall be permitted in the required rear yard setback. F. Lots #7 to 11, Block 4 1) Sideyard set backs (a) South side 1'-0" setback (essentially zero lot line, allowing 1'-0" for footing; easement for maintenance at 1'-0" setback is covered in Ordinance). (b) North side 15'-0" setback, creating space for private open space in the length of the lot. No extensions, except for eaves, shall be permitted in the 1'-0" side yard setback. 2) Rear yard building setbacks at alley ROW's, shall be 8'-0"(for buildable length of 81'-0," taking into account 1120" front yard setback). This setback establishes a minimum of 34'-0," face to face of garages, on alley, and provides pull -off space for service, etc., at garage entries front loaded off alley ROW. No extensions, except for eaves, shall be permitted in the required rear yard setback. Fences and hedges, as permitted in the covenants and approved by the Fox Knob Architectural Quality Committee, shall be permitted in the required rear yard setback. Exhibit D, Variations to Roadway Standards Fox Knob Special District As required in the Fox Knob Special District Ordinance, below is set forth a summary of the select variations from city standards on street layouts which help to make possible the layout of the Fox Knob Neighborhood, as described in Intent and Effect, Exhibit B. The Fox Knob Neighborhood The select variations from roadway standards are shown in the General Development Plan, attached as Exhibit A to this application, and are requested to help make possible the general layout of the Fox Knob Neighborhood; good connectivity to adjacent residential neighborhoods; the diversity of lot, plan and siting options; the "village scale," connected residential streets, with traffic calming built-in; the distribution of walkable and viewable neighborhood park spaces throughout; and the focus through the neighborhood by path and view to the western valley and overlooks. Please see Exhibit E, "Village -Scale Examples, Generally Demonstrating the Effects of Variations and the Intent of the Fox Knob Neighborhood." Fox Knob has worked closely with city staff in reviewing and finalizing slightly narrower road widths; landscaped islands within select roadways (couplets); select one-way streets; select intersection angles of less than 70 degrees; one turn with a twenty foot interior radius; and select curves on two roadways. The select variations help to meet the goals of Rochester's Ordinance, Section 64.124 Connectivity: "Local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic .. and maintain connectivity between and through adjacent residential neighborhoods ...." Additionally, one alley is proposed, in accordance with city ordinances, Section 64.129 Alleys. To help in the reviews, Charlie Reiter, Planning and Zoning Transportation, identified existing Rochester streets with similar roadway widths and summarized some similar variations to standards in other communities, where, using some similar variations to standards, new village -scaled neighborhoods have and are being successfully built. Liberty on the Lake, Stillwater, one Minnesota example, received a Smart Growth award in 2000. According to Klayton Eckles, the City Engineer of Stillwater, who was contacted by the applicant's representative, at Liberty on the Lake: 1) the typical road width is 24'-0," back of curb to back of curb, with driveover curbs; 2) parking is on both sides of the street, figuring that even if you had cars parked on both sides, you would still have one lane for through traffic; 3) with driveover curbs and parking both sides, 26'-0," back of curb to back of curb, might be better; 4) the width of the streets during construction does not easily accommodate parking on both sides, so they temporarily post no parking signs on one side of the street, and take them down when construction is complete; 5) the fire department has commented that narrower streets and tighter radii increase response time (see items (7) and (8) of Fox Knob Intent and Effect, Exhibit B); 6) in the winter parking is allowed on one side of the street, using odd/even days for parking and they use a smaller plow to do the 24' -0" streets (a heavy duty one ton or a front loader) and find that plowing is less, because of less pavement, and they have had no problems with snow storage; and 7) no alleys have been built yet but there is one in a future phase. Summary of select variations from city standards on street layouts, indicated on General Development Plan, Exhibit A, Fox Knob Special District 1) ROW's used in Fox Knob Neighborhood: A. Couplets, roads with center greens, planted with trees and ground cover, no parking, and sidewalks on both sides: - at entry off Fox Valley Drive: 86'-8" ROW off Fox Valley Drive roundabout, including (2) 1'-0" beyond sidewalks, (2) 5'-0" sidewalks, ( 2) 15'-4" boulevards (these dimensions are to match sidewalks and boulevards on Fox Valley Drive), (2)16'-6" one-way roads back of curb to back of curb, and (1) 1 V-0" planted center (these dimensions are to match other couplets in neighborhood). - others: 66'-0" ROW, including (2) 5'-0" sidewalks, (2) 6'-0" boulevards, (2)16'-6" one-way roads back of curb to back of curb, and (1) 11'-0" planted center. B. Two-way roads, with parking on one side and sidewalks on both sides: 47'-0" ROW, including (2) 5'-0" sidewalks, (2) 6'-0" boulevards, and (1) 25'-0" road back of curb to back of curb. C. Two-way roads, with parking and sidewalk on one side: 42'-0" ROW, including (1) 5'-0" sidewalk, (2) 6'-0" boulevards, and (1) 25'-0" road back of curb to back of curb. D. One-way roads, with parking and sidewalk on one side: 38'-0" ROW, including (1) 5'-0" sidewalk, (2) 6'-0" boulevards, and (1) 21'-0" road, at parking locations, back of curb to back of curb. E. Alleys, no parking: 18'-0" ROW, including (2) 1'-0" sides and (1) 16'-0" road. At intersection of alley with walk between center greens: 38'-0" ROW, including (2) 1'-0" sides, (2) 12'0" one-way roads, and (1) 12'-0" wide by 36'-0" long planted center, tapering into 18'-0" ROW. F. Walk connecting Fox Knob to the future neighborhood green to the east, and crossing the alley: 20-0" Pedestrian Easement, with planting and walk to be determined. G. Western overlook: 30'-0" wide Outlot, length as indicated. H. Radii @ road turns: 20'-0" minimum inside turning radii. 2) The oval neighborhood green's one-way streets intersect with the north/south street at less than 70 degrees, which topography would allow. The angles shown were set to focus the neighborhood green toward a neighborhood overlook, significant trees and the western valley, and to connect in the future with neighborhood greens in the adjoining eastern property. The angles are considered reasonable given the very low level traffic from the one -ways onto and off a two-way street, calmed by the curve at the oval neighborhood green. 3) Select curves on two roadways, following the end curves of the neighborhood oval green. W vi u ~ U U Or y "o C � 'tot •G O u CI1 a U he . U C6 U T, W 0 U cn U ^ .. Z U tb U � U biD ' r. O N 1-4 0 w n i! 01 t:f-- "tf f 4��'aja. ;1 `r [ t_, ii iAll Mlr Fit .7.. -�•� bra VF flr�r: r A a� s' u AN tgza, IA. lig . . .... DIV Q � % t \ k\ k � Cd U (- k k § /t\20r- . *» S 2 2 2) S § § % ` 2 o o g - 7 2 6/ d C§ .; ¥ 2 0 .• .( \ [ § a 0 7 L) ~ § \ 2 % / \ k k § ` Q'0 ebZ 2 a -`� c c > � / 0 — n t 0" § m L. o 2 © _ c E g . \ / k (\ / biC S , / cn ?\ 3 . .§ � 4 2 Asa OT'. „ {51, f.. S Z 1 ! � t 3 its �tri %•c� . �'a ".• . _ - :t Ax 44 t �I-x. r.. JT ti OV all fua ff-11"If M.A., b& � Jia� { XYIt• • - � ia•� •r 9 r t � r �.._ .,._ t:.• .. 's'.. }gist=._....r^ ..�..rx� 3i P.'I.'.I F R M v o O o � b o C ,a � x y .M IJ u C O C p y C ea vs o�+ D o tC C a M C v, hD o W o U m a" o a m o o u Ir O CA C� y C .0 C U E 3 z o a rn rd cae cn r ax x bwa z o� 'D U 't7 a N 2 M E ,iONM. n�Aa .. m WE m d F& a 21 2 h L z 0 b m H cr O a' w• V n 0 p w 0 co 0 V1 w 7 CL 0 C3 CL E 0 0 N w m cr n 0C C C. O O N I 0 0 H H cr a CL c" 0 o O C 9 a Y: � � y co c. C C 70 Vi O w On 5 0 y y fl y Q Z) o a c O co o fl p 0 0 °= 0 " a n 0 w O C O CL CL o co y 0 o 0 C r. — w 0• voa C CL b 7- w r^. O 0 Q C N y O G rt• CL CD O N O 0" + ^�O O 7 �. LA o a n OC CD GO V C� q ■■� rurra ��• rrrr^enr ' qz : 4 I LO c, �^t SyF�' 1J 1 y '- R N N CJ 71 y% I�IIIIIIIWIIi'� '1` �ii I N'jY: I d 9E!:7 . i ..nun I?�.ii l�li i�'la .1e■f.e. 3'eli'� r� '!'S3 ■— ■■.■.■1 ■— I i •--!,i. k Fg.ei:'=eii.:ij: — IS4lty;7�' ,�ji'Ielii ! IQII j l i! !SS j f 8 s <s?.. !s_ s ed ' •! Y J; 1 ZA i� a. in I 0 h N T m Z 2 TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: February 23, 2001 11/�w•�I•l�ca,:67� ,. ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIVADDRESSING/ 507/265-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507l285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Proposed Special District to be known as Fox Knob SD-4. Background and Summary: In order to permit a more flexible means of new land development and redevelopment, the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes regulations necessary to permit the creation of special districts. These regulations are found within Section 62.900 of the Land Development Manual and are attached for your information. Section 60.327 identifies existing special districts and will be amended as part of this application to include the Fox Knob Special District. The applicant is proposing an amendment a portion of the Cook/Thompson General Development Plan (GDP) that lies south of Fox Valley Drive. The GDP is being considered concurrent with, and as part of this Special District application. In general, the Special District and GDP propose to develop the property with narrower roadways than typically permitted and allow for setbacks that differ from the R-1 standards. Variations to these standards are proposed in an effort to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable street that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development. The Plan has also been designed to work with, and take advantage of, the natural topography and vegetation of the site. Included with the Special District application, and attached for your review, is a draft Ordinance that includes five exhibits (A-E). The Ordinance provides findings for the adoption of the Special District and includes the purpose and intent of the District. Details are also provided, within the attached exhibits, regarding the right-of-way widths, pedestrian facilities, common lots (outlots) and building setbacks that are proposed within the Special District. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .w.a. Findings: The attached Ordinance includes findings for the establishment of the Special District as follows: Parcels A and B, together containing 18.54 acres more or less, are of special and substantial significance to the City. In the desire to encourage the attractive and innovative development of this area, the Council hereby creates a special zoning district as provided for in Chapter 62.900 of the Zoning Code to be known as the Fox Knob Special District. This determination is based upon the following findings consistent with this section: a) The area is unique, inasmuch as it will be one of the hilltop neighborhoods which connects earlier residential development on the hill and affords the opportunity to establish a cohesive neighborhood with connect local streets, and to create village - scale walkable residential streets with inviting public spaces that promote social interaction and that includes built in traffic calming. b) The development will offer diverse housing options in one neighborhood, an option not now available in newer neighborhoods in this part of the city. c) The layout is compatible with the existing terrain and vegetation and works to enhance them with neighborhood open spaces, walks and overlooks. d) The neighborhood design, while innovative for new development in Rochester, is compatible with and complimentary to nearby neighborhoods and is based on successful, built examples. Action Needed: The Planning Commission will need to hold a public hearing to consider the establishment of this Special District and make a recommendation to the City Council. A General Development Plan application is being considered concurrent with and as part of this Special District application. The Commission could consider these two items simultaneously. Separate action should be taken on the two applications, however. Following the Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to the City Council, public hearings will be scheduled with the City Council for consideration of the Special District and the General Development Plan. 62.900 SPECIAL DISTRICTS In order to permit a more flexible means of new land development and redevelopment, the City of Rochester finds that regulations are necessary to permit the creation of special districts. Such regulations shall promote the public health, safety and general welfare and shall be substantially in accord with and promote the purposes and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 62.901 Purposes: The further specific purposes and conditions supporting the establishment of a special district are: 1) The existence of a special and substantial public interest in protecting the existing or proposed character of an area or unique geological, ecological, archeological or social characteristics of an area; or 2) The existence of a special and substantial public interest in protecting areas surrounding an individual building, group of buildings or man-made features and their environs; or 3) The need to establish modifications to or to supplement existing zoning regulations to accomplish a special public purpose. 62.902 Effect: The effect of a special district designation shall be as an overlay district. The regulations established in special district legislation shall supersede the regulations of the underlying zoning district. To the extend they are not inconsistent with the special district regulations, the underlying zoning district requirements shall remain in effect. 62.903 Submission Criteria: The petition for establishment of a Special District shall be accompanied by two (2) copies of the proposed ordinance language, a summary of the intent and effect of the proposed modification, and a map indicating the boundary of the district and the boundary of the underlying zoning districts. An application fee as required in Paragraph 60.175 shall accompany the petition. 62.904 Procedure: An application for a Special District shall be processed under the Type III Review Procedure, with a Phase II Hearing Process utilized. 62.905 Notifications: Notifications for Comprehensive Special Districts shall be sent to all owners within the area proposed for rezoning and all owners owning land wholly or partially within 350 feet of the exterior boundaries of the area proposed for rezoning. For Single Purpose Special Districts, notifications shall be sent to all owners of land within the defined area of the proposed Single Purpose Special District. 62,906 The ordinance establishing a particular Special District shall contain a statement of intent setting forth the nature of the special and substantial public interest involved and the objectives to be promoted by special regulations or procedures within the district. Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Mot r. 60.327 SD Special Districts: Existing Special Districts approved by Ordinance numbers 2726, 2516 and 2247 are recognized as separate zoning districts and the plans and procedures established for each Special District will continue in force. When a Special District Ordinance does not specify the procedure or criteria to amend an approved site/development plan, the proposed amendment will be reviewed under Section 61.148. When a Special District requires a specific site/development plan review process, but does not specify the criteria by which to review the site/development plan, the development will be reviewed under Section 61.148. When a Special District Ordinance requires a two phase review, the development will be reviewed under Section 61.146 and either Section 62.708 (1) (for preliminary plans) or Section 62.708 (2) (for final plans). Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE — Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55904-4744 (507)285-8232 MEMORANDUM TO: Christine Schultze FROM: Charlie Reiter Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department DATE: January 29, 2001 RE: Summary on the use of narrow residential street widths The following summarizes the information we found regarding the use of narrow residential street widths in other communities as well as a summary of the miles of streets in Rochester at these widths and neighborhoods where they are found. In the proposed Cook -Thompson Development Plan the following street cross sections are being proposed: Description Right of Way Roadway Parkin Couplets (paired one-way roads with center green)roadways 66' Two 16'-6" One side each roadway Two Way roads/ Sidewalk both sides 47' 25' Both sides Two Way Roads / Sidewalk one side 42' 25' One side One Way road / Sidewalk one side 38' 21' One side Alleys 18, 16' Not Permitted OTHER COMMUNITY STANDARDS The concept of narrower residential street right of ways, typically considered to be part of a package of site design features referred to as Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND), has been gaining wider favor across the country in the last decade. We found a number of studies that included information from a cross section of communities that have adopted guidelines to permit the use of narrower residential street right-of-way and roadways. While the concept tended to have its roots in areas of the county where the climatic conditions are more amenable, such as in Florida, California and Washington, the use of TND principles is spreading to cities in northern climates. In our research we were able to find the following northern communities which permit narrower residential streets, as illustrated in the following table: Description Right of Way Roa way Parking BOULDER, COLORADO Residential Access Streets — designed to service up to approximately 25 homes; sidewalks provided; 40' 26' . 2-12' parking 1-14' travel Both Sides Residential Access Lanes — designed to 30' 20' Permitted jo r service 15 homes; sidewalks not required; provisions for fire equipment setup every 175' Residential Alleys 16' 12' MISSOULA, MT Right of Way Roadway Parkin Local Residential Street / 30-80 units 26' Both sides Minor Residential Collector / 80-200 units 32' Both sides MADISON WI Local Residential Street serving density<3 units per acre 50, 26' Both sides Local Residential Street serving density of 3 to 5 units per acre 55' 28' Both sides Planned Development Middleton Hills 22' One Side BIRMINGHAM MI Local Residential Streets 26' 20' Both Sides One Side ROCHESTER EXAMPLES OF NARROW STREET WIDTHS We have also reviewed the street inventory database of the City of Rochester to identify where streets in the city have been built using narrower roadway widths. As one can imagine, there are a wide variety of street widths that have been built over the years, but it is interesting to note that a not insignificant amount of mileage at narrower widths has been built. The following table summarizes the miles of local street built at various widths less than 32' As a point of reference it should be noted that there are approximately 275 miles of local residential streets in the community. Width of Street Miles of Street Mlles of Street Local 0 2.01 -I 2.51 1.66 0.62 0.53 7.32 1.781 1.78 Local 1 0.83 6.031 7.57 9.12 4.54 9.70� 37.80 10.83 13.05 Urban Collector 1 0.59 1.65 3. 0.97 6.84 0.91 0.58 Suburban Collector 1 1.26 1.26 - TOTAL MILES IN ROCHESTERI 1 15.41 Some examples of areas where the narrower street widths are found: • Area west of Edison School Building: 8"'9`" Avenues between 3'a St and 6t' St SW. Widths on the avenues are 24' to 27', with 24' the most frequently used width • 146'Ave SW between 6" and 9 ° St SW — 27' roadway width • 4 h St NE from 1 I" Ave to 15" Ave NE - 24' roadway width • Apple Ridge Subdivision in Golden Hill used 27' on the main interior streets (Regent and Haralson Lane) • Fox Hollow Court and Lane were built with 26' roadways • Kal and Kato Lanes in Baihley Heights were built with 26' roadways. • Area between South Broadway and 3`" Ave SE between 9'" St and 12i° St South — typical widths are 26' and 28' MINUTES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATIONAL MEETING FOR FOX KNOB ■ ON JANUARY 31, 2001, 6:30 P.M. AT OLMSTED COUNTY HISTORICAL CENTER In Attendance: See attached attendance list. Purpose: The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the proposed project to the neighborhood and to answer questions and document concerns or issues that may need further investigation or consideration. General Discussion: John Klopp gave a brief introduction and introduced the development team in attendance. He indicated that they would like to start construction in the spring of 2001. He presented a brief overview of the development in the area. John reviewed the GDP that was prepared by McGhie & Betts 10 years ago and also went over the proposed GDP on the Cook property; the traffic circle was also discussed. Christine Schultze discussed the project explaining that it was a traditional neighborhood design with approximately 2 units per acre density and an emphasis on resource protection and pedestrian connectivity; the Special District is required to accommodate the special setbacks and narrower road widths. Also presented and reviewed by the neighbors was the following supporting data: 1. Boards: a. Cook and Thompson GDP's on file. b. South of Fox Valley, proposed Cook GDP and preliminary Thompson GDP, set in a plan showing surrounding development to West Circle Drive and almost to Salem Road at southeast and beyond Orchard Ridge to north (included in your application packet on I Vx 17" sheet); this board clearly demonstrated that except for the most compact lots at the neighborhood's center, all the lots are comparable to various surrounding lot sizes. c. Cook and Thompson properties, graphically highlighting village greens, boulevards, sidewalk connections, overlooks, etc. d. Aerial of Cook highlighting village greens, key trees, boulevards, sidewalk connections, overlooks, etc. e. Two boards of elevations and plans rendered of village scale homes, indicating the range of size and style, which might fit on the different lot sizes. 2. 8-1/2" x I I" sheets (25 copies available, unless otherwise indicated); a. Letter from Ray Englander b. Fox Knob Neighborhood Intent (the Special District Intent and Effect, with Special District language removed). c. Village -scale examples, Fox Knob Neighborhood (Example E in applications): five spirals to circulate and discuss, which were referred to in discussion. Questions and Answers: Q. How would you compare street widths to Waterford? A. The streets at Waterford are private and probably 25'-0' wide. These streets will be 25'-0' back of curb to back of curb. Q. What about parking? A. Parking will be allowed on one side of the street. Q. Is it only the lots buffered by trees in back that have the special setbacks? A. No, they all have special setbacks. Comments by Marcia Marcoux: This development's traffic calming measures will help with the traffic calming on Fox Valley Drive. Q. How many lots? A. 41 lots ... 