HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/2001_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNC UBOARD CHAMBERS 1 Dt
GOVERNMENT CENTER O
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 8
REGULAR ADJOURNED
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
APRIL 16, 2001
7:00 P.M.
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
(3-6) 1) Request for City Services/Sections 30 and 31/Cascade Township
(7-8) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
(9-14)
2)
Request for Funding/Rochester Community and Technical College
Foundation
(15-18)
3)
Acquisition of 14 South Broadway
(19-20)
4)
Sale of Property Located at 1813 151 Avenue SW
(21-22)
5)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
(23-24)
6)
Approval of Accounts Payable
(25-26)
7)
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
(27-28)
8)
Contract for Disposal of Animal Control Waste
(29-30)
9)
Donation for Canine Dog Vests
(31-34)
10)
STOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Fund Grant
(35-36)
11)
Joint Powers Agreement for TH 63 Right -of -Way Acquisition
(37-38)
12)
Land Acquisition/18t' Avenue SW Trunk Sewer Project
(39-40)
13)
Land Acquisition/50w Avenue NW
(41-42)
14)
Development Agreement and Stormwater Agreement/Kwik Trip at
Barclay Square
(43-44)
15)
Owner Contract/Basic Construction in Wedgewood Hills Fourth Sub.
(45-46)
16)
Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve The Villas of Valley Side
First Addition
(47-48)
17)
Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills North Sub.
(49-50)
18)
Stormwater Management Agreement
(51-54)
19)
Amendment to Rochester Code of Ordinances Chapter 76
(55-56)
20)
Advertise for Bids/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 4h Ave. NW from
Zumbro Drive to 31st Street NW
Council Agenda
April 16, 2001
Page 2
(57-58) 21)
Advertise for Bids/Traffic Signals at Intersection of CSAH 1 (111,
Avenue SE) and 24'" Street SE
(59-60) 22)
Traffic Signal & Parking Ramp Painting Bid Award
(61-62) 23)
Memorandum of Understanding/MnDOT District 6 Bus Maintenance
(63-66) 24)
Bids for the Local Area Network Installation
(67-68) 25)
Authorize Credit Card Merchant Services Agreement
E) HEARINGS
(69-70) 1)
Continued Hearing/Land Use Plan Amendment /Amend Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to Designate Approx. 46 Acres for
"Commercial" Land Uses/North Side of 48 St. SW, West of T.H. 63
and East of 11" Avenue SW
(71-72) 2)
Continued Hearing/Zoning District Amendment by R. L. Hexum
Associates to Rezone 36.32 Acres from R-1 to R-2 and 45.66 Acres
from R-1 to M-1
(73-74) 3)
Continued Hearing/General Development Plan/48t' Street GDP by
R.L. Hexum Associates
(75-82) 4)
Continued Hearing/Annexation by Ordinance Petition by the People of
Hope Church/Annex Approx. 29.67 Acres Located within a Part of
Sections 4 and 5 of Rochester Township Along North Side of Country
Club Road and West Circle Drive/County Road 22
(83-94) 5)
Land Use Plan Amendment by Badger Development II, LLC/Amend
Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to Designate Approx.
2.3 Acres for "Commercial' Land Uses/South Side of Valleyhigh Road
NW and Along West Side of Superior Drive NW
(95-100) 6)
Zoning District Amendment by Badger Development II, LLC/Rezone
Approx. 2.3 Acres from R-3 District to B-1 District
(101-110) 7)
General Development Plan/An Amendment to the Badger Ridge GDP
to Identify 2.3 Acres for Development within the B-1 District
(111-150) 8)
Type III, Phase II, Restrictive Development and Incentive
Development Preliminary Plan and Variance by Home Federal
Savings Bank/North West Circle Drive Along South Side of 551' Street
NW and East of 41 sr Avenue NW
(151-170) 9)
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 62.937, Commercial
Wireless Telecommunications Services and Towers
(171-172) 10)
Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Business Subsidy for Proposed
PEMSTAR Expansion
(173-190) 11)
Rochester City Lines/Route 6 Changes
(191-198) 12)
Project Hearing/Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Avenue
SW to Salem Road
Council Agenda
April 16, 2001
Page 3
(199-200) 13) Assessment Hearing/Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23`d
Avenue SW to Salem Road
(201-206) 14) Project Hearing/Pavement Resurfacing and Rehabilitation on T.H. 63
(North Broadway) from 4"' Street to Northern Heights Drive
(207-208) 15) Assessment Hearing/Pavement Resurfacing and Rehabilitation on
T.H. 63 (North Broadway) from 4'" Street to Northern Heights Drive
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(209-216) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
1) OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
I 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.
INCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Letters and Petitions
City Clerk
a . (
DESCRIPTION: Request for City Services - Sections 30 and 31 - Cascade Township
PREPARED BY:
Judy Scherr
Harvey Ratzloff is requesting on behalf of the owner, Gene Starr, that the City conduct a
feasibility study for City services on 35 acres of land located in the SE'/. Section 30 and NE %<
Section 31, Cascade Township. The development would contain possible R-1, R-2 and R-3
housing.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to adopt the prepared resolution referring the petition from Harvey Ratzloff, on behalf
�of Gene Starr, to the Public Works Department for a feasibility study.
1NCILACTION: Motfonby: second by: to:
Aex- b-lll MI lb:2u f3ICELOw ENT FAX NO. 15077752166 P.01 �
q
April 6, 2001
Mr. Mike N.-bur
Right of Way Agent
City of kiichester
Rochester; MN 55904
Dear Mr, Nigbur,
As per,,j4r ckgiv. rsatipii T 4,11 requesting un behalf of Mr. Cenc Starr owner of the land
l0vatc-d it, the: SE `/, of Section 30 and the NE'/, of Section 31, Cascade Township, a
feasibility study, w City Services. 1 hive a client that is in the process of pumh4sing this
.property for developniegt into R-1, R-2 and possible R-3 city housing dpvelopmcnf. We
will be requesting anttcxption and want to develop this as soon as possible. At the
present thu we'are looking at the cast 135 acres.
Honk you for your help and consideration
Sincere! ,
r—
�r 9
Harvny, .tilotl
Rc/Max of.Roclioster
$
w c p _..
' LI
lL � J
t
i
W W 11 I�
s
cr
i
It
I
f
A yk {
i
M1'
T-
rr
J �
4
N, •, `1
W
n
�x�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D-1-25
4 DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
G. NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can approve all
of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers an opportunity to
state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent agenda approval and to have
them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
D-1. Approval of Minutes
D-2. Request for Funding/Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation
D-3. Acquisition of 14 South Broadway
D4. Sale of Property Located at 1813 1" Avenue SW
D-5. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-6. Approval of Accounts Payable
D-7. Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
D-8. Contract for Disposal of Animal Control Waste
D-9. Donation for Canine Dog Vests
D-10. STOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Fund Grant
D-11. Joint Powers Agreement for TH 63 Right -of -Way Acquisition
D-12. Land Acquisition/18 s Avenue SW Trunk Sewer Project
D-13. Land Acquisition/50s' Avenue NW
D-14. Development Agreement and Stormwater Agreement/Kwik Trip at Barclay Square
D-15. Owner Contract/Basic Construction in Wedgewood Hills Fourth Sub.
D-16. Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve The Villas of Valley Side First Addition
D-17. Owner Contract/Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills North Sub.
D-18. Stormwater Management Agreement
D-19. Amendment to Rochester Code of Ordinances Chapter 76
D-20. Advertise for Bids/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 4 h Ave. NW from Zumbro Drive to 31" Street NW
,D-21. Advertise for Bidsifraffic Signals at Intersection of CSAH 1 (1 la' Avenue SE) and 24th Street SE
D-22. Traffic Signal & Parking Ramp Painting Bid Award
D-23. Memorandum of Understanding/MnDOT District 6 Bus Maintenance
D-24. Bids for the Local Area Network Installation
�D.25. Authorize Credit Card Merchant Services Agreement
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
1NCILACTION: Motionby: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
J
MEETING
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
D - al.,
w DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR FUNDING/ROCHESTER COMMUNITY AND
PREPARED BY.
TECHNICAL COLLEGE FOUNDATION
S. KVENVOLD
RCTC is requesting $10,000 from the City of Rochester to assist in their summer youth program called
Voyageur Camp. The City has previously provided $10,000 for this program in 1998, 1999 and 2000.
Further details about the Voyageur Camp are attached for your information.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion appropriating $10,000 from the 2001 Contingency Account to the Rochester Community and
Technical College Foundation for the Voyageur Camp program.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
(o
Education
Excellence
Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation
851 301h Avenue Southeast. Rochester. Minnesota 55904
Phone: (507) 281-7771 - Fax: (507)280-2970
E-mail: lu&bird-a roch.edu
September 7, 2000
City of Rochester
Attn: Stevan Kvenvold
201 Fourth Street SE Rm 266
Rochester MN 55904
Dear Mr. Kvenvold:
Through
Over the past three years, Rochester Community and Technical College
operated a summer youth program called Voyageur Camp. The participants
were area youth, ages nine to fifteen. All of them were from low-income
families, many of them would be considered at -risk and several had already
Philanthropy
been in the juvenile justice system.