2.1 or 2.2 units/per acre.. Q. What are the lot frontages? A. 60' cemer lots, 90 to 100' + and 110' +. Q. What is the range in prices for lots? A. Fox Croft: $59,000 to $105, 00017ot: John really does not know ...he does not know all of his infrastructure costs yet. Q. Is $59,000 going to be the low end of the lot prices? A. John Klopp really does not know. There will be "architectural" control on all lots. Q. What is the difference in lot numbers from original GDP? A. + 18 lots on Thompson property. + 26 tots on Cook property.. Q. When there are that many more lots (and concrete) therefore, there is more run-off... what special things are you going to do to handle the extra impervious surface area? A. Reduction of street width helps tremendously and 12' curb cut on side loaded garages. Q. What about the extra run-off? A. The majority of the site drains to NW corner and goes to storm water yard in Fox Croft. Q. If John Klopp's property gets approval, will Thompson's property get approved? A. Yes, probably. Q. What types of homes are you planning on putting on the 60' x 100' lots on the Thompson property? A. Gated courtyard type of homes. Christine Schultze showed several examples. Q. How far will these houses set back from the curb? A. 22' — 0' �3 Q. Won't these houses be hard to heat? A. No, an example was shown of a square, 2-story house. Q. There is no minimum square foot set for houses on these lots? A. No. Q. Is there a built-in mechanism to protect someone from building a small home? A. No, a small house is not a bad thing, It is the quality of the architecture. Q. Are you saying that there is only one builder and you can choose from a number of styles? A. John Klapp said he has not determined that yet; no, John will NOT be building all the houses. 1700-2500 square feet per level would be typical. Q. Can members of the surrounding neighborhoods be on the architectural review committee? A. Yes, he would like unbiased professional design people. Q. Have you researched Rochester to see if there is interest in the "smaller" lot? A. Yes, Rochester's demographic is changing and there is more empty "nesters", older folks, etc. Q. Is 23nd Avenue going to be a wide road or a narrow quaint road? A. It will start out narrow, and then get wider. Q. Is it possible to have one builder with 8 or 10 designs? A. Yes, it could happen ... maybe one or two builders. Q. Liberty on the Lake ...can you walk to a Starbucks? A. No. Q. Are we going to get a Starbucks? A. Ha, Halll Q. These homes look good on paper; is there any way you can reassure us that there will not decrease our property values? A. No, but research shows that property values will not decrease ... you need to look at square footage and associated price, not the total value. Q. We would like to see if these houses are small, that they have all the nice details and amenities. A. That is the developer's intent. Q. Will people be allowed to cut trees on perimeter lots? A. Christine Schultze cannot say no trees will be cut, but DNR is doing a tree management plan and selective thinning of poor species could be an option Q. Would you explain the process for approval of this project. A. There will be a total of four public hearings on each property on a GDP, zone change, preliminary plat and final plat are required for each property. They need to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. All will be public hearings. Q. Association fees? A. Streets are public; an association would be required to maintain all the outlots. Other associations are possible for some of the small lots areas. Q. Could you describe any incentives that the City has given you to develop smaller lots? As it relates to affordable housing? A. No, the City has given the developer NO incentives. Q. is Fox Croft a Special District? If so, has the ordinance for Special District changed since then? A. Yes, it is and no the ordinance has not changed. Q. What is the time frame for development? A.. Fox Valley Drive will be done this summer, grading to start this summer and part of the homes will be built this year. Q. Have you worked directly with the Thompson property on their layout? A. Yes and they support this approach. Q. Will the Thompson's sell off to a builder to develop this now? A. No, they are not officially submitting anything to the City now. Minutes distributed to: Christine Schultz Dr. Ray Englander Consolidated Planning Department Page 14 ^' i City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes G/IL✓. Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 8. The neighborhood is against the property being rezoned. They are concerned that, if tNQroperty is rezoned and the bank does not go through, other uses could be 9. The iss"Isand concerns expressed by staff and the neigh ood can be worked out with the ink and would like to be a part of that pro s. 10. He stated that neighborhood would like the Sig se to West Circle Drive. If it were placed there, ey would be more amens o a larger sign. He also asked that, if there were a m age box on the si , the neighborhood would like to ask to place neighborhood even n it. With no one else wishing to be heard, etersson closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding the There was a general cone us by the Commission approve the restrictive development part of thgotIpplication. Mr. Brede movVIScontinue Type III, Phase 11 Restrictive De pment and Incentive Developmen eliminary Plan #01-02 and Variance #01-02 by Ho Federal Savings Bank to h 28, 2001. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motiap carried 8-0. took a break, Ms. Baker explained that she would be presenting two separate applications; 1) proposal to establish a Special District and rezone the property to that Special District and 2) general development plan. She asked the Commission to make two separate motions. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff reports, dated February 23, 2001, to the Commission. The staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that the Thompson portion of the general development plan is not in the proposal before the Commission. Therefore, no action with regard to that property should be made. Ms. Baker explained that the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual allows different methods for modifying roadway widths, roadway standards, and building setbacks. She explained that there are provisions in the Ordinance that outright permit zero lot line development. Page 15 1� City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 i Ms. Baker explained that the development proposes to modify the side yard setbacks and front yard setbacks. Ms. Baker stated that, since they are proposing modifications to setbacks within the development, different standards of roadway width and design, incorporation of common lots, open spaces, and landscaped islands into the development, staff felt that a Special District would be the best way to package the entire proposal and to administer it long term. Ms. Baker pointed out that, at the final plat stage, there would be a number of things that staff would be looking at and making recommendations on to the City Council. Ms. Baker explained that an Architectural Quality Review Committee would be established. Ms. Baker showed the proposed general development plan. She clarified that the plan includes both the Cook and Thompson portion of the general development plan. However, she explained that the amendment that is being proposed is only with regard to the Cook portion of the general development plan. She explained that the Thompson portion of the general development plan has not formally filed an application with the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department for an amendment at this time. She referred to a letter from Ray Englander, a representative of the Thompson property, expressing support of the project. Also, they plan to submit a proposed amendment to the general development plan in the future. She explained that, if staff did not have the letter from a representative of that property, staff would be reluctant to support the present proposal to the Cook portion of the general development plan, with regard to modified access points and the alley. Ms. Petersson asked if the open spaces would be open to the public. Ms. Baker deferred the question to the developer. Ms. Baker explained that the proposed amendment promotes connectivity between properties and neighborhoods. Ms. Baker stated that Lyle Felsch, of the Fire Department, informed her that the Fire Department would support the development as proposed. He stated that appropriate signage would needed to be maintained for parking. Otherwise, the roadway is acceptable as proposed. Ms. Baker stated that she received a handout titled "Neighborhood Alerr'. She explained that she received it by fax today from the consultant. She made the following clarifications with regard to the handout. 2nd bullet: The roadway width that was being proposed could be considered without doing it as a Special District and without variances. She explained that the City Council could consider modifications to roadway widths and standards through a design modification process. Also, the Ordinance permits zero lot line development. The density proposed is well within the acceptable standards for development in an R-1 zoning district. None of the lots fall below the minimum lot size standards in the R-1 zoning district. 3rd bullet: She explained the comment made on this bullet is an incorrect statement. All R-1 zoning districts allow for some non-residential uses, as long as the Page 16 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 91 property meets certain site location criteria. Rezoning the property to a Special District has no effect on whether or not there would be a commercial use on the property. A commercial use in an R-1 zoning district is limited to an office (only if it meets certain site location criteria). The general development plan is only proposing single family use of the property and open space. If a commercial use were proposed, an amendment to the general development plan would need to be made. She explained that the amendment would prompt a public hearing process. Ms. Baker stated that staff looks at the overall size of a parcel and total number of units when figuring the number of units per acre. She explained that the development would have 2.2 dwelling units per acre for the development. She explained that it was similar to several of the Baihly Heights subdivisions. Ms. Baker stated that the overall density proposed on the Cook development is lower than three of the subdivisions in Baihly Heights. Ms. Baker explained that any time property is developed there would be an increase in traffic. Staff is concerned if the traffic is increased to the level that the roadways do not have the capacity to accept that traffic. The traffic experts that she consulted informed her that all of the abutting local roadways had adequate capacity to accept the traffic from the development. Ms. Baker explained that staff has been working closely with the developer, just as they would with any other developer on an application. Mr. Werven asked if the Fire Chief stated that parking on one side is acceptable. Ms. Baker responded that, on the 25-foot road back to back, parking is acceptable. Mr. Werven asked if parking on both sides of the street were being proposed at all on the plan. Ms. Baker responded that she did not think so. She deferred the question to the applicant's representative. Ms. Baker explained that some parking bays are proposed in the development as well as an alley. She stated that the Council has the ability to permit an alley. The Ordinance requires an 18-foot right-of-way for alleys, which is what is proposed. Discussion ensued regarding where sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks would be located. Mr. Brede asked what authority the Architectural Quality Review Committee had. Ms. Baker responded that the Committee would need to be in place at the time the final plat is approved and recorded. She stated that the Committee would be looking at different styles of housing within the development. She stated that staff expects that the covenants would layout some ground rules for the different types of architectural qualities that would be looked for in the development. She explained what types of things staff would be looking for, prior to final approval. l V Page 17 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Ms. Baker stated that once the Committee approves a house plan, a set of plans would be stamped or verified from that Committee that they approved for a certain lot. Therefore, when the permit application comes to the Planning Department, staff would know that the Committee had already reviewed it. Mr. Quinn stated that, since it is an overlay zoning district, he questioned if they could restrict any commercial development. Ms. Baker responded that they could be more restrictive, However, staff does not feel it is necessary because the plan does not propose commercial development. Mr. Burke stated that the alley looks as thought it straddles the property line to the east. He questioned if it is all on the overlay district or straddling onto the adjacent Thompson property. Ms. Baker responded that it looks as thought straddles the property. She asked the applicant address that detail in specific. Mr. Burke asked who would maintain the alley. Ms. Baker responded that it would be a public alley. The maintenance of the alley would be outlined in the development agreement. Mr. Werven asked why a traffic impact statement was not done. Ms. Baker responded that certain intensities of development require traffic impact reports/studies to be done. She explained that the intensity of the proposed development did not trigger the need for a traffic impact report/study. She stated that the density is consistent with an R-1 standard. The applicant, John Klopp, addressed the Commission. He stated that Christine Schultze was present to discuss the proposed plan. Mr. Klopp stated that to the west of the development is Foxcroft, which is a Special District. He explained that they obtained the Special District in 1987. Mr. Klopp stated that the traffic calming circle would enhance the street way and help with traffic calming. He explained the street layout of the development. Mr. Klopp stated that the open space areas would be privately owned and maintained. Ms. Christine Schultze, of 503 8'h Avenue SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She clarified that there would not be parking on both sides of the street anywhere in the development. Ms. Schultze stated that Mr. Charlie Reiter, Transportation Planner, indicated that parking could be on the entry streets. She stated that he was incorrect and that they would be clear roadways. Ms. Schultze stated that the only thing that could be maintained by the association, with regard to the alley, would be snow removal, if the way it is handled were not proved satisfactory to them. Page 18 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 99 ' Ms. Schultze stated that the overall density of the development is 2.21 dwelling units per gross acre. She explained that the surrounding developments are similar in density. Ms. Schultze explained that the Fire Department has concluded that it would serve the safety interests of the City typical to most other new streets that are being built. She explained that a typical road standard in subdivisions is a 32-foot front of curb to front of curb street section with parking allowed on both sides. She indicated that a typical dimension is an 8-foot side parking lane on each side, providing a 12-foot clear driving lane. She explained that what is being proposed in the development is a 25-foot back of curb to back of curb street section, with parking on one side allocating the 8-feet. Therefore, there would be a 14-foot clear driving lane. Discussion ensued regarding dimensions of the proposed roadway. Ms. Schultze showed and discussed many drawings of what the houses and neighborhood would look like. She stated that the DNR identified trees that would be saved on the site. Ms. Schultze stated that there would be 5-foot wide sidewalks, as opposed to the standard 4- feet. Mr. Brede asked if there would be signage leading into the development. Ms. Schultze responded that she had not talked with the applicant with regard to that as of yet. Mr. Burke asked if the Architectural Quality Review Committee would cease at the end of the development or if it would deal with remodels, additions, etc. Ms. Schultze responded that the guidelines had not been designated and written yet. She explained that, at the final plat stage, all of the documents would be completed. Ms. Baker suggested that John Harford be included in the development of the Architectural Quality Review Committee regulations, since he oversees the permitting process. Ms. Petersson asked if it would be a gated community. Ms. Schultze responded no. Ms. Petersson asked if other people in adjoining neighborhoods would be allowed to enter the development. Ms. Schultze responded yes. Mr. Werven stated that there are 41 lots proposed. He asked how many units there would be. Ms. Schultze responded 41, since they would all be single-family homes. Mr. Brede asked if all the houses would have basements. Ms. Schultze responded that they have not decided yet, as the grades are still being worked out. (� Page 19 �(J City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Ms. Schultze stated that Dale Allen, of Yaggy Colby Associates, was present to ask engineering questions. Mr. Werven expressed concern with having a walking neighborhood when there are no commercial businesses to walk to. He also expressed concern with the design and width of the streets. Mr. Andy Masterpole, of McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the owner of the Thompson property. He explained that the Thompson property is not part of the proposed amendment to the general development plan. However, it is an important part of the entire Fox Knob project. He explained that they intend to submit a revised general development plan and zone change to a Special District in the future that reflects the layout that is proposed for the Cook property. Mr. Masterpole stated that they are very supportive of the proposed project. He explained that the project provides for smart growth. Mr. Mike Mellon, of 2128 Baihly Summit Drive S, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. He submitted a document showing 165 signatures from neighbors in the surrounding area opposing the proposed project. He stated that they are concerned about the impact that the proposed development would have. Ms. Petersson indicated that the general development plan Mr. Mellon was showing on the overhead projector was not the actual map of the application. She asked Mr. Mellon to only refer to the Cook Property as proposed in the staff report. Mr. Mellon stated that the standards for a Special District are very high and indicated that he did not think the proposed project meets those standards. He stated that a Special District should benefit a community as a whole, which the proposed development does not. Mr. Mellon expressed concern with the large variation of parcels within the development. He also expressed concern with density and stated that the density does not match with the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, he feels the development is not compatible with surrounding properties. Ms. Wiesner asked Mr. Mellon if he needed to drive through the proposed development to reach his home. Mr. Mellon responded that it depended on where he was coming from in the community. He stated that he moved into his neighborhood with an understanding of the way it would be zoned. He indicated that he was mindful of how the surrounding areas were zoned. He was under the understanding that the property in question would be zoned the exact same way as his neighborhood. Therefore, they would have the same criteria for setbacks, road widths, and density. Ms. Wiesner asked Mr. Mellon what his driving route was from his neighborhood. Mr. Mellon responded that he could access Baihly Summit Drive or go to Fox Valley Drive. lol Page 20 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Mr. Mellon stated that the traffic calming circle only benefits that specific neighborhood and not the rest of the surrounding communities. He expressed concern of the traffic impact on the surrounding communities. Mr. Quinn stated that the traffic engineer indicated that the streets could adequately handle the increased traffic. Mr. Mellon questioned how the green space proposed in the development would benefit the entire City of Rochester. Mr. Mellon expressed dissatisfaction with the notification distance and process by which people are notified. Discussion ensued regarding the notification distance and process by which surrounding property owners were notified. Mr. Tom Sellers, of 1102 23nd Avenue SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. He stated that the Cook portion of the general development plan is only the first step, as the Thompson property would also come to the Commission with the same request. Therefore, there would be a large traffic impact for the surrounding communities. He expressed specific concern with Fox Valley Drive. He expressed concern with public safety, as there is a bus stop and children walking to school. He also expressed concern with regard to noise, pollution, and quality of life for the surrounding areas. Mr. Sellers questioned if the developer could place commercial businesses on the site. Mr. Quinn explained that a Special District is an overlay of the R-1 zoning district. The R-1 zoning district allows for some commercial uses (i.e. office buildings). Ms. Petersson explained that the developer would need to amend the general development plan if they proposed to put a commercial use in the Special District, which would trigger another public hearing. Mr. William Hogan, of 1033 Fox Croft Circle SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. He stated that he agrees with what the previous neighbors stated. He stated that it is not fair to the surrounding property owners to only look at the Cook portion of the general development plan. Ms. Georgia Hurley, of 2124 Baihly Hills Drive SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She expressed concern of the Commission reviewing only the Cook portion of the general development plan and not the Thompson portion. She expressed concern with regard to the traffic that would be feeding onto Baihly Hills Drive and Fox Valley Drive. She also expressed concern with the overall density of the development. Ms. Hurley expressed dissatisfaction of the entire area surrounding the proposed development not being notified of the hearing process. She explained that the notification distance required in the Ordinance is not far enough. Ms. Hurley asked the Commission to acknowledge and address the traffic and safety concerns to the existing neighborhoods. She asked the Commission to deny the proposed development, until the issues are addressed. Page 21 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Ms. Hurley explained that traffic and safety has already been addressed as a concern in the surrounding communities. She indicated that speed is a major issue due to the topography and grade of the hill. She explained that, just because roadways can handle additional traffic, does not make them safe. Ms. Karen Canzanello, of 2212 Baihly Hills Drive SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She explained that she would cut through the proposed development to Fox Valley Drive to get to West Circle Drive, as it would save time. She indicated that people would use the alley as a shortcut to get through the development, which would create a safety concern. She handed a letter from the Transportation Supervisor of the Rochester Public Schools to Ms. Petersson indicating the number of children that access the school bus, Ms. Petersson read the letter explaining that there are currently 10 busses in the area transporting 257 students to 10 different schools in the district. Mr. Piet De Groan, of 1065 23 d Avenue SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed design is nice, but does not belong on top of a hill. He stated that he did not think the people who lived in that development would do much walking up and down the hill. He questioned if the Commission, Council, or City could approve a plan that half the road is on someone else's property. Ms. Petersson responded that she has a letter of support from the adjoining property owner. Mr. De Groan asked if both the properties shouldn't be reviewed at the same time. Ms. Baker asked the applicant's representative to respond to how the issue would be resolved. However, she explained that half of the right-of-way couldn't be dedicated, unless the other half has been already secured by documentation for dedication. Therefore, the issue would have to be resolved prior to platting. Mr. Dale Allen, of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed subdivision would be platted into two plats. He explained that the lots fronting the alley would be in the second plat. At that time, they foresee that the Thompson property would amend their general development plan and request a Special District. Mr. Greg Barsness, of 1129 23rd Avenue SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. He expressed concern with the original general development plan that was approved for 14 units being allowed to be expanded to 41 units. He also expressed concern with there being marginal flows of water available for fire protection in that area. Mr. Larry Radtke, of 2323 Baihly Hills Drive SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. He stated that he did not feel a Special District was necessary for that development. He expressed concern with regard to access into the area with 25 foot roads, increased traffic, and parking. He explained that there was no hardship present to change the guidelines already in place. Ms. Marilyn Theismann, of 2243 Baihly Hills Drive SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She gave a handout to the Commission and staff responding to criteria in the Land Use Plan. This handout is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Page 22 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 103 11 Ms. Theismann explained that there were many neighbors that could not attend the meeting but wanted her to express their feeling of being betrayed due to the rezoning. She expressed concern with the new neighborhood design and proposed density. She stated that, even though it is being referred to as a walking community, the property owners would still need to drive to get anywhere. Ms. Theismann expressed concern with people using the alley as a shortcut. She stated that, if the City wants to try a new neighborhood concept, they shouldn't place it in between two neighborhoods. Ms. Nancy Mellon, of 2128 Baihly Summit Drive S, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She read Section 62.902 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. She explained that the Special District legislation would supercede the regulations of the R-1 zoning district. Ms. Wiesner explained that the Special District is more restrictive than the underlying zoning district. Discussion ensued regarding what appropriate general development plan the Commission should be reviewing. Ms. Baker explained that some of the audience got a copy of an early concept plan, that is not part of the proposed application request. Ms. Mellon stated that the density of the development is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Burke explained that the proposed density is identical of what is in Baihly Heights. Discussion ensued regarding how density is calculated. Ms. Mellon read from page 72 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. She stated that, in the description of the Folwell neighborhood, it states that the developed area consisted predominately of single family homes. A larger number of the homes are on large suburban residential lots. The plan designates the area almost entirely for low density residential. Mr. Wheeler clarified that it would be a low density residential neighborhood, as listed on the Land Use Plan. He explained that the low density residential Land Use Plan classification allows such uses as townhome complexes, single family developments, area accessory uses, offices, etc. Therefore, he explained that there wasn't anything about the proposal that is inconsistent with the low density residential land use designation. Ms. Mellon stated that the Fire Department stated that the roadways do not meet minimums provided for the code. She expressed concern that code would not be met. Mr. Lyle Felsch, of the Rochester Fire Department, addressed the Commission. He stated that the code would not strictly be met. However, the Fire Department has agreed to view the development as a deviation from the code to try a new kind of development to Rochester. He explained that the plan has been greatly improved with the removal of cul-de-sacs and dead ends. He explained that Mr. Klopp is considering having sprinklers in the buildings. Page 23 ' O'I City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Ms. Baker stated that there are other standard roads being built that are in conflict with the Fire Code. Therefore, it is a greater issue that needs to be discussed among staff and Council. She explained that the proposed development is no less in compliance with the Code than most new residential roads being approved and built. Mr. Felsch agreed that there are some 26-foot existing roadways. Discussion ensued of why through streets are better for the Fire Department than cul-de-sacs, due to turning radius. Ms. Jean Williams, of 2108 Baihly Heights Drive, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She expressed concern with the Commission only reviewing the Cook portion of the general development plan and not the Thompson portion. She stated that the village concept should have a large outlying area for lakes and trails, which the proposed plan does not have. Discussion between Ms. Schultze and Ms. Williams regarding where open spaces would be located on the plan. Ms. Williams expressed concern regarding where the additional children would go to school, considering the overflow in the nearby schools. Ms. Karen Suckling, of 2207 Fox Valley Drive SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She stated that Fox Valley Drive is having a difficult time with the present traffic. She explained that they are in the process of trying to control some of the speeding issues. She expressed concern with adding to the current problem. She also expressed concern with the sidewalks being too close to the street. Mr. Klopp thanked the Commission and staff for staying late. Ms. Baker stated that the date of the Land Use Plan is 1979. She stated that, when it referenced homes on large suburban lots in the Folwell neighborhood, it was a true statement in 1980. She indicated that the Plan was written prior to any of the Baihly Heights and Fox Croft subdivisions being developed. Mr. Felsch clarified that there is not a concern about the volume of water, just the pressure. Ms. Baker asked that staff have an opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised during the hearing. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing, with staff being able to address the Commission. Mr. Werven asked what the streets in the development were classified as. Ms. Baker responded that they would be classified as local streets. Mr. Quinn asked if Fox Valley Drive would be part of the proposed development. Ms. Baker responded that the project is being constructed regardless of the proposed development. She explained that it was a collector roadway. Page 24 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 i /05 Mr. Freese, City Engineer, stated that traffic calming is being addressed for Fox Valley Drive. He indicated that the neighborhood is attempting to come to a consensus on how they plan to tax themselves for a portion of the cost. He explained that the City has a policy dealing with traffic calming where the abutting property owners pay for one-half of the cost. He explained that he has been meeting with that neighborhood for approximately one year to address the concern about existing speeding problems. Mr. Freese explained that Public Works would be happy to meet with any other neighborhoods that would like to discuss options within their area. Mr. Freese emphasized that the existing streets that have been constructed to serve Baihly Heights, Baihly Woodlands, and Fox Croft all were designed and constructed at a width that would be sufficient to carry the capacity of traffic that is being proposed in the Cook and Thompson developments, as well as additional traffic. Mr. Phil Wheeler, Director of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department, addressed the Commission. Mr. Wheeler discussed how the development is compatible with the Land Use Plan. He referred to page 14 regarding mixed use in residential areas and page 15 regarding multi -family and single-family housing being accommodated in the same development area in Chapter 3. Mr. Wheeler explained that the housing plan talks about the desirability of accommodating mixtures of housing densities, styles, and integration of neighborhoods. He explained that, every time a new development style has come into the City, there has been controversy. He gave several examples of such occurrences. He explained that there has been no evidence that shows that smaller lots adjacent to larger lots cause problems, provided there is a good design. Mr. Wheeler stated that the development is consistent with the Land Use Plan. Therefore, the Commission needs to decide whether or not the proposed development is a good design. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval Special District to be known as Fox Knob SD-4 by John Klopp, based on staff -suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion Mr. Werven expressed concern with regarding the proposed design. He indicated that neighborhoods affect one another. He also expressed concern with regard to the size of the roadways, as it will promote serious consequences. The motion carried 6-2, with Mr. Werven and Mr. Brede voting nay. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of an Amendment to the Cook -Thompson General Development Plan #114, by John Klopp, to be known as Fox Knob, with staff. recommended findings and conditions. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Mr. Werven and Mr. Brede voting nay. CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall execute an amended Development Agreement with the City to address changes to the proposed development plan for this property. The Agreement shall include, but not be limited to: ownership and maintenance of Outlots; I W Page 25 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 i maintenance of the alley; plantings within and maintenance of landscaped islands; parkland dedication; construction and maintenance of pedestrian facilities along the frontages of all Outlots, and the connection of Blocks 2 and 3 across the central court Outlot; and right-of-way dedication, and infrastructure design and construction. 2. All Outlots included in the development shall be privately owned and maintained. 3. The applicant (or consultant) shall review all intersection geometrics to determine if school bus, garbage truck and emergency vehicles can make right turns without needing to back up, especially where center islands are present. The applicant (or consultant) shall demonstrate to the City, the ability for such vehicles to make turning movements without needing to back up. 4. The applicant shall provide a map and list of locations for "No Parking" within the development. S. Right-of-ways shall have rounded block corners to allow for 25' radii and walk with ADA pedestrian ramps. 6. Park dedication requirement shall be met in the form of cash in lieu of land. Mr. Werven stated th a has resigned his position on the Commission and staff fo challenging two years. Mr. Hodgson volunteered to tak r. Werven's place on be able to attend the meeting in Ma but would begjt ADJOURN: Motion made by Mr. Staver to adigorrn, s or Chair, adjourned the meeting at :30 a.m. Respectfully Submitted: Philip H. Wheeler, AICP Ms. jig He thanked the . He explained that he would not ing in April. by Mr. Mr. Quinn. Ms. Petersson, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /O� DATE: 3-19-01 I AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ei -q uvl DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #114, an amendment to the Cook- PREPARED BY: Thompson GDP to be known as Fox Knob. Mitzi A. Baker, March 13, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on February 28, 2001 and recommends approval subject six conditions or modifications. Wiesner moved to approve this amendment to GDP #114 to be known as Fox Knob with staff suggested findings, and conditions or modifications, Burke seconded the motion, which carried 6-2. Mr. Werven and Mr. Brede voted nay. There was considerable testimony at the public hearing regarding this General Development Plan and the proposed Special District. Please see the attached minutes for additional detail. Handouts presented to the Commission at the meeting are also attached. 1. The applicant shall execute an amended Development Agreement with the City to address changes to the proposed development plan for this property. The Agreement shall include, but not be limited to: ownership and maintenance of Outlots; maintenance of the alley; plantings within and maintenance of landscaped islands; parkland dedication; construction and maintenance of pedestrian facilities along the frontages of all Outlots, and the connection of Blocks 2 and 3 across the central court Outlot; and right-of-way dedication, and infrastructure design and construction. 2. All Outlots included in the development shall be privately owned and maintained. The applicant (or consultant) shall review all intersection geometrics to determine if school bus, garbage truck and emergency vehicles can make right turns without needing to back up, especially where center islands are present. The applicant (or consultant) shall demonstrate to the City, the ability for such vehicles to make turning movements without needing to back up. 4. The applicant shall provide a map and list of locations for "No Parking" within the development. 5. Right-of-ways shall have rounded block corners to allow for 25'radii and walk with ADA pedestrian ramps. 6. Park dedication requirement shall be met in the form of cash in lieu of land. Cr Yninuu�.. ttlo— O'rcV:' See Ptik1rc. rDN4v,i�5. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the General Development Plan, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution, with findings, for Council approval. Dye . ,.;UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: NVId 1N31NdO13A30 IV'd3N30 s V10S3NNIW'S31S3H:)O1I QOOHNOgHD13N SONN X03 II!If,l i i !I I iPo'bEi� �-D,PAMENq Oohs _i IFo iCNp B SPGGr ISTia. x D. t 1 � `I yi� C / — '• "/� ii3�lltJilyli it ll lllll!�Ff{tl it �lj!ri tfii' Fi(i jia jtly`_{as•i 9dlt717�iie�1 i 9 81�� 111111 i rv. I O l o. Ir n� iitit IN loq - MATERIALS SUBMITTED DURING PUBLIC HEARING ON F E B RUARY 28, 2001 2243 dy Hills Dr. SW RochesLci, MN 55902 To the members of Rochester's City Planning and Zoning Commission: The incompatibility of the Cook/Thompson Proposal with Rochester's Land Use Plan is apparent in examining even a miniscule portion of the Land Use document. lWmint CE • p t - • r • - • t - t - • .. "...purpose... to provide a consistent set of policies applied to general geographic areas that will guide decisions affecting the use of those areas..." Responsible and conscientious home buyers investigate the plans on file for future development in an area in which they are purchasing a home. Many residents of the Baihly developments were assured by developers, builders,'and realtors that this "nice prime area" would certainly always be an R-1. To change the designation of an area surrounded by existing homes is a breach of promise. "...a basic premise ... that the community as a whole has a real interest in how private land is used." Neighbors of all areas affected by this development proposal have more than a "re interest"; in their own property, they have a very real investment, one they want tu protect. "Land use decisions have an effect on ... where mixtures of incompatible uses occur, on the stability of property values." A retired realtor has information indicating the potential of decreasing property values in areas adjacent to such a development. "Citizen involvement is important in both the original preparation and the subsequent amendment of a land use plan." When area residents were notified of the meeting at the Historical Society with John Klopp and Christine Schultz, we learned that the city, our council representative, and even the Dept. of Natural Resources have all been involved. Who among the bordering and other affected areas has been included in the planning? -1- Fxcerpts from Chapter II c 'Recommended Growth Pa A! 3. "Medium and high density housing should be developed in close proximity to commercial, industrial, and institutional centers and public facilities and services." Clearly, this proposal does not meet this recommendation. - � • 11 . 11 11 . • 1 . • � 1 � • 11 ' 1 "These issues include the problems of protecting existing and planned family -oriented residential areas from conflicts with other uses, of providing for the redevelopment of areas showing decay or pressure for conversion to other uses..." While the stated intent of this proposal is not to include commerical development, Special District status allows for this potential. Mr. Klopp also owns additional land on other side of Fox Valley Drive, and while that section is not a part of this proposal, the map on file shows similar higher density development. In addition, with the endorsement of this proposal by the owners of land adjacent to Mr. Klopp's, approval of Special District status for Mr. Klopp sets precedence for other developers. Consequently, within a few years, Fox Croft and Baihly Heights could be a sandwich with multiple layers stacked between them. If the City of Rochester wants to experiment with this kind of development, it should do so in a location where existing neighborhoods are not impacted. In Stillwater, the Liberty on the Lake development used 140 acres of annexed township land. Their development also illustrates other features of Traditional Neighborhood Development such as 6 acres reserved for commercial, and the provision for having an elementary school built in the devel- opment. Our neighborhoods urge you to keep the commitment to R-1 zoning for this entire area. Sincerely, �� p `pz,a,i Marilyn Kelly Theismann —2— °r Rochester Public Schools C� Independent School District #535 615 7th St. SW •Rochester, Minnesota 55902-2052 Office of Transportation, Registration and Records • Telephone (507) 285-6565 • FAX (507) 280.4761 February 26, 2001 Nancy Mellon 2128 Baihly Summitt DR SW Rochester, MN 55902 Dear Ms. Mellon: Per our conversation this morning, the information that you requested is as follows. This was a quick count but should be fairly accurate. There are currently 10 buses in your area transporting 257 students to ten different schools in the District. If you have any further questions, please call me and I will try to be of assistance. Sincerely, Jeff Kappers Transportation Supervisor Equal Opportunity Employer �13 February 24, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission, Rochester RE: General Development Plan # 114, an amendment to the Cook -Thompson GDP to be known as Fox Knob Dear members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission: We, the undersigned, would like to indicate our opposition to the proposed amendment of General Development Plan #114 known as Fox Knob, hereafter referred to as the Fox Knob GDP. The Fox Knob GDP, which requests rezoning as a Special District, is based on achieving the purposes of (1) "meeting the need ofprotecting the existing or proposed character... of the area. " (i.e., 62.901.1), and (2) "...to accomplish a special public purpose (i.e., 62.901.3). The stated intent is (a) to maintain a scenic view, and (b) to achieve traffic calming measures. Regulations allowing for. a Special District ......shall promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and shall be substantially in accord with and promote the purposes and policies ofthe Comprehensive Land Use Plan. " We believe that the Fox Knob GDP cannot meet the proposed high standards and therefore does not justify rezoning. The stated benefits of the Fox Knob GDP to the community as a whole are "...to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable streets that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development... in addition to working with and taking advantage of the natural topography and vegetation of the site, " and "... to achieve traffic calming measures. " The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (61.215) lists criteria for approval of a general development plan. Criteria A: The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or the means of reconciling the differences have been addressed. We believe that this proposal will increase the density in housing to levels (range 2.23 lots/buildable acre to 6.66 lots/buildable acre) that will be incompatible with the existing neighborhoods currently surrounding this property. Improved walkability in a proposed substantively overcrowded area does not protect the character of the existing neighborhood. We believe that the existing character of the neighborhood would be best achieved by keeping the existing R-1 zoning and original GDP (June, 2000). Furthermore, the proposal will increase the number of individual properties from 15 to 41 (190% increase) so that the proposed "traffic calming efforts" in the design will not have any substantive positive impact. Rather than decreasing the volume of traffic, the proposal will certainly increase traffic and thereby create traffic congestion in the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, significant roadway variances will restrict the access of emergency vehicles to this area, as indicated by the report of the Rochester Fire Department. These variances will also impede winter snow removal equipment. We request that traffic impact studies describing the anticipated increase in traffic volume, including the development of the Thompson, Younge and Cook properties be shared in a public forum. Criteria B: Compatibility in lot sizes, density, access and circulation with existing and/or permissible surrounding future use of adjacent property. This proposal is not compatible with surrounding lot sizes and density. The minimum lot size in Baihly Woodlands subdivision is 2.5 times larger than the minimum lot size proposed in the Fox Knob GDP. The maximum density of Baihly Woodlands subdivision is 3 lots/buildable acre versus 6.66 lots/buildable acre in Fox Knob GDP. Furthermore, this Special District zoning designation requests extreme alterations in setback requirements that differ from the existing R-1 setbacks and would not be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. For this reason, the proposed benefits of the Fox Knob GDP do not represent a substantive benefit to the community of Rochester. Criteria C: Mix of housing is consistent with adopted land use and housing plans. The proposed variance in lot sizes (6,030 sq, ft./lot proposed versus 37,148 sq. ft/lot existing) in the Fox Knob GDP creates an extreme mix of housing that is inconsistent with the adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. This extreme variability in lot size would be inconsistent within the presently developed area and may adversely impact upon its attractiveness and value. The existing R-1 zoning (June, 2000) designation of this property is consistent with the mix of homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. The Fox Knob GDP does not substantively meet a greater good to the neighborhood or the city of Rochester. Criteria D: Roadways must be consistent with the city of Rochester 6 year Capital Improvement Program, Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan... The existing R-1 zoning (June, 2000) designation of this property is consistent with the Roadway Plans for Rochester and meets the need of the city of Rochester. Previously noted (see Criteria A above) is how the proposed variances in the roadway widths will have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. 