.The program has been very successful, engaging over 150 youth who
participated in organized activities, career exploration, growing their self-
esteem, social skills and creative abilities. We believe the participants were
OFFICERS
positively impacted and took advantage of the opportunity to try new things
and learn new skills.
PAUL SKOVBROTF.N
J•...
They were anxious to learn, create, explore and discover. RCTC Voyageur
IOHN WADE
Camp helped to shape young people for a successful journey through life.
!'urr-!'rsarJrru
With funding from the MN State Higher Education Services Office, we are able
ARDE.L BREDE
I7•v,Ynr;Jm
to continue programming for the Voyageur participants throughout this school
Al SCHAPER
year. We will be providing after school tutoring, activities and mentoring, to
continue the work we started over the summer.
SUP. DRIPPS
We are excited about this expanded programming and believe we can make a
difference and change lives with our new offerings. Naturally we are working
closely with local agencies and other youth programs to provide a unique
BOARD OF
experience and avoid duplication of services.
DIRECTORS
With plans underway for next summer's camp, we again respectfully request
$10,000 from the city of Rochester to fund the summer portion of our youth
DANIEL BERNDT
programming. We know your support helps to impact the lives of these young
MICHAEL BIRDSEYE
people, making them better citizens and neighbors, maintaining the quality of
BOBCARLSON
life and livability that we have all come to expect in Rochester. Please contact
me for additional information if needed.
RICHARD DEVLIN
STUART EICKELBERG
Sincerely,
REV GERZEVSKE
MARY HIRAIAN
MICHAEL KLAMPE
,1 h Bird, Director of Development
DAVE NELSON
Rochester Community & Technical College Foundation
WILLWI TOINTON
ROBERT WISE
Education
Excellence
Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation `
851 30th Avenue SOLltheest. Rochester. Minnesota 55904
Phone: (507) 28 1-777 1 -Fax: (507) 280-2970
E-mail: jud}'.birdarroch.cdu
April 10, 2001
City of Rochester
Attn: Stevan Kvenvold
201 4th Street Rm 266
Rochester MN 55904
Dear Mr. Kvenvold and City Council Members:
The Rochester Community and Technical College Foundation respectfully requests $10,000 to
Through
again fund the Voyageur Summer Youth Camp held at RCTC this coming summer. This will be the
4 year that we have conducted this camp for low-income, at risk and underprivleged youth in our
community.
Philanthropy
The camp is scheduled for three weeks, June 11 — 28'". We anticipate serving 200 children in
grades 6,7, and 80. Eligibility requirements include:
• family size and income guidelines meet federal requirements for free or reduced lunches
• at -risk students as defined by recommendations from school counselors
• English as a second language
OFFICERS
• past participant in Voyageur Camp
• first in family to potentially attend college
UL SKOVHROTEN
Pn,i&,,,
The long-term goal of this program, which also has an after -school component during the academic
1OHN MADE
year, is to encourage, inform and educate participants and their parents to the importance of post-
secondary education. Whether students pursue technical jobs or professional careers, education
A BREDE
beyond high school is essential in order to achieve a successful life and a liveable wage job.
14,
During the summer camp, students have an opportunity to learn and try a variety of activities,
ALS,.,,e, E
7nvarr
exposing them to potential career options.
SUE DR,nrs
Expanding the program last year, an additional component was added which includes working with
P 9 P 9 Y P 9
parents, educating them to necessary requirements to access higher education. What classes
their children should take in high school to prepare for post -secondary schooling, how to finance a
college education, the ins and outs of seeking scholarships and applying for financial aid. We
BOARD OF
believe we have tailored a program that addresses all aspects of successfully fostering middle
DIRECTORS
school youth to prepare for a future, a future that continues to grow in complexity with increasingly
technical skill sets required to meet the needs of tomorrows employers.
FRITZ BANFIELD
This camp truly makes a difference in the lives of participants as well as greatly impacting the
JOHN BENIKE
economic strength and vitality of our community and region.
DANIEL BERNDT
NANCY BERNING
Thank you for your past support and we look forward to our continued partnership, supporting the
youth of today and the worker of tomorrow.
BOB CARLSON
RICHARD DEVLIN
Sincerely,
STUART EICKELBERG
BEV
HIRIIUATAN fAN
CL"1ARY
JHAEL KLMIFE
Ju ith A. ird, irector of Development
GAVE NELSON
R heste munity and Technical College Foundation
W ILLIMI TOINTON
ROBERT WISE
r
COMMUNITY ANO TECHNICAL
Rochester
College
VOYAGEURS
"Each of us has different talents,
different dreams and
different destinations, yet
we all have the power
to chart our own course
and to prepare for the voyage."