2 115 FA 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. 1. Street system adequacy to prevent auto stacking... We believe that the significantly increasing the number of lots in the Fox Knob GDP will increase the traffic volume, increase the possibility of blocking driveways and intersections, and disrupt traffic flow on streets. Traffic impact studies that would take into account the number of lots to be included in the total area (including Cook, Thompson and Younge properties) are not available to assess the impact of the proposed development. This criterion needs to be addressed by the City Planning and Zoning Commission and shared with the citizens of Rochester. 2. Utilities are available to directly serve the area of proposed land use. No rebuttal. 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. The existence of the neighborhood park called Younge Park would make additional public recreation areas unnecessary. The existing GDP under the R-1 zoning designation of this property is consistent with the utilities and park areas and the Fox Knob GDP does not substantively meet a greater good to the City of Rochester. Criteria F: The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal construction practices, or that, at the time of the land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. The Fox Knob GDP makes no mention of the drainage and erosion impact on the surrounding Baihly neighborhoods to the southeast of the area north of Fox Valley Drive. This is essential to preventing substantive property damage in the event of adverse weather. 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 Fox Knob GDP is described as a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). It is also our understanding that a Special District zoning designation would allow for the development of commercial property. The extreme variance requests in roadways, I Flo PAW setbacks, housing density and the allowance for commercial property development are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhoods that are zoned as R-1. In conclusion, we believe that the staff recommendations of conditions to be imposed are not in compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and have not addressed the significant problems mentioned above. To this end, we believe that the stated proposal should not be accepted and that the original and existing R-1 zoning development plan dated June 2000 should be retained. Cordially, � 'GAG 4- .Ida - Cv,o-U Cl TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: February23, 2001 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS OR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSINGIHRA 507/265-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: General Development Plan #114, an amendment to the Cook - Thompson GPD to be known as Fox Knob. Plannina Department Review: Applicant/Owner: John Klopp Wynnwood Company 1530 Greenview Drive SW Rochester, MN 55902 Designer: Christine Schultze, AIA 500 Eighth Ave. SW Rochester, MN 55902 Engineer: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Size and Location: The area includes in this GDP is approximately 18.54 acres of land located south of Fox Valley Drive and between the Foxcroft and Saihly Heights and Baihly Woodlands developments. Existing Land Use: The site is presently undeveloped. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to re -zone the property to a Special District. This application is being considered concurrent with this GDP. The GDP proposes to develop 18.54 acres of land with single family residential dwellings. Land Use Plan: This property is designated for "Low Density Residential' types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER �,er Page 2 ( General Development Plan February 23, 2001 Zoning: This property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. Streets: The GDP identifies the planned Fox Valley Drive connection along the northern boundaries of the Plan. Several new roadways are planned within the development, all are proposed to be public. These roadways include two one-way's and an alley. Roadway widths and designs differ from the established standards, and are included as part of the Special District proposed for the property. Sidewalks: Sidewalks will be provided throughout the development. Drainage: The GDP proposes to direct storm drainage to an existing storm sewer system in Fox Valley Drive, which outlets to a regional storm water detention pond in Foxcroft Subdivision. The developer has agreed to pay fees to the City for participation in the regional stormwater plan. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required when the property is platted. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. It does not appear as though wetlands exist on this property. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water are available at the northwest corner of the site in Fox Valley Drive. Water is also available at the intersection of Fox Valley Drive and the access street to Fox Knob. Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication requirements for this development should be met though cash in lieu of land. Referral Comments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Report Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. Rochester Public Works (see attached) Rochester Park & Recreation (see attached) RPU Water Division (see attached) Rochester Fire Dept. (see attached) South Zumbro Watershed (see attached e-mail) Planning Department Addressing (see attached) Reduced Copy of General Development Plan Map Previously Approved GDP Maps Referral Comments (6) Proposed General Development Plan Narrative Page 3 General Development Plan February 23, 2001 Background and Summary: The Cook/Thompson General Development Plan, approved in 1993, was done as a cooperative effort between the two adjacent parties who in the future were not going to be the developers of the land. Cook owned the west 55.12 acres and Thomson the east 37.51 acres. The original layout was designed so the crossing of property lines would not be necessary to construct the lots in the subdivisions, retaining each owners autonomy to sell their land in total to a developer in the future. The owners agreed to cooperate with utility extensions, annexation and the construction of the final segment of Fox Valley Drive SW. In 1999, Michael Younge Development obtained a portion of the Cook/Thompson GDP at the north end and amended the GDP to include additional land under that company's control and to re -align roadways located north of Fox Valley Drive. The amendment was approved. At this time, John Klopp is proposing an amendment to the Cook portion of the property which lies south of Fox Valley Drive. A petition to re -zone this property to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. In general, the Special District and GDP propose to develop the property with narrower roadways than typically permitted and allow for setbacks that differ from the R-1 standards. Variations to these standards are proposed in an effort to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable street that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development. The Plan has also been designed to work with, and take advantage of, the natural topography and vegetation of the site. This portion of the original CookfThompson GDP identifies a single cul-de-sac extending south from Fox Valley Drive, with approximately 15 single family lots with no connections to the Thompson portion of the property to the east. The amendment proposes no cul-de-sacs and includes two connections to the Thompson property to the east with a shared alley at the property line. In addition, the amendment consolidates two separate accesses to Fox Valley Drive, to serve the Cook and Thompson properties, into one shared access. Although the Thompson representatives have not signed this GDP application, and the amendment does not formally include the Thompson portion of the property, Ray Englander (Thompson representative) has provided staff with a letter of support for the proposed GDP. In the future, the Thompson representatives will file an amendment to that portion of the GDP that will incorporate the connections, alley and amendments proposed by John Klopp. Staff Suggested Findings and Recommendation: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the criteria for approval of a general development plan. 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 low density residential development, consistent with the land use designation for the property. A petition to re -zone this property to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. in general, the Special District and GDP propose to develop the property with narrower roadways than typically permitted and allow for setbacks that differ from the R-f standards. Variations to these standards are proposed in an effort to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable street that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development. 1PPage 4 General Development Plan February 23, 2001 The Plan has also been designed to work with, and take advantage of, the natural topography and vegetation of the site. 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. At this time, the applicant is proposing an amendment to the Cook portion of the property, which lies south of Fox Valley Drive. A petition to re -zone this property to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. A petition to re- zone this property to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. in general, the Special District and GDP propose to develop the property with narrower roadways than typically permitted and allow for setbacks that differ from the R-t standards. Variations to these standards are proposed in an effort to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable street that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development. The Plan has also been designed to work with, and take advantage of, the natural topography and vegetation of the site. The proposed development density and lot sizes are consistent with the `Low Density Residential designation of this property on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and are also consistent with the R-i (Mixed Single Family) residential district. This portion of the original Cooklfhompson GDP identifies a single cul-de-sac extending south from Fox Valley Drive, with approximately 15 single family lots with no connections to the Thompson portion of the property to the east. The amendment proposes no cul-de-sacs and includes two connections to the Thompson property to the east with a shared alley at the property line. in addition, the amendment consolidates two separate accesses to Fox Valley Drive, to serve the Cook and Thompson properties, into one shared access. Although the Thompson representatives have not signed this GDP application, and the amendment does not formally include the Thompson portion of the property, Ray Englander (Thompson representative) has provided staff with a letter of support for the proposed GDP. in the future, the Thompson representatives will file an amendment to that portion of the GDP that will incorporate the connections, alley and amendments proposed by John ftpp. Existing roadways within the area have adequate capacity to handle the trips that would be generated by this development. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The development density is consistent with a Low Density Residential land use designation of the Land Use Plan. The GDP promotes the development of mixed housing styles with a mixture of lot sizes. Additionally, the GDP is consistent with the Housing Plan and the standards for the physical and social environments of residential neighborhoods. A petition to re -zone this property to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. In general, the Special District and GDP propose to develop the property with narrower roadways than typically permitted and allow for setbacks that differ from the R-t standards. Variations to these standards are proposed in an effort to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public Page 5 General Development Plan February 23, 2001 spaces, walkable street that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development. The Plan has also been designed to work with, and take advantage of, the natural topography and vegetation of the site. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. The General Development Plan identifies needed right-of-way for the construction of Fox Valley Drive. Construction of this roadway is planned to be completed in June of this year. Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. The General Development Plan identifies needed right-of-way for the construction of Fox Valley Drive. The construction of this roadway is planned to be completed in June of this year. A petition to re -zone this property to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. In general, the Special District and GDP propose to develop the property with narrower roadways than typically permitted and allow for setbacks that differ from the R-1 standards. Variations to these standards are proposed in an effort to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable street that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development. The Plan has also been designed to work with, and take advantage of, the natural topography and vegetation of the site. Existing roadways within the area have adequate capacity to handle the trips that would be generated by this development. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development Page 6 General Development Plan February 23, 2001 agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Sanitary sewer and water are available at the northwest comer of the site in Fox Valley Drive. Water is also available at the intersection of Fox Valley Drive and the access street to Fox Knob. 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. The General Development Plan identifies needed right-of-way for the construction of Fox Valley Drive. The construction of this roadway is planned to be completed in June of this year. A petition to re -zone this property to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. In general, the Special District and GDP propose to develop the property with narrower roadways than typically permitted and allow for setbacks that differ from the R-1 standards. Variations to these standards are proposed in an effort to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable street that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development. The Plan has also been designed to work with, and take advantage of, the natural topography and vegetation of the site. Existing roadways within the area have adequate capacity to handle the trips that would be generated by this development. Parkland dedication for this development will need to be in the form of cash in lieu of land. There is an existing neighborhood park on the north side of Fox Valley Drive. 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 GDP proposes to direct storm drainage to an existing storm sewer system in Fox Valley Drive, which outlets to a regional storm water detention pond in Foxcroft Subdivision. The developer has agreed to pay fees to the City for participation in the regional stormwater plan. 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. At this time, the applicant is proposing an amendment to the Cook portion of the property, which lies south of Fox Valley Drive. A petition to re -zone this property Page 7 General Development Plan February 23, 2001 to a Special District is being considered concurrent with this GDP. In general, the Special District and GDP propose to develop the property with narrower roadways than typically permitted and allow for setbacks that differ from the R-1 standards. Variations to these standards are proposed in an effort to create a neighborhood that incorporates inviting public spaces, walkable street that promote connectivity and social interaction, and that includes traffic calming built into the development. The Plan has also been designed to work with, and take advantage of, the natural topography and vegetation of the site. The proposed development density and lot sizes are consistent with the "Low Density Residential" designation of this property on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and are also consistent with the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) residential district. This portion of the original Cook/Thompson GDP identifies a single cul-de-sac extending south from Fox Valley Drive, with approximately 15 single family lots with no connections to the Thompson portion of the property to the east. The amendment proposes no cut -de -sacs and includes two connections to the Thompson property to the east with a shared alley at the property line, In addition, the amendment consolidates two separate accesses to Fox Valley Drive, to serve the Cook and Thompson properties, into one shared access. Although the Thompson representatives have not signed this GDP application, and the amendment does not formally include the Thompson portion of the property, Ray Englander (Thompson representative) has provided staff with a letter of support for the proposed GDP. In the future, the Thompson representatives will file an amendment to that portion of the GDP that will incorporate the connections, alley and amendments proposed by John Klopp. Existing roadways within the area have adequate capacity to handle the trips that would be generated by this development. Recommendation: NOTE: The applicant, Fire Department and other staff will be meeting on Monday February 26, 2001 to review and discuss roadway design, including emergency vehicle access and turning radii. Additional information, or conditions, may be presented at the Planning Commission meeting as a result of the meeting. At this time, staff suggests that the following conditions should be imposed in order to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 1. The applicant shall execute an amended Development Agreement with the City to address changes to the proposed development plan for this property. The Agreement shall include, but not be limited to: ownership and maintenance of Outlots; maintenance of the alley; plantings within and maintenance of landscaped islands; parkland dedication; construction and maintenance of pedestrian facilities along the frontages of all Outlets, and the connection of Blocks 2 and 3 across the central court Outlot; and right-o/ way dedication, and infrastructure design and construction. 2. All Outlots included in the development shall be privately owned and maintained. 3. The applicant (or consultant) shall review all intersection geometrics to determine if school bus, garbage truck and emergency vehicles can make right turns without Ia-q ' Page 8 General Development Plan February 23, 2001 needing to back up, especially where center islands are present. The applicant (or consultant) shall demonstrate to the City, the ability for such vehicles to make turning movements without needing to back up. 4. The applicant shall provide a map and list of locations for "No Parking" within the development. 5. Right-of-ways shall have rounded block corners to allow for 25' radii and walk with ADA pedestrian ramps. 6. Park dedication requirement shall be met in the form of cash in lieu of land. >n3 . 00� MW -<- �0 0 0 � �� ��� � ���II<M�1{�r I nu 13.&mu. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ="" CONCEPT PLAN 5 ROCHESTER 14 Minnesota DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4"" Street SE Room 108 TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740 2122 Campus Drive SE 507-287 Rochester, MN 55904 FAX —507-21381-61-8216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 2/16/01 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for an AMENDMENT to General Development Plan #114 on the Fox Knob (Cook -Thompson. Klopp) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. The Development Agreement must be amended to address changes to the proposed development plan for this property. 2. As indicated in the text for the proposed Special District, all Outlots shall be privately owned and maintained. 3. The applicant should address if the proposed alley is intended to be publicly maintained, or whether it will be maintained privately by the Association. 4. The construction and maintenance of sidewalk along the frontages of all outlots, and the connection of Blocks 2 & 3 across the central court Outlot, needs to be addressed. 5. The ROWs should have rounded block comers to allow for 25' radii and walk with ADA pedestrian ramps. 6. The applicant's consultant Engineer should review all intersection geometrics to determine if school bus / garbage truck size vehicles can make right turns without having to back up, especially where center islands are present. 7. A list of locations for "No Parking" is required for Council Resolution. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the existing Development Agreement, with the exception of: ❖ Contribution for Seal Coat @ $0.45 per square yard of public street surface. ❖ Street signs as determined by the Traffic Division C:kTEMP\GDP114 AMENDMENT 2-01 Fox Knob (Cook -Thompson Klopp).doc ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT February 8, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning Department RE: Fox Knob General Development Plan Parkland dedication for the development should be in the form of cash in lieu of land. Based on conversations with the applicant, it is assumed that the outlots will be privately owned and maintained by an association. There appear to be three landscaped center medians shown on the plan. One of these is located in the proposed alley. The landscaping and maintenance of these by an association should be addressed in future development agreements. 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROOM 150 ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6164 FAX 507-281-6165 DSTOTZ@CI.ROCHESTER.M N.US we pledge, we deliver February 8, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Amendment to the Cook -Thompson General Development Plan #114 by John Klopp to be known as Fox Knob. 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. This area is within the Southwest High Level Service Area. Preliminary water system computer modeling indicates marginal flows will be available for fire protection for single- family homes until a more complete networking of the water system occurs with future development to the east. 3. Anticipated static water pressures will range from the mid 30's PSI to the lower 40's PSI within this area depending on final grades. We recommend that wherever the static pressures are below 40 PSI (approximately above elevation 1210) that 1 '/2" copper water services be installed from the main to the buildings to reduce the pressure loss from the pipe at higher flow rates. 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 , 0641A Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention John Klopp, Wynwood Company Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 JAN 01/30/00 U J YCA #6590 LD2 THE FOX KNOB NEIGHBORED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Fox Knob Neighborhood is approximately 18.54 acres bounded by Fox Valley Drive to the north and unplatted lands to the east, west and south. The following is a written summary of the General Development Plan (GDP) in accordance with Appendix B E-3. a) Topographic or soils conditions which, in the estimation of the applicant, may create potential problems in street, drainage, public utilities or building design and construction, and how these problems will be investigated further or engineered to overcome the limitations. Preliminary soil test pits taken at random locations within the property on relatively level areas indicate bedrock from between 6.5 feet at the shallowest to 9 feet below the surface. Additional soil borings will be completed during the engineering phases to determine subsurface conditions and the bedrock depth in the areas of construction. Steeper areas with higher erosion potential are being avoided as much as possible as indicated by the street alignments. Hydric soils as shown on the Olmsted County Soil Survey, and wetlands do not exist on the property. Decorah shale areas are present on the site, but only on slopes not being developed in the far southwest limits of the property. b) Storm drainage problems which, in the estimation of the applicant, may result in costs that will exceed normal storm drainage costs. The storm drainage does not appear to cause problems that will result in the increase of normal storm drainage costs. c) Identification of potential off -site drainage problems. Surface drainage from the property will connect to an existing storm sewer system in Fox Valley Drive, which outlets to a regional storm water detention pond in Foxcroft Subdivision. There should be no problems with off -site drainage created by this development. The developer agreement includes fees to be paid to the stormwater management plan. d) Availability of utilities to serve the area under consideration. Sanitary sewer and water service is available at the northwest comer of the site in Fox Valley Drive. Water service is also available at the intersection of Fox Valley Drive and the access street to Fox Knob. i 33 The Fox Knob Neighborhood General Development Plan Page 2 e) Identification of possible erosion problems which may arise in the estimation of the applicant. The areas of steeper slopes will be avoided where possible. The majority of these areas are shown on the GDP in the rear of lots and will not be graded. Where development encroaches into the steeper slopes, erosion control measures will be incorporated into the grading plan during final design. A general statement as to the possible phasing of any development activity to occur on the property under the control of the applicant. All streets are proposed to be constructed with the initial phase. The alley and the abutting lots joining the east will be developed as a second phase. I�q COMMITTEE vN URBAN DESIGN AND r,j.dVIRONMENT February 21, 2001 TO: Rochester City Planning and Zoning Commission Rochester City Council FROM: Committee on Urban Design and Environment As Rochester continues to grow at its record pace, CUDE believes the time has come for our community to start making tough decisions on how to manage that growth. Rochester is famous for it's quality of life and now that is being threatened by the wasteful development patterns of the past decades. If a decision to promote smart growth principals is not adopted by our community, then we may soon start experiencing the sprawl, traffic problems and loss of scenic land that is typically associated with larger metropolitan areas. There are many names for this new development direction — smart growth, livable cities, new urbanism, neotraditional development or just old-fashioned city planning — but the principles are consistent: • Encourage "infill" development, which makes efficient use of land, infrastructure and services. • Provide a mix of land uses, lot sizes, and housing options (note: Maxfield study of Twin Cities homes last year demonstrated property value fears about such mixes were unfounded)." ■ Promote pedestrian connectivity and alternative modes of transportation. • Conserve open space and preserve natural resources. The goal of this style of development is to create walkable, "village -scale" neighborhoods that are more compact, less auto -dependent, and environmentally sensitive. CUDE serves as an advisory body to Rochester on issues of aesthetics, environment and livability. In this capacity, we strongly encourage approval of projects which incorporate these new development principles, in the best future interests of our community Sincerely, _ Lee Ganske Chairperson 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE ROCHESTER, MN 55904 (507) 285-8232 It TEL Properties Go Raymond N, Englander 774 Kristen Court Eugene, OR 97401 January 22, 2001 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing at this time to support John Klopp's application for Special District "Zoning and General Development Plan Revision to the "Cook Property'. We are the partners of TEL Properties, a fimrly partnership of the Thompson family, and die owners of the panel commonly known as the "Thompson Property." Our property lies north of Belle Oaks, West of Baihly Heights, East of the "Cook Property" anti extends northward to the Knudson homestead, Three of the six partners of TEL Properties are Thompson children, having grown up in Rochester, Over the past few months we have been in discussions with John Klopp, the developer of Fox Croft acid the current owner of the "Cook Property' south of Fox Valley Drive. He has told us of his interest in developing a unique, upscale neighborhood in Southwesi Rochester that would have a distinctive flavor and yet would fit well into the existing Fox Croft and Baihly Heights neighborhoods. As we have watched his thought% take form with Christine Schultze, AiA, lending her considerable design talents, we have become enthusiastic supporters. We shall not try to elaborate on the features of the proposed development as we believe that John and Christine can do a much more credible job of that than we cdu. But let us empliasizo that the popularity of such "village -scale" homes and neighborhoods has been demonstrated repeatedly and there is quite a substantial literature available on the desirability of such neighborhoods throughout the united States. We have personally viewed very attractive developments of this type in Portland and Bend, Oregon, and outside Minneapolis, MN. These are very high -quality, desirable neighborhoods drat demonstrate improved land use, preservation of green spaces, and significantly improved walkability on boulevard -like streets which discourage through traffic. These neighborhoods tend to support a variety of tinnily sizes while optimizing livability for all. The distinctive "neighborhood" feel creates a friendly atmosphere which promotes interaction among dre residents. We believe that by discouraging through traffic, the design Christine has created benefits the adjoining neighborhoods substantially compared to the original General Development Plan on file with the City of Rochester, In summary, we feel that the proposed Fox Knob General Development Plan offers a new upscale neighborhood housing option for Southwest Rochester that would reflect well upon the community, would be a desirable place to live, and would be a boncfit to the existing Fox Croft and $wilily Heights neighborhoods. We enthusiastically support adoption of this plan and passage of the Special District Rezoning, and we look forward to participating in the development of this artistic and unique neighborhood. Please feel flee to contact us with any questions, comments, or concerns. Sincerely, TEL Properties Ravinond N. Englander, Managing Partner Elizabeth Thompson Englander Kb Gershom J. Thompson. Jr. Joyce Thompson Douglas K. Lundsgaard Victoria Thompson Lundsgaard : REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Ar'c"'nA SECTION: P. IC HEARINGS 1NG DEPT: PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Restricted Development #01-03 by 1V Street Dental. The applicant is proposing an expansion and renovation to the existing dental office which includes moving the parking lot to the south. The property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of 10th Avenue SE and 12th Street SE (Highway 14). March 15, 2001 MEETING 12? DATE: 03-19-01 ITEM NO. PREPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty, Planner NOTE: Staff would recommend that the language "final approval" be stricken in condition 1 and be replaced with "zoning certificate issuance". City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On February 28, 2001, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request. Ms. Weisner made a motion to recommend approval the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #01-03 by 12th Street Dental, with staff -suggested findings and conditions, changing the first bullet under condition 1 and condition 5 to state that the sidewalk be only from the driveway north towards 12`h Street. Mr. Stever seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Quinn voting nay. 1. Prior to final approval, a revised site plan shalt be submitted that indicates: • A 5 foot sidewalk along 10th Avenue SE north of the new access driveway only. A standard driveway approach for the new access on 100 Avenue SE. The sign being moved outside of the traffic visibility zone. • The closure of the existing accesses 2. Any needed repairs or panel replacement to the existing pedestrian facilities abutting the property along 120 Street SE (Highway 14) must be done at the owner's expense concurrent with this project. The Public Works Department will inspect the condition of the sidewalk at the time of development to determine if repair or replace is needed. 3. The existing access locations to 10ih Avenue SE and 12'h Street SE shall be closed. 4. Stormwater Management must be provided for the development. A Stormwater Management Fee will apply for participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan, if on -site detention is not provided. Separate grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to development. 5. Construction of a five (5) foot concrete sidewalk is required, concurrent with construction of the addition at the owner's expense, along the entire frontage of 10th Avenue SE north of the new access driveway only. 6. The applicant is required to upgrade the existing water service to the existing building from a !14 copper line to a 1 % copper line and the water meter shall be increased to all to accommodate the increased loading. The applicant shall also abandon the existing water service line to the house shown at 1212 10ih Avenue SE per the requirements of the Rochester Public Utilities Department. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department information on the exterior lighting that it complies with light standard "A" in Section 63.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: r Page 2 l 36 RCA March 15, 2001 Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated, February 23, 2001. Council Action Needed: if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving with conditions, or denying this request based upon the criteria included in the staff report. 2. The applicant has requested the Council waive the need for a Final Plan phase for this project as allowed in Section 60.532, 6 which is attached. Staff recommends approval to waive the Final Plan phase since the request will meet the criteria included in Section 60.532.6. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated February 23, 2001 2. Minutes of February 28, 2001 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on March 19, 2001 the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. James A. Strapko, Architect 61 in the Council / Board Chambers in p' (0 LrVQ Page 3 RCA March 15, 2001 32 Phase II Hearing Process: The Phase 11 Procedure shall be as set forth below: 6) The Council shall have the power to waive subsequent review phases in a multi -phase review process if requested by the applicant upon findings that: a) The information considered during the Phase II Hearing Process is sufficient in nature to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements set forth in this ordinance. b) That waiver of the subsequent review phases will not interfere with the purposes and intent of this ordinance. c) That the applicant has provided assurance that all conditions or modifications attached to approval of the project will be met. This assurance shall include, but shall not be limited to, the filing of revised plans, the provision of necessary bonds or other surety to cover the completion of projects, or the filing of necessary legal documents. r q2 r |o 9§lt �&.!i !| !I \\ fill -- atl^.„ ram' Igaq Y+a16 TEI rlyp EgGYI ,-,,,,,, ����, .erunOaxw .w re+ re-.o-ra fNDIUAT] xD1tl111] ND11vADN]8/MDIWDY 1JW0 TLI80 i 1 i fg aN 2 4 2r y { Ilm "INA PGN WIN LLY0. ll FAF Feb—UZ-U1 14[1nr '.UZO 6". 8'—O" 4.-0" 1 9'—O" 6" X 6" CEDAR F051`5 R' — O" 0C. MAX. 9 INCH 1HICK CONCPET? 5LAD 10 INCHE5 THICK Af EDGE 5 F2 — 2 X 6 HEAOEK OVEI', GAZE — CEDAP m LEf INFO EACH 51M Of F051' CHAMFEP OP — CE APVE? FEPDEI — O" 3 -0"GATE----- REFUSE ENCLOSURE P 1/2" a I, -Oil JAMES A. STRAPKO, ARCHITECT, LTD. ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR OESICN 4157 Minnehaha Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 728-4112 12TH STREET DENTAL 02-02-01 sD-ADDI DENTAL OFFICE ADDMON/RENOVATION REVISIONS 2 Bernard Bouquet, DDS h Jeeeph Becker, DDS 1000 12 Street SE Rochester, Minnesota DF 4 m-H rcu-vc-v.. l� r . U4 / 3-_0,. rwr OPENING 2 X 8 CAP LAJ12 FLAT OVEP HEAGER CHAMFER TOP — CEDAP. Cs4TE S R 1/2" = I'-011 2— 2 X 6 HEAPer OVEN GATE — CEPAR LEf INTO EACH 51M OF P05f I X 6 FICKEf5 ANCHOR f0 Frzmt WOOF: CEPAP NN15H: 50I.II7 SfAJN 5EE FIN15H 50tPU-E STEEL "U" OPACKEf Af HINGE5 TWU DOLT STEEL TIM FPPJJV: 11/ 2 INCH 5GUArE 5ECT10N 50FACE 60Lf 110 51,AO 12 JAMES A. STRAPKO, ARCHITECT, LTD. 12TH STREET DENTAL 02-02-01 so-ADD1 ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN DENTAL OFFICE ADDMON/RENOVATION REVISIONS Bernard Bouquet, DDS k Joseph Becker, DDS 4157 Minnehaha Avenue South 11)06 12 Street SE Minneapolis, MN 55406 (612) 729-4112 Rochester, Minnesota OF 4 M9d 5 3MAAONM1 US / x � t s I 10 P" i TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission IRA xm4�i� ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATIOW 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSI NG1 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: February 23, 2001 RE: Type III, Phase II Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #01-03 and Variance #01-04 by 12th Street Dental. The applicant is proposing an expansion and renovation to the existing dental office which includes moving the parking lot to the south. The applicant is also requesting a variance to Section 63.250 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual on the site location requirement for offices located in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning District. The property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of 10th Avenue SE and 12th Street SE (Highway 14). Plannina Department Review Applicant: 12th Street Dental Attn: Bernard Bouquet/Joseph Becker 1008 12th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 Consultant: James Strapko Architect Ltd Attn: James Strapko 4157 Minnehaha Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 Property Location and Size: The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of 10h Avenue SE and 12'1' Street SE (Highway 14). The total site area is 18,513 sq. ft. or approximately .42 acres. Zoning: The property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. :i AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 12" Street Dental Page 2 of 9 Adjacent Land Use: North: Across 12th Street SE is property zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district. South: A single family home. This property is zoned as R-2 (Low Density Residential). East: At the southwest corner of the Highway 14 and 11'h Avenue intersection is the multi -family residential building. There are also some single- family residential dwellings located to the east. This property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. West: Across 101h Avenue SE are single-family residential dwellings, which are zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district on the zoning map. Summary of Proposal: The applicant is proposing a do some remodeling work and also adding an addition to the building. The total size of the building would be approximately 3,553 square foot. The exterior of the building is proposed to be tan vinyl siding with white trim work. The main entry to the building would be shifted to the south side and the signage moved to the west closer to the intersection. The approximate square footage of the sign is 23.9 sq. ft and would have ground light fixtures. The site is also proposed to be modified by removing the existing parking lot and eliminating the existing access to 12th Street SE. The parking lot is proposed to be moved further to the south. A 4 foot high white picket fence is proposed to run along the westerly, southerly and easterly side of the parking lot. The proposed bufferyards meet the ordinance requirements. Utilities: Utilities already exist on the site. According to the RPU — Water Division the existing water service to the building will need to be upgraded to a 1 Y2" copper service line and the water meter will need to be increased to a 1" to accommodate the increased loading proposed. Also the existing water service line to the house that will be demolished will need to be abandoned property at the water main in the street per the RPU requirements. l / 12'h Street Dental J Page 3 of 9 11 Referral Agency Comments: Rochester Public Works Department Rochester Fire Department RPU Water Division Attachments: Location Map Site Plans Referral Comments (3 letter) Letters from neighboring residents EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 2785 (City of Rochester Zoning and Land Development Manual), offices are considered either a permitted use or a conditional use in the R-2 zoning district. This application proposes an expansion of existing dental office in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. In this case the proposal is considered a Restricted Development (conditional use permit) based on the square footage of the building. The review of a Restricted Development is necessary to insure that it will not be of detriment to and is designed to be compatible with land uses and the area surrounding its location; and that is it is consistent with the objectives and purposes of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan. The applicant is also requesting a variance to the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The variance is to the site location requirement for an office in the R-2 zoning district. The site location requirement for an office is "A". Which means that the office must be located at the intersection of a collector street and a higher order street or at the intersection of two higher order streets. It this case the dental office is located at the intersection of an Expressway and a local residential street, thus not meeting the site location requirement. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applications are being reviewed concurrently through the Type III, Phase II process. The Planning Commission is the designed hearing body for the Variance application. The Common Council will be the designed hearing body, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, for the Restrictive Development portion of the application. The Restricted Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (Section 62.700) recognize that certain land uses which are generally not allowed within a given zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standards zoning regulations". This application requires a two step review process, consisting of a preliminary plan and a final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows the Type III, Phase II, procedure with a hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council. The applicant has requested that the final plan phase be waived by the Council. 12" Street Dental Page 4 of 9 r51 The Planning Staff offers the following comments concerning each of the 11 criteria (section 62.708) on which the Preliminary Development Plan is to be evaluated: (A) Capacity of Public Facilities: This proposal will require that the existing water service to the building will need to be upgraded to a 1 %:" copper service line and the water meter will need to be increased to a 1" to accommodate the increased loading proposed. Also the existing water service line to the house that will be demolished will need to be abandoned property at the water main in the street per the RPU requirements. (B) Geologic Hazards: This site is not known to contain any of the listed geologic hazards. No Wetlands are located on the site. (C) Natural Features: The site relatively level but would be graded to drain to the west. Some of the existing vegetation will remain on the site. Additional trees, shrubs and/ or bushes are proposed to be planted in order to meet the bufferyard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (D) Residential Traffic Impact: a) The proposed addition should not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets. The present use of the property is a dental office and the property will be still be used as a dental office. The entrance into the property is the first access point on the east side of 10w Avenue SE. With the access point being the first access point on the east side of 10t' Avenue SE, very minimal traffic from the dental office should be driving through the residential neighborhood to get to the dental office. b) This proposal will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets. c) This development will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets. (E) Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of the adjacent streets to be exceeded. (F) Height Impacts: The current height of the building is not changing, the building is staying as a single story building. (G) Setbacks: The proposed addition meets or exceeds the required setbacks for an office in the R-2 zoning district. The parking lot meets the required setbacks and provides the required buferyards. (H) Internal Site Design: The proposed layout of the property removes an access to 12t" Street SE (Highway 14) which is designated as a Expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan. The applicant is providing 4 additional parking spaces than what is required in the Zoning Ordinance. 12" Street Dental ( Page 5 of 9 (I) Screening and Buffering: The landscape plan includes the required bufferyards for an office building located in the R-2 zoning district. The landscape also identifies a 4 foot high white picket fence running along the westerly, southerly and easterly sides of the parking lot. The required bufferyard plantings will be planted on the outside of this fence along the property boundaries. The proposed screening for the refuse storage area meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (J) Ordinance Requirements: The applicant has filed a request for a Variance to Section 63.250 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, to allow a dental office which does not meet the site location standards. (K) General Compatibility: The proposed expansion does seem compatible with the existing neighborhood. When the building was constructed in 1965, it was built has a dental office and has operated as a dental office since that time. With the proposed expansion of the building, the use isn't changing greatly from what already exists on the site. The changing of the exterior of the building could actually have the building become more compatible with the adjacent land uses. The parking lot will be screened from the adjacent properties by the required bufferyard plantings and construction of a 4 foot high wood picket fence running along the easterly, southerly and westerly sides of the parking lot. Variance: Section 60.417 (attached) establishes the guidelines for a variance. In this case the staff suggests the following findings: EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: There would appear not to be extraordinary circumstance or conditions that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other properties in the area. However the property has been used as a dental office since 1965. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance is not necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property. The existing dental office could remain as is and continue to operate without the proposed expansion. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENTAL: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The property has been used as a dental office since the mid 1960's. The proposed landscaping on the property should buffer the adjacent properties and the plantings and fence meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the site location requirement for an office building in the R-2 zoning district. This finding would not pertain in the case of denial. 12" Street Dental Page 6 of 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Variance: The Planning Commission will need to consider the Variance request to Section 63.250 and determine whether the Variance should be approved or denied, as part of this application. The Commission makes a decision on the Variance and adopts findings. The City Council will only hear the Variance request if the Commission's decision is appealed to the Council. Restrictive Development: Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with the applicable standards and provisions, as included in this report. Based upon staff review and the analysis included above, staff recommends approval of the Restrictive Development application subject to the following conditions or modifications 1. Prior to final approval, a revised site plan shall be submitted that indicates: A 5 foot sidewalk along 10'h Avenue SE. A standard driveway approach for the new access on 10'h Avenue SE. • The sign being moved outside of the traffic visibility zone. • The closure of the existing accesses. 2. Any needed repairs or panel replacement to the existing pedestrian facilities abutting the property along 12`h Street SE (Highway 14) must be done at the owner's expense concurrent with this project. The Public Works Department will inspect the condition of the sidewalk at the time of development to determine if repair or replace is needed. 3. The existing access locations to 10'h Avenue SE and 12`h Street SE shall be closed. 4. Stormwater Management must be provided for the development. A Stormwater Management Fee will apply for participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan, if on -site detention is not provided. Separate grading and drainage plan approval is required prior to the development. 5. Construction of a five (5) foot concrete sidewalk is required, concurrent with construction of the addition at the owner's expense, along the entire frontage of 10'h Avenue SE. 6. The applicant is required to upgrade the existing water service to the existing building from a %" copper line to a 1 '/2" copper line and the water meter shall be increased to a 1" to accommodate the increased loading. The applicant shall also abandon the existing water service line to the house shown at 1212 10h Ave. SE per the requirements of the Rochester Public Utilities Department. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department information on the exterior lighting that it complies with lighting standard "A" in Section 63.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. 12'h Street Dental Page 7 of 9 r. CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or a modification for unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712. 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: A. Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. B. Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. C. Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. D. Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1. Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2. Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3. Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; E. Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. F. Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: 1. Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 12ih Street Dental Page 8 of 9 155, 2. Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. G. Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. H. Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. K. General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. 60.417 Findings for Variances: In taking action on a variance request, the approval authority shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines: 1) The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the same class of zoning district; and b) the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; and c) the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and d) the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of the property. The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property. In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in such a 12'h Street Dental � l YYY+++ Page 9 of 9 manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance. 2) The Board may grant a variance to the literal provisions of this ordinance if it finds that: a) there has-been substantial and detrimental reliance in good faith by an applicant who has received a permit or certificate issued in error by the administrative official charged with enforcement of this ordinance, and b) the mistaken issuance of the certificate or permit is not the result of an action on the part of the applicant, the property owner, or any other person or party who has had control of the property, to provide misleading or incorrect information, or to knowingly withhold information necessary for the administrative official to accurately review the permit or certificate request. 3) The Board shall under no circumstances grant a variance that will allow a use otherwise not permitted within the zoning district or any variance of the elevation or levels for flood protection. 4) In granting a variance, the zoning administrator or the Board may impose such reasonable and appropriate conditions and safeguards as may be necessary to accomplish, to the extent possible under the circumstances, the purposes of the regulations or provisions which are to be varied or modified and to reduce or minimize potentially injurious effects of the variance upon adjoining properties, the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. A variance and any conditions and safeguards which were made a part of the terms under which the variance was granted are binding upon the applicant and any subsequent purchaser, heir, or assign of the property, and any violation of a variance or its conditions and safeguards shall be a violation of this ordinance and punishable as such. ROCHESTEK Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 2/16/01 (5? DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 Public Works has reviewed the requested Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #01-03 & VAR#01-04 for the 12'h St Dental (l0a' St SE & T.H. 14) property. The following are Public Works Comments on the proposal: 1. Separate Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development for this project. 2. Stormwater Management must be provided, and a Stormwater Management Fee will apply for participation in the City's regional Stowmwater Management Plan, if on -site detention is not provided. 3. If the extension of public watermain and/or the addition of hydrant(s) is required for this project, the execution of a City/Owner Contract, and dedication of the applicable utility easement will be needed, prior to the construction. 4. The condition of existing sidewalk along the frontage of T.H. 14 will be reviewed by Public Works. Any needed panel replacement, and/or repair work shall be done concurrent with the construction for the proposed addition. 5. Construction of a five (5) foot concrete sidewalk is required, concurrent with construction for this addition, and at the Owner's expense, along the entire frontage of 101s Ave SE. 6. The existing access locations to 10'h Ave SE & 12`^ St SE (T.H. 14) shall be closed as indicated on the prior site plan submitted by the applicant. 7. Prior to final approval, a revised site plan should be submitted that indicates the closure of the existing accesses, as well as, sidewalk along 10ih Ave SE, and a standard driveway approach for the proposed new access. 8. The proposed sign location would need to be relocated approximately 9 feet south to meet visibility triangle standards. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of this property: A Stormwater Management charge T ID, if on -site detention is not provided. M el we pledge, we delver February 8, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development, Preliminary Plan #01-03 and Variance #01-04 by 121h Street Dental to allow for the expansion and renovation of the existing dental office and parking lot and to vary the site location requirements. Dear Ms. Garness: Our review of the referenced Restricted Development Request is complete and our comments follow: 1. Our records indicate that the existing water service to this building is'/4" copper line. Based on the information provided this will need to be upgraded to a 1 '/2" copper service line and the water meter will need to be increased to a 1" to accommodate the increased loading proposed. 2. The existing water service line to the house shown at 1212 10`h Ave SE, that will be demolished to make room for the parking lot, will need to be abandoned properly at the water main in the street per our requirements. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, "MA woaL Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau 12`h Street Dental, Owner James Strapko Architect, LTD Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 rsq MAI Feb. 20,2001 to:Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department Attention:Brent Svenby,Planner Written comment of TypeIH,Phase H Restrictive Development Plan #01-03 and Variance #01-04 by 12' Street Dental. From Jeff O'Toole, 1226 100' Ave. SE I am interested that Eileen Ebertoski of 1216 10' Ave. SE has her privacy protected to her satisfaction Thank you, Jeff O'Toole M Feb. 20,2001 to:Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department Attention:Brent Svenby,Planner Written comment of TypeHI,Phase II Restrictive Development Plan #01-03 and Variance #01-04 by 12'° Street Dental. My name is James Kalass and I reside at 1226 10'h Ave. SE which is located 1 lot from the proposed project. I would like to have the employee and clients cars in the proposed parking lot rather than on the street as they currently are. It would facilitate a more complete snowplowing and street sweeping. I am also interested that Eileen Ebertoski ,who resides at 1216 10' Ave. SE, has her privacy protected by a wall or some kind of barrier. I am unable to attend because of a trip. Sincerely, James Kalass 16( JAMES A. STRAPKO, ARCHITECT, LTD. /\ 4157 Minnehaha Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55406 (612) 729-4112 fax: 729-4931 - ---�- Memorandum Date: January 31, 2001 To: Brent Svenby, Planning Department Rochester — Olmstead 507-285-8232 voice 507-287-2275 fax Project: 12th Street Dental Dental Office Building Addltlon-Renovation Owner. Bernard J. Bouquet, DOS Joseph G. Becker, DOS 1008 12n Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 507-282-6448 voice 507-287-8846 fax 1. 1 have transmitted drawings supporting the Owners' application for site plan review. You should be receiving e p�gy ditional su ortin materials are required or advisable, please let us know. 2. 1 request a waiver of final plan review. END OF MEMORANDUM —� Tn, 4 HTC_TT TfI -TC-U 2f` Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Mr. Stayer uestioned if condition number 7 could be removed since the last part o the wording of conditio umber 4 accommodates the secondary access issue. Ms. Baker res ded that she discussed with Mr. Tointon and Mr. Freese p tial language that would show in the development agreement. She indicated that co ion number 7 could be eliminate ntirely or it could be reworded to state that the met for secondary access must be Ind ed in the development agreement, prior to final approval. Mr. Staver suggested r oving condition number 7. Mr. Staver moved to ame the original motion to remov aff-suggested condition number 7. Mr. Brede seco ed the motion. The original motion recomme Ing approval of Pre' inary Plat #01-04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to b nown as Kings Hills Second carried 8-0. The motion to amend the original tion to re ove condition number 7 carried 8-0. 1. Pedestrian facilities are requirec Including along the road front shall be built concurrent wit o dedicated to the City. both sides of all new public roadways tlot A. Pedestrian facilities on Outiot A ion work of this plat. Outlot A shall be 2. Parkland dedications be met via: c\Rochter f land per the attached memo from Rochester Park Recreation Depted February 16, 2001. 3. The Developer sh prior to Final Plat secute an amended Development Ag ment with the City ofthat addresses, in part, temporary acc to the site during recoof 55ei Street NW, extension of sanitary sew rom the Wedgewood Hillnd construction of a secondary cess to serve this develop /Approv ust be received by the Fire Prevention B of flow for fire protection being below then Bureau. ry turn -a -round easement at the southerly e: be executed with the City prior to recording regarding the temporary um allowed by the Fire � of "King Arthur Drive al plat documents. 2pe III. Phase 11 Restrictive Development Preliminary Plan #01-03 and Variance #01.04 by 12° Street Dental. The applicant is proposing an expansion and renovation to the existing dental office which includes moving the parking tot to the south The applicant is also requesting a variance to Section 63.250 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual on the site location requirement for offices located in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning district The property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of 10m Avenue SE and 120 Street SE (Hi-ghway 14) Page 8 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated February 23, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Werven stated that there were two letters in the staff report from neighbors expressing concern with privacy for a fellow neighbor. Mr. Svenby explained that staff felt that the 4-foot high wood picket fence and bufferyard would screen the dental office from the adjacent property. He further explained that the office does not operate in the evening hours. One of the applicants, Bernie Bouquet, addressed the Commission. He stated that the access to Highway 14 would be closed, the amount of traffic would not increase, there would be additional buffering, and they would exceed the landscaping requirements. He explained that the present parking lot has space for 14 vehicles. The proposed parking lot would accommodate 22 parking spaces. Therefore, they should not need to have individuals park on 10th Avenue. He expressed concern with adding a sidewalk that would not lead anywhere. Mr. Staver asked the applicant if additional lighting was proposed. Mr. Bouquet showed the lighting plan on an overhead projector. Discussion ensued regarding the landscaping plan. Mr. Hodgson asked if the two mature pine trees that are planned on being removed could be staved. Mr. Bouquet responded that he did not think they could be saved. Ms. Dana Schulz, of 1215 10' Avenue SE, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She stated that she approves of the request, as long as the cars in the street get moved onto the expanded parking lot. She stated that, from what she has discussed with her neighbors, they would rather not have a sidewalk constructed on the other side of the street. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner asked staff if there is an option to eliminate the sidewalk. Mr. Richard Freese, of Rochester Public Works, responded that the could work with the applicant. He stated that there is no entrance to the facility from 12 Street. Therefore, any pedestrians coming to the facility from 12a' Street would have to go south on 10a' Street and cross the street at the driveway. Mr. Freese indicated that his position is that the sidewalk should be along 10a' Street of the building. He explained that it does not mean that additional sidewalk would be installed on that block. He explained that the only way the City could do that would be through a series of public hearings that they would receive notice of. Mr. Wiesner stated that the Commission would listen to the public if they wanted a sidewalk. Therefore, she indicated they should listen when they indicate they do not want one. Page 9 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Mr. Freese responded that he would still prefer that the sidewalk remain because it would provide a benefit. Ms. Wiesner moved to approve Variance #01- suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the FINDINGS: EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: r 12" Street Dental based on staff - on. The motion carried 8-0. There would appear not to be extraordinary circumstance or conditions that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other properties in the area. However the property has been used as a dental office since 1965. REASONABLE USE: The granting of this variance is not necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property. The existing dental office could remain as is and continue to operate without the proposed expansion. ABSENCE OF DETRIMENTAL: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare. The property has been used as a dental office since the mid 1960's. The proposed landscaping on the property should buffer the adjacent properties and the plantings and fence meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. MINIMUM VARIANCE: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship would be a variance to the site location requirement for an office building in the R-2 zoning district. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase II Restrictive Developme Preliminary Plan #01-03 by 12" Street Dental, with staff -suggested findings and conditions, changing the first bullet under condition 1 and condition 5 to state that the sidewalk be only from the driveway north towards 12ei Street. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Quinn voting nay. CONDITIONS: 1. Prior to final approval, a revised site plan shall be submitted that indicates: • A 5 foot sidewalk along 14"' Avenue SE north of the new access driveway only. • A standard driveway approach for the new access on 10"' Avenue SE. The sign being moved outside of the traffic visibility zone. • The closure of the existing accesses. 2. Any needed repairs or panel replacement to the existing pedestrian facilities abutting the property along 12`h Street SE (Highway 14) must be done at the owner's expense concurrent with this project. The Public Works Department will inspect the condition Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 of the sidewalk at the time of development to determine if repair or replace 3. The existing access locations to 10th Avenue SE and 12'h Street SE shall be closed. 4. Stormwater Management must be provided for the development. A Stormwater Management Fee will apply for participation in the City's Regional Stormwater Management Plan, if on -site detention is not provided. Separate grading and drainage plan approval Is required prior to the development. 5. Construction of a five (5) foot concrete sidewalk is required, concurrent with construction of the addition at the owner's expense, along the entire frontage of 10th Avenue SE north of the new access driveway only. 6. The applicant is required to upgrade the existing water service to the existing building from a 3/4" copper line to a 1 '/2" copper line and the water meter shall be Increased to a 1" to accommodate the increased loading. The applicant shall also abandon the existing water service line to the house shown at 1212 10`h Ave. SE per the requirements of the Rochester Public Utilities Department. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department information on the exterior lighting that It complies with lighting standard "A" in Section 63.210 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff staff report is on file at the Rochester Mr. Svenby stated that the applicant subrr on Monday to the Rochester -Olmsted Plai Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the staff portion be tabled. However, the aF table the request. dated February Z,' 001, to the Commission. The :d Planning Depertment. a similar bank facility in Spring Valley it. These pictures are on file at the in the N report that the incentive development Id like theXommission to take action rather than Mr. Svenby explained that drive- facilities are not permitted i he R-1 zoning district. Therefore, that is why staff su ested the applicant go through t estrictive development application process for the a -up facilities. /Ps REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 03-19-0 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING M DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #01-04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc., to known as Kingsbury Hills Second. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 20.59 acres into 77 lots for single family development and one outlot. The Plat also includes the dedication of right-of-way for five public roadways including 55ti Street NW. The property is located south of 55ti' Street NW, west of the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision and Wedgewood Hills Development. March 13, 2001 ITEM f NO. s, - (0 PREPARED BY: Theresa Fogarty, Planner 11, NOTE: The applicant submitted a REVISED Preliminary Plat prior to the February 28, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, addressing the staff suggested modifications stated in the staff report, dated February 22, 2001. Based on the revised preliminary plat submitted, staff recommended to the Planning Commission removal of condition #1 from the staff report. The Commission also approved removing condition #7 from the staff report City Planning and Zoninq Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 28, 2001 to consider this preliminary plat. The applicant's representative, Mr. Bill Tointon of McGhie and Betts, addressed the Commission. Mr. Tointon expressed concern with condition number 4, relating to the development agreement. He asked for the condition to be incorporated With condition number 7 to state that they need to have the secondary access addressed and that the provision for the secondary access, both temporary and permanent be addressed in the amended development agreement. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following conditions or modifications: 1. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways including the road frontage of Outlot A. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A shall be built concurrent with construction work of this plat. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: cash in lieu of land per the attached memo from Rochester Park and Recreation Department, dated February 16, 2001. 3. The Developer shall, prior to Final Plat submittal, execute an amended Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that addresses, In part temporary access to the site during reconstruction of 55 h Street NW, extension of sanitary sewer from the Wedgewood Hills property and construction of a secondary access to serve this development. 4. Approval must be received by the Fire Prevention Bureau regarding the temporary condition of low for tire protection being below the minimum allowed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 5. A temporary turn -a -round easement at the southerly extent of "King Arthur Drive NW' must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Preliminary plat #0"4 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be known as Kingsbury Hills Second, with staff -suggested conditions, with the exception of removing staff's suggested condition number 1. Mr. Hodgson seconded the motion. _JUNCILACTION: Motion Second by: Page 2 Preliminar(j Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second Mr. Staver moved to amend the original motion to remove staff -suggested condition number 7. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The original motion recommending approval of Preliminary Plat #01.04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be known as Kingsbury Hills Second carried 80. The motion to amend the original motion to remove condition number 7 carried 8-0. Planninq Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated February 22, 2001. 1. The Council may approve, apF Council must make findings motion to deny must include fifteen findings for denial in pa Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated February 22, 2001. 2. Minutes of the February 28, 2001 CPZC Meeting. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 1 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 19, 2001 the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie & Betts in the Council Chambers at Ilo1J V1 1170tl we pledg<, we Gelwer March 5, 2001 Mr. William Tointon McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3 d Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 11CUNIM& LI IJ INN 5(.17-288-7333 REC'D MAR 0 8 2001 RE: Kingsbury Hills Second Water System Computer Modeling. Dear Mr. Tointon: In response to your letter of February 28, 2001 we have completed the water system computer modeling (Peak Day Scenario) for the above referenced area and the results are as follows: 1. With the current system network the approximate static pressure at the worst (highest) point in the proposed subdivision will be approximately 43 PSI with approximately 1180 GPM @ 20 PSI available for fire protection. This is below the minimum of 1500 GPM @ 20 PSI required by the Fire Prevention Bureau in a residential area. 2. With planned water main connection this year from 57 ° St. NW to 55 h St. NW through the Seeger property as noted in your letter, the approximate static pressure at the worst (highest) point in the proposed subdivision will be approximately 44 PSI with approximately 1704 GPM @ 20 PSI available for fire protection. We will work with you on the alignment of die 57t' St. NW to 55th St. NW water main. Please contact us at 280.1600 if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours., P� 06,M 1`�t�'KL , Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Lyle Felsch, Fire Prevention Bureau John Wellner, City Public Works Mark Baker, City Public Works Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 P.2 •1 ,1 3APA5 O I I 5 1 +Y ( b I I 1 __ 1 I " . O Myl w I I - ny I' i m �p 1 63t L a� .g n—1 :I• : ;,P"x' _ i �.`7_`-___ r..N• 377.8i A? .V 1 0'9_ F Is I N I I: ai � aa. nr I N I � I � I I al � tl� • � �, Ala N tl __ e11!i I LAN,m Sol, r&' NIP- ........... 44 it -11 7, All MUMENT I GINIVAL ffXUWhoCrMT MAN MMSEM lrffl =M= 9 E k 061 • TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner J�_ DATE: February22, 2001 MR,71 �lat1.%� - pnru�Iav�y ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELVSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 RE: Preliminary Plat #01- 04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be known as Kingsbury Hills Second. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 20.59 acres into 77 lots for single family development and one outlot. The Plat also includes the dedication of right-of-way for five public roadways including 55 h Street NW. The property is located south of 55" Street NW, west of the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision and Wedgewood Hills Development. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Referral Comments: Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. 706 County Road 3 NW Byron, MN 55920 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department - Addressing staff Planning Department - Wetlands staff Rochester Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments ( 6 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4, Kingsbury Hills General Development Plan AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Preliminary Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second February 22, 2001 Development Review: Location of Property: Zoning: Proposed Development: Roadways: The property is located south of 55'" Street NW, west of the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision and Wedgewood Hills Development. The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. This development consists of 20.59 acres of land to be subdivided into 77 lots for single family development and one outlot. This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for the continuation of two roadways and four new roadways. The plat proposes to dedicate 60' of right-of-way for "55" Street NW" and identifies controlled access along the entire frontage of "55t' Street NW". The second roadway labeled "Kingsbury Street NW" is designed with 60' right-of-way and is a continuation from the east to the west intersecting "King Arthur Drive NW". The third roadway labeled "King Arthur Drive NW" is designed with a 60' right-of-way. This roadway continues off of "Kingsbury Street NW" in a southerly direction. The fourth roadway labeled "King Street NW" is designed with a 60' right-of-way and intersects to the west off of "King Arthur Drive NW". Changes to the roadway type and the roadway name to something other than "King" is recommended as outlined in the attached memo from the Planning Department - GIS Division. A temporary turn -around is required at the southerly extent of "King Arthur Drive NW". The fifth roadway labeled "Kingsbury Court NW" is designed with a 56' right-of-way and intersects off of "Kingsbury Street NW" to the south and "King Arthur Drive'NW" to the east and continues in a northerly direction. "Kingsbury Court NW" is an incorrect roadway type and will need to be changed to "Kingsbury Place NW". A Development Agreement has been executed for this property, but an Amended Development Agreement is required to address the temporary access to this site during the reconstruction of "55" Street NW". Page 3 Preliminary Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second February 22, 2001 Secondary access to the development is required prior to final plat approval for all of the 77 lots proposed within this preliminary plat. According to the LDM, Section 64.127, Paragraph 10 "..... Where secondary access is not constructed as part of the initial phase of development, the secondary access shall be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would project to generate traffic in excess of 1,200 average daily trips". Currently the existing access (Kingsbury Hills Subdivision) serves 73lots. Adding the proposed 77 single family lots in Kingsbury Hills Second, the estimated trips are as follows: 150 single family x 10 trips = 1,500 trips The total number of estimated trips exceeds the requirements for a second access by 300 trips. 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. Outlot A provides a mid -block pedestrian connection to the east, as previously approved by the City Council. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A shall be built concurrent with construction work through the City -Owner Contract. Drainage: This property currently drains to the east and the west. No on -site detention facilities are proposed with this development. At the GDP stage, the applicant informed staff that it is their intent to voluntarily participate in the City's Storm Water Management Plan and contribute toward a regional storm water facilities. Concurrent with GDP approval for this property, the applicant received approval for a Substantial Land Alteration Permit to alter the grades on the property by 10' or more. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to the submittal of the final plat. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. /0�3 I q Page 4 Preliminary Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second February 22, 2001 Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. The approximate southern half of this area indicates the available flow for fire protection will be below the minimum allowed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Prevention Bureau must approve of this temporary condition. An Amended Development Agreement is required to address the extension of sanitary sewer. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. This development requires 93 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Kingsbury Hills General Development Plan (GDP), approved June 6, 2000, PreliminaryPlat 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 l modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. Changing the� �n�a�me of the roadway labeled "Kingsbury Court NW" to "Kingsbury�a 1 NW". b. Changing the roadways name 'King" as recommended by Planning Department - G1S Division, memo dated February 16, 2001. 2. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways including along the road frontage of Outlot A. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A shall be built concurrent with construction work of this plat. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. Page 5 Preliminary Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second February 22, 2001 3. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: cash in lieu of land per the attached memo from Rochester Park and Recreation Department, dated February 16, 2001. 4. The Developer shall, prior to Final Plat submittal, execute an amended Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that addresses, in part, temporary access to the site during reconstruction of 5r Street NW, extension of sanitary sewer from the Wedgewood dills property and construction of a secondary access to serve this development. 5. Approval must be received by the Fire Prevention Bureau regarding the temporary condition of flow for fire protection being below the minimum allowed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 6. A temporary turn -a -round easement at the southerly extent of "King Arthur Drive NW' must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. 7. Secondary access to this development must be provided prior to Final Plat approval for all of the 77lots proposed within this development, consistent with Section 64.127 of the LDM. Reminder to Applicant., Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City / 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. I Page 6 Preliminary Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second February 22, 2001 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. Effective May 15, 1999 Page 7 Preliminary Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second February 22, 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 01 rP.ut_ we pledge, we deliver February 12, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Preliminary Plat #01-04 by Joe Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be known as Kingsbury Hills Second. 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. Anticipated static water pressures in this area will be from the mid 40's PSI to the mid 50's PSI. 3. Preliminary computer water system modeling indicates that in the approximate southern half of this area the available flow for fire protection will be below the minimum allowed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. This is due in part from the lack of proper networking of the water system in an undeveloped area along 50a' Ave. NW area as mentioned in the previous General Development Plan #146 review dated January 24, 2000. The Fire Prevention Bureau must approve of this temporary condition. 4. 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 yourwu, s, 0 644A Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau McGhie & Betts, Inc. Joel Bigelow & Sons Enterprises, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER PARK AND F -REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Kingsbury Hills 2" Preliminary #01-04 Acreage of plat .......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density ............................. -- ................. Density factor ............................................................ Dedication.................. ....................... .................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 20.59 acres 77 units 3.74 units/acre .0244 1.88 acres $13,500 / acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land Applicant: Joel Bigelow & Sons 706 County Road 3 NW Byron, MN 55920 N:\PARK\DSTCT2\2001\DEDICATION\NW 2898\KINGSBURY HILLS 2ND.DOC (%b ROCHESTER Minnesota DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC TO: Consolidated PlanningDepartment N WORKS P 201 4 Street SE Room 108 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-3740 Rochester, MN 55904 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 2/15/01 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Preliminary Plat #01- 04 on the Kingsbury Hills Second Subdivision (P/O GDP#14) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. Execution of an Amended Development Agreement is required to address, in part, temporary access to this site during reconstruction of 55`h St NW, and extension of sanitary sewer from the Wedgewood Hills property. 1. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's Engineer. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required for this subdivision. 3. A temporary turn -around is required at the southerly extent of King Arthur Dr NW. 4. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A should be built concurrent with construction work through the City -Owner Contract. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the current development agreement, with the exception of: d• Contribution for First Seal Coat @ $0.45 per square yard of roadway surface. •S Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 8 Street Name Signs 1 Street Ends Sign r C:%TEMP1PP01-04 Kingsbury Hills 2nd.doc l2/ ' Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: February 16, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: RE: KINGSBURY HILLS SECOND A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. KINGSBURY COURT NW is using an incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change Kingsbury COURT NW to Kingsbury PLACE NW. 2. The use of the roadway name KING is an issue as there are several roadways in NW Rochester already using that name. TION: Change the roadway name to something other than KING. 3. The use of the roadway Type Street with the roadway name KING could be a problem in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Suggest leaving the roadway type for now, as I could find no plans for the area west of this plat. If the roadway configuration deviates from an east/west Winning roadway when the area is developed then the roadway type may need to be changed. c:Vcmp\kingsburyhi Ilssecondpp.doc Page 5 ( City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Mr. Hicken stated that the taskforce does not have a problem with the Commissio aving some say wding at what happens. He indicated that is the reason they encourag a conditional use poWit process. Mr. Hicken ated that there is a belief that, with the way the prioritizatiwrlist is presented, it would create w towers. He explained that the taskforce does not ieve that it would create new towers. Mr. Hicken stated Nt the definition of "tower" needs to be clarified Mr. Bill Oswald, of 571 ancaster Place NW, Roc/edn N addressed the Commission. He stated that the most con ing sections of the propuage is regarding the equipment structures and cabinet setb k and buffering and sHe indicated that both those sections seem to be talking a ut the same thing.ioned if they could be combined. Mr. Oswald questioned if severaINtions could V used or only one. Ms. Karen Canzanello, of 2212 Baihly * Is ive SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. She stated that she was a tuber of the taskforce. She stated that Doug Rovang's comments, in terms of the co- on on existing water towers, ignores the fact that there are other options for a location er th , just water towers). She stated that there are a lot of creative solutions with placing em on lig 'ng on highways, buildings, etc. She stated that the taskforce would like the o ortunity to res nd to his comments. Ms. Marilyn Theismann, of Commission. She endorse concern with the lack of b She stated that, unless e expanded on to add f exl Baihly Hills Drive taskforce's recon ring and screening at presenl is enforcement of the current landscaping and screening. ster, MN addressed the on landscaping. She expressed iter tower locations in Rochester. finance, the language needs to be Ms. Nancy Mellon f 2128 Baihly Summit Drive S, Rochester, M ddressed the Commission. She stated that a was a member of the taskforce. She explained t the reason the taskforce thou t registration was necessary is because the City coul dicate whether or not there were er structures available in that area that could be used, inst d of constructing a new tower She gave several examples of where the property owner did n now who was specificj6 putting equipment on a tower and what they were putting up. Mr. ede moved to continue Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manow text agMndment #00-03 to March 14, 2001. Mr. Werven seconded the motion. The motion rried 8-0. Preliminary Plat #01.04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be known as Kingsbury Hills Second. The plat proposes to subdivide approximateiv 20.59 acres into 77 lots for single family development and one outlot. The Plat also includes the dedication of right-of-way for five public roadways including 55m Street NW. The property is located south of 55` Street NW, west of the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision and Wedgewood Hills Development. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated February 22, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Page 6 0 ^' City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes bJ Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Ms. Baker stated that they received a revised plat addressing condition number 1 listed in the staff report. Therefore, she explained that condition number 1 listed in the staff report could be removed. She put the plat on the overhead projector for the audience. Ms. Baker explained the method for providing a temporary secondary access and for removing the temporary secondary access once the permanent secondary access is constructed. She stated that the process would be outlined in the development agreement. Ms. Baker explained that condition number 7 listed in the staff report addresses the need for a secondary access. She stated that staff does not feel that there is a need to remove it. However, if the Commission would like to remove it, it would be addressed in condition number 4 listed in the staff report. The applicant's representative, Bill Tointon of McGhie and Betts, addressed the Commission. He showed a copy of the approved general development plan. He explained that the second phase of Kingsbury Hills is a mirror image of the first addition, which is currently under construction. Mr. Tointon explained that the issue of secondary access should have been in the development agreement prepared in January 2000. However, it was missed. Therefore, they plan to amend it. Mr. Tointon explained that there are some areas in the south portion that would not have the normal desired 1500 gallons per minute delivery of water for fire fighting protection, due to the elevation. He explained that it is a temporary situation, until another piece of watermain could be installed. Mr. Tointon asked that condition number 1 be removed, as suggested by Ms. Baker. Mr. Tointon expressed concern with condition number 4, relating to the development agreement. He asked for the condition to somehow be incorporated with condition number 7 to state that they need to have the secondary access addressed. He stated that by stating that the secondary access to the development must be provided prior to final plat approval, it concludes that the access needs to be provided before it is platted. He asked that the provision for the secondary access, both temporary and permanent be addressed in the amended development agreement. Mr. Tointon stated that they feel they are in compliance with the Fire Department's desires for the long-term and temporary service. He indicated that Mr. Feisch could confirm that. Discussion ensued regarding where the park and playground areas would be in the area. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01-04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be known as Kingsbury Hills Second, with staff -suggested conditions, with the exception of removing staffs suggested condition number 1. Mr. Hodgson seconded the motion. ia6 i � W w N rt Z �Q Jill W ➢ a; F Goo Y! vi GooIV, /vil y (cll 6N Od-S A1Nf100) ro•rol WN 3MA30 N18t �M2F.2AO i �1�'P •N �/�� ((ky I Q I 1 >yz M1 M16 1 / LJ �' ➢:f9LS➢ N � �S f / / 1612 • 5 4off / d LLJ All 1 w /►�a ~_ M . G'pCA➢ N t, I Ep /, / r � orc➢ p9��y1y� WX.MMCXX 0 M / °N6°CSl i °M1 �% G J f `.X'f1'IP X1 3 a i�] ? Ps f fill tam fit r�l 7 I 7 Ill ➢ �tkl �i i 5§8�is� id ail I ko !I3 I Ira 4 Ail o' 8�a5? i Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: February 28, 2001 Mr. Staver questioned if condition number 7 could be removed since the last part of the wording of condition number 4 accommodates the secondary access issue. Ms. Baker responded that she discussed with Mr. Tointon and Mr. Freese potential language that would show up in the development agreement. She indicated that condition number 7 could be eliminated entirely or it could be reworded to state that the method for secondary access must be included in the development agreement, prior to final plat approval. Mr. Staver suggested removing condition number 7. Mr. Staver moved to amend the original motion to remove staff -suggested condition number 7. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. 1 The original motion recommending approval of Preliminary Plat ff01-04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises. Inc. to be known as Kincisbury Hills Second carried 8-0. The motion to amend the original motion to remove condition number 7 carried 8-0. 1. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways including along the road frontage of Outlot A. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A shall be built concurrent with construction work of this plat. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: cash in lieu of land per the attached memo from Rochester Park and Recreation Department, dated February 16, 2001. 3. The Developer shall, prior to Final Plat submittal, execute an amended Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that addresses, in part, temporary access to the site during reconstruction of 55`h Street NW, extension of sanitary sewer from the Wedgewood Hills property and construction of a secondary access to serve this development. 4. Approval must be received by the Fire Prevention Bureau regarding the temporary condition of flow for fire protection being below the minimum allowed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 5. A temporary turn -a -round easement at the southerly extent of "King Arthur Drive NW" must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 03-19-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING _ VI DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-07 by the City of Rochester to be known as Bridgeview PREPARED BY: vaaition. The applicant is requesting approval to replat parts of Lots 1,2,5,6,7 and Outlot 2, Theresa Fogarty, Henke's Replat, Block 29, Northern Addition into 1 lot and 1 outlot for future development. Planner The property is located along the north side of 13 % Street NW and along the west side of North Broadway. March 14, 2001 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated March 14, 2001 with the following recommended conditions or modifications: 1. The condition of the existing pedestrian facilities along the frontages of 13 1/2 Street NW and North Broadway shall be reviewed by the Public Work staff. Any needed panel replacement or repair work shall be completed concurrent with development of this property. 