851 30th Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904-4999
Phone: (507) 285-7"^
http://w w.rach
Mission: Provide comprehensive programming to prepare and encourage participants to
complete high school and pursue post -secondary education.
Outcomes:
Students will have a desire for academic excellence as they strive toward achieving
personal and career goals.
Students will increase their developmental assets and team building skills.
Early Intervention/Early Awareness:
Rochester Community & Technical College (RCTC) received a grant from the Minnesota
Higher Education Services Office (HESO) to conduct a summer camp and after school program
for middle school students, from low-income homes, who are considered at -risk as defined by
their counselors, social workers, teachers and/or parents. Additional local funding provided for
transportation, food, and enrichment activities.
A three-week Voyageurs summer camp was provided to these targeted students during
June 2000. One hundred twenty-five students, from various ethnic backgrounds, evenly divided
between male and female, registered for the camp. The students came from the Rochester Middle
Schools as well as Stewartville, Byron and Eyota school districts. Fourteen classes were offered
to the students, covering a wide -range of topics, of which the students chose two to attend.
Enrichment activities, such as Prairie Walls Climbing Gym, Rochester Public Library, Red Cross,
art, dance and sports, were also a part of the daily schedule. Students were exposed to career
information from the instructors and resource personnel. RCTC staff, in a caring and safe
environment, taught personal goal setting and relationship skills.
Voyageurs Club, which ran during the school year, provided career information from
volunteers in the business community. Mentoring, tutoring, developmental asset building,
"An Equal Opportunity Employer/Educator"
f3
outreach to parents and encouraging students to strive for academic excellence were also part of
the curriculum. Club members were from three Rochester Middle Schools (Kellogg chose not to
participate). Charter members, who attended Voyageurs Camp 2000, recruited other students,
and assisted in setting up desired outcomes, careers to explore, and activities for the club.
Census data shows that the second largest population of Somalis in the United States, has
settled in the Rochester area. Education is extremely important to, and highly valued by, Somali
parents. They want to see their children succeed; therefore, these children, who would be
considered at -risk because of the language barriers, are a prime audience for the Voyageurs
programs. RCTC will be able to provide information through Voyageurs Camp 2001, in regard
to career information, goal setting, access to higher education, and certainly illustrate that RCTC
is a viable option for their higher education needs. With the Voyageurs Camp and Club, RCTC
has demonstrated that the students are exposed to activities that increase their knowledge and
awareness of the community, as well as social competencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the Voyageurs Program goals and to identify the
need for continued funding for these programs that promotes and encourages academic excellence
in our youth.
i
Colleen Landherr, Coordinator
RCTC Youth & Emerging Workforce Programs
Rochester Community & Technical College
851 30a' Ave SE, Box 51
Rochester, MN 55904
507/280-3113
colleen.landherr(a,roch.edu
An Equal Opportunity Employer/Educator
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
rs
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Administration
D — 3
_M DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of 14 South Broadway
PREPARED B
Doug Knott
14 South Broadway is located in Development District #2. It lies immediately north of the
Broadway Plaza redevelopment project. Blighted properties exist to the north. A City
owned surface parking lot is located to the east. This block is the prime redevelopment site
in the central business district. The subject property is needed for future redevelopment
purposes and will be considered as taken under threat of condemnation.
An appraisal of the property was made for the City in July of 1999. It estimated the value
at $310,000. The owner and staff have agreed on a purchase price of $320,000. The
property is owner occupied and the owner is waiving any relocation assistance. The owner
will be allowed to remain in the property rent free until demolition work begins for the
Broadway Plaza project or four months, whichever is less.
Council Action Requested
Approve execution of a purchase agreement for the acquisition of 14 South Broadway in the
amount of $320,000 with the Mayor and City Clerk being authorized to sign documents
necessary for the transfer of ownership.
�1 +
M 1,
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
1 ST NW
w
d
.A
To: Stevan E. Kvenvol
From: Douglas A. Knott
Date: 04/10/O1
Re: Gilbertson Property-14 South Broadway
This memo is a follow up to correspondence of February 12, 2001 regarding the City acquisition of the
Gilbertson property located at 14 South Broadway. I have met with Mr. Gilbertson and his attorney, Jim Suk,
to discuss possible terms for the acquisition of 14 South Broadway. If approved by the Council, the City
would pay $320,000 for the property. This amount is consistent with our previous appraisal of