2. Any utility easements required for on -site public water system improvements shall be dedicated, prior to any building construction. Council Action Needed: f. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. 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 19, 2001 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center. ,UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: k <»/§� ) iN }- ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 V i COUNTY OT TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: March 14, 2001 RE: Final Plat #01-07 by the City of Rochester to be known as Bridgeview Addition. The applicant is requesting approval to replat parts of Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and Outlot 2, Henke's Replat, Block 29, Northern Addition into 1 lot and 1 outlot for future development. The property is located along the north side of 131/2 Street NW and along the west side of North Broadway. Planninq Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: City of Rochester 201 SE 4a' Street Rochester, MN 55904 Brand and Massey Surveying, Inc. 1009 W hitewater Avenue St. Charles, MN 55972 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works Department 2. Rochester Public Utilities —Water Division 3. Clwest Communications 4. Rochester Fire Prevention Bureau Report Attachments: Plat Data: Location of Property: Zoning: 1. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 2. Copy of Final Plat 3. Location Map 4. Aerial Map This plat is located along the north side of 13'/2 Street NW and along the west side of North Broadway. This property is zoned B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district in the City of Rochester. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/265-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 +ae.eow- PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 ... AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (� gj Page 2 Final Plat Bridgeview Addition March 14, 2001 Proposed Development: This development consists of replatting parts of Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and Outlot 2, Henke's Replat, Block 29, Northern Addition into 1 lot and 1 outlot for future development. The City intends to retain ownership of Outlot A. Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. Pedestrian Facilities: The condition of existing pedestrian facilities along the frontages of 13'/s Street NW and North Broadway will be reviewed by Public Works staff. Any needed panel replacement or repair work shall be completed concurrent with the development of this property. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. Public Utilities: A 6' cast iron water main currently exists within 13'/z Street NW. Utility easements required for onsite public water system improvements will need to be dedicated, prior to any building construction. Spillover Parking: Parking requirements for this plat will be reviewed at the time specific development is proposed. Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: No comments According to Section 61.211 of the Land Development Manual " ..... and no new street connections are necessary', a General Development Plan is not required. According to Section 61.221 of the Land Development Manual A subdivision in which all proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right- of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land Subdivision Permit). Planninq Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and find that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The condition of the existing pedestrian facilities along the frontages of 13 % Street NW and North Broadway shall be reviewed by the Public Works staff. Any needed panel replacement or repair work shall be completed concurrent with development of this property. Page 3 Final Plat Bridgeview Addition March 14, 2001 2. Any utility easements required for on -site public water system improvements shall be dedicated, prior to any building construction. Reminder to Applicant: • Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City/ Owner Contract for construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. AWL ad ada�� iFtF[ y gj{{ y<§_ , Y it 1 ; ; 2 tI 1% lei ; E Y € g§ , 6 i 3 3` � #• Ee'�f•',3fI lags. rill E� W 3 j W !f R tYf10tOLB N.1NON s TSF)E�� .W.OWO 5 p R co7.J !— E p gg 9 { n � y2 Fg s i r Q 12 q' �oYz m Dig i 0 c f , r � I ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 319/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #01-07 on the Bridqeview Addition treplat of No Henke's Replat of Block 29 Northern Addition) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A City -Owner Contract will be required prior to development, if the extension of public watermain and/or the addition of hydrant(s) is required for this project [unless said public improvements are constructed as a City Project]. 2. Grading & Drainage Plan approval should be required prior to final approval of this subdivision. 3. The condition of existing pedestrian facilities along the frontages of 13 '/2 St NW and North Broadway will be reviewed by Public Works staff. Any needed panel replacement or repair work should be completed concurrent with development of this property. 4. The future ownership and maintenance of Outlot 'A' should be addressed. 5. Controlled Access should be dedicated along the entire easterly frontage of Outlot'A', unless it will be dedicated to the City. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property include: •:• Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre •:• Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre Stormwater Management (if on -site detention is not provided) Q\temp\FP01-07 Bridgeview Addition.doc r�u f. we pledge, we delver March 7, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #01-07 to be known as Bridgeview Addition. Dear Ms. Gayness: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections. Our comments follow: 1. A 6" cast iron water main currently exists within 13 %2 St. NW, which has sufficient capacity for fire protection of this area. 2. Any utility easements required for possible onsite public water system improvements can be dedicated at a later date, prior to any building construction. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yourrwu' s, 0644tt Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Doug Knott, City of Rochester Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT / 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100 1 •3 ROCHESTER,MN 55904 PHONE (507) 285-8232 FAX (507) 287-2275 Date: March 5, 2001 To: Agencies Indicated Below From: Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department Subject: Final Plat #01.07 by the City of Rochester to be known as Bridgeview Addition. The applicant is requesting approval to replat parts of Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and Outlot2, Henke's Replat, Block 29, Northern Addition into 1 lot and 1 outlot for future development. The property is located along the north side of 13 IA Street NW and along the west side North Broadway. This application is scheduled for consideration by the City Council on March 19, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 41° Street SE. In order for the Planning Department to prepare a thorough review of this application, we would appreciate receiving your comments by March 13, 2001. You may also appear at the meeting if you so desire, If you have comments, in addition to forwarding them to the Planning Department please send a copy to: City of Rochester Brand & Massey Surveying, Inc. Attn: Doug Knott 1009 Whitowater Avenue 201 Fourth Street BE St. Charles, MN 55972 Rochester, MN 65904 (507) 932.3895 (507)285-8420 Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Agencies County Agencies Other Agancles ' 1. Public Works 14. Health Department 18, School Board Richard Freese Rich Peter Jeff Kappers 2, Fire Department Lyle Felsch 3. Crime Prevention Robert Miller, Gov.Center 4. RPU Operations Division Mike Engle 5. RPU Water Division Donn Richardson 5. Park & Recreation Denny Stolz 7. Building Safety Ron Boose 8. City Attorney Dave Goslee 9. Downtown Dev. Dist. Doug Knott 15. Public Works 16. GIS Division 17. Environmental Resource Services Tony Hill �1 Lik_lt7 ffi,- (lpao- �D r 6 c, 10. City Administration Terry Spaeth 11. Susan Waughtai Neighboorhood Organizer 12. Transportation Planner 13. John Hanford, Planning Dept. L.:� o �,_\ d hee,e_5s42r"y 19. Peoples Natural Gas Neal Clausen 20. tlwest Don Kendall 21. Charter Communications 22, MN DOT Dale Maul 23. Post Office Supervisor 24. MN ONR Jim Cooper 25. SWCD 26. Peoples Coop Rick W ellik tu..oz� NOTE: CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CITY ENGINEER: PLEASE INDICATE IF THE STREET IDENTIFICATION IS CORRECT IF THE ATTACHED IS A PLAT. AUGV UA JCG 11UN: PUBLIC HEARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING MEETING 05 DATE: 03-19-01 ITEM O. L$ M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01.08- by Volunteers of America Care Facilities to be PREPARED BY: known as The Homestead First Replat. The applicant is requesting approval to replat Lot 2, Theresa Fogarty, Block 2, The Homestead into 4 lots for future development. The property Is located along the Planner west side of 18th Avenue NW and north of 551h Street NW. JJ- March 15, 2001 Planning Department Review: See attached staff report dated March 15, 2001, recommending approval subject to the following condition: 1. Approval of revised Grading and Drainage Plans will be required prior to development on this property, if the proposed grading for development is not consistent with the approved plans for "The Homestead Subdivision". Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. CityAttorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie and Betts, Inc. - _�UNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: Second on Monday, March 19, 2001 in the Council 11 l 110 air _—_4 7V 3 !7 H 8 A P3' W 9 n I 'All f, all i a a t aY E r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COUNTY OF TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: March 15, 2001 RE: Final Plat #01-08 by Volunteers of America Care Facilities to be known as The Homestead First Replat. The applicant is requesting approval to replat Lot 2, Block 2, The Homestead into 4 lots for future development. The property is located along the west side of 18th Avenue NW and north of 551th Street NW. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Volunteers of America Care Facilities 1660 Duke Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie and Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Park and Recreation Department 2. Rochester Public Works Department 3. Rochester Fire Prevention Bureau Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 Letters) 2. Copy of Final Plat 3. Copy of The Homestead Final Plat 4. Location Map Plat Data: Location of Property: This plat is located along the west side of 181h Avenue NW and north of 55th Street NW. Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. BUILDING CODE 507/265-6213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Final Plat Homestead First Replat March 15, 2001 Pedestrian Facilities: Construction of a 10 foot wide pedestrian path along 18'h Avenue NW in lieu of a 5 foot concrete sidewalk was approved with the Homestead Plat in September, 1999. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. The grading and building construction for this proposed plat will be unchanged from what is indicated on The Homestead grading plan requirement approved November 17, 1999. Public Works staff have indicated that the November 1999 approved grading plan meets the approved grading plan requirement for this final plat. Public Utilities: A Development Agreement has been executed for this subdivision. Final utility plans for this final plat have been approved by the Rochester Public Utilities Department. Spillover Parking: Parking requirements for this plat will be reviewed at the time specific development is proposed. Parkland Dedication: The parkland dedication requirement for the development was approved September 8, 1999. The replatting of this lot will not affect the parkland dedication requirement. General Development Plan: In 1999, the City approved a general development plan, which included this property. The proposed final plat is generally consistent with the approved General Development Plan. Preliminary Plat: According to Section 61.221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right- of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land Subdivision Permit). Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and find that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following condition: 1. Approval of revised Grading and Drainage Plans will be required prior to development on this property, If the proposed grading for development is not consistent with the approved plans for "The Homestead Subdivision". r 901 ^\ • ROCHESTER PARK AND &REATION DEPARTMENT rochaster. \ MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning FROM: Denny Stotz SUBJECT: Replat The Homestead Lot 2 Block 2 The replatting of this lot will not affect the parkland dedication requirement for the development as was approved September 8 1999. The cash in lieu of land dedication for the development ($88,250) was to be paid by 9 September 2000. The dedication has not been paid. ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 3/9/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4'" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #01-08 on The Homestead First Reolat (replat of L2, B2, The Homestead) property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this subdivision. A separate City -Owner Contract will be required prior to development on the proposed lots, if any additional public improvement (i.e.: watermain and/or hydrants) are required, that were not included in the approved plans for City -Owner Contract J9638 — Ph2 for "The Homestead". 3. Approval of revised Grading & Drainage Plans will be required prior to development on this property if the proposed grading for development is not consistent with the approved plans for "The Homestead Subdivision" Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the executed Development Agreement and City -Owner Contract for J9638 —Ph2, with the exception of: 4• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. CAtemp1FP01-08 The Homestead First Replat.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION F-11cl J:rL*>3hu0Je14 PUBLIC HEARING ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING MEETING R63 3-19-01 ITEM NO. (;ap ' 1 M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-09 to be known as West Century First PREPARED BY: Replat. Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner March 15, 2001 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. A stormwater management fee was paid at for West Century Subdivision that was based on up to 50% impervious development. At the time of individual lot development an additional charge forstormwater management will apply if the planned development will exceed 50% impervious. 2. Construction of pedestrian facilities is required along the entire frontage of Weliner Drive NE and a Ave. NE, concurrent with development of this subdivision. Council Action Needed: 1. !f the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department GIS Division 5. McGhie & Betts, Inc. 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 3l1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: on Monday March 19, 2001, in the Aq 'r ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT J 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COUNTY OF TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: March 15, 2001 RE: Final Plat #01-09 to be known as West Century First Replat. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: B & C Partner's, LLP 100 First Ave. SW Rochester, MN 55902 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. RPU Water Division 2. Rochester Public Works 3. Rochester Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments ( 3 Letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat �Is¢rrlQ�hiii+� wpi�B9i �i�514 Plat Data: Location of Property: This plat is located east of T.H. 63 N and south of 371h St. NE. Zoning: The property is zoned B-4 (General Commercial). Proposed Development: The property is being subdivided to facilitate commercial development in the B4 district. Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. Wellner Drive NE was platted with West Century Subdivision and will provide access to these lots. Drainage: Lot corner elevations will need to be provided to the Rochester Public Works Department and approved Prior to Council action on this plat. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 March 15, 2001 A5" Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. Public Utilities: Spillover Parking: Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: Utilities are available to serve this property. Parking requirements for this property will be reviewed at the time specific development is proposed. No parkland dedication is required for this plat. A General Development Plan was approved for this property. The GDP showed four lots in this location, but when the first plat was done this area was platted as one large lot. This plat is consistent with the approved GDP. There was not a preliminary plat for this property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated with this Plat and there is not a need to provide connections through this plat to adjacent properties. Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and find that it is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The staff would then recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A stormwa ter management fee was paid at for West Century Subdivision that was based on up to 50% impervious development. At the time of individual lot development an additional charge for stormwater management will apply If the planned development will exceed 50% impervious. 2. Construction of pedestrian facilities is required along the entire frontage of Wollner Drive NE and 6`h Ave. NE, concurrent with development of this subdivision. �. N - 48 sr RD 124 I 'AEvI - II FL kU 22./ NO I LW L LN JSTH ST ME Z- WWW SERVICE WAGE FRO OR N VEk UT 321qu sr HE r k CT .12ND CT NE i E 31si Si 31ST ST ME 'b4 q 4> 5 L ,HI CCSPYGLASS r q ST ST 27TH Sl ME rcR RIVEti - GLENDME (IRIS 4p ir n UvL DCKY CREEK DR 26 sr DR tv —C'H-U'R-CH—lLLLN 25TI R VIIONG F 63 Sr I'v Im HALING Cl '14Ls 5;. NORTHERN 04 AkAtW ",PC 4WAld 3 ST AK- Y�. c� E� /&~ L. RIVER2mo sl I N7 r E5k LN. C5 0.�z 22ND ST 2Nu ST I VIKM VILLAGE 21sl Sf NUNIHE I LH 2151 ST LN I. %IE NORTHERN. ItEIGNIS OR I . 2uIll $f 19 111 S I l4w , : �'= R- O-OobVA 'SiLRNAS"T 9TH ST OuUtill I I COLOWIA 19111 x cl cr ts 17TH f OAI E CT.. 4 rz ? Dew c.ryo p It , ky -� 4LD. i r Q �� - ttiy SB'lil Ll�la•u w j Y" �' a i'• — • ni'w�nmm��l•a 12, CQ " { 03 a k� T n $&... TT • 1� � 1 l a A 9 ;ll �TJ�,) �qq E'E3�IR � {j' + T; k `� �q • ;{q3•{ ,ia pill i� 7 T 71 Aei f! T1 F JJ Teppt Y $13 8 �� pye a 9r d[ kOCHESTEK Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 3/9/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #01-09 on the West Century First Replat (replat of L1, 131 West Century Subd) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 2. Grading & Drainage Plans were approved at the time West Century Subdivision was platted. A stormwater management fee was paid at that time based on up to 50% impervious development. At the time of individual lot development an additional charge for stormwater management will apply, if the planned development will exceed 50% impervious. 3. Individual lot development will require Site Development Plan approval. 4. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities is required along the entire frontage of Wellner Dr NE & 6t' Ave NE, concurrent with development of this subdivision. 5. The completion of Wellner Dr NE is required prior to Certificates of Occupancy being issued for individual lots within this subdivision. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property were paid through the City -Owner Contract for J9515 "West Century Subdivision" CAtemp\FP01.09 West Century First Repet.doc 11 rpu%� t. we pledge, we deliver March 8, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #01-09 by B & C Partners, LLC to be known as West Century First Replat. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced final plat is complete and we have no objections. Our comments follow: Of M 1. Our records indicate that there are currently 2 water services stubbed out of the street to serve this entire area. Individual water services are required for each of the newly formed lots. These services can be installed later, as these lots are developed. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06-JA 40C, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works B & C Partners, LLC McGhie & Betts, Inc. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 07 DATE: 03/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. —30LUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE G 11 LM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ADKINS G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). a) An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Section 66.101 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Adoption of an Interim Ordinance Regulating the Placement of Telecommunications Facilities in Residential Zoning Districts within the City. F, & /'' b) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester a Portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The land is located at 1901 Q,1,t1?► Bamber Valley Road SW. c) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 53.39 Acres of Land Located in a Part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 107 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. The land is located North of Summit Point Second Subdivision East of 501' Avenue NW South of 65th Street NW. 4. MISCELLANEOUS 1UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a13 DATE: 3/19/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. TABLED ITEMS Public Works 41 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Center Street Ramp Condition Appraisal Report PREPARED BY: D. 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 40' 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 $300,000 additional funds to be transferred from the Parking Enterprise Account to J-2592 to pay for the increase in the project. A COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: I I I o � I l r y X x ix :x x x�x'% tm N X X t ' a 5 u. O N r 0 CltO O 0 X X X X X Qj X X C NCID V vi to0 m '0� a Cl) n CD 69 oo— w N ° o) N a N N v � N X X X X X X X % x X X x x X X o 00 0 N a) O) M 7 : m 10 O O 000 00 O O 000 0 0000 O �, N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co O V' 0 0 0 It N Il O O N O °) )l- m w O y d CJ W L6 I. G6 Ld m C7 .. aF O � N Ld O w fD w O H too 69��f9 �O{ �r} EA N /A ql i VM W M r f9 (9 19 d3 m y L 111 O E y 0 m O a)a O a V 7 ?A a m U) w C ►�: (A N N O_) L V a7 N % a) C O) O) !_ yC a C 0, C l0 C y� a E :7 I 7 pl OI >. Ol N m N C O) ` O O/OCL C N C C O CC ZS C O a y 0 N , N C �� y oi En �p C p 'C w� C m a 0 V E C N w N C E a) -E 8 0 E ° g—m S°.o v im$ N :° 0 ? a) E 0 >$ o v$ E C — O in ?: N C a7 L C CL 3 *0 D 1) 0 0, as m m co) v H 10 c c C) avi (�) a anm A > m'vvD - - - U H m °��' c. m o.nc o.2 E m is L m ?ti L �' L m 2' o 0 o a j r N r N l+1 �' Y e- N (7 -W r N M 'T r N M 0 M V r O 170 3 � 'a m a� m V U W C_ a d O V t O. W O C p Z° y U im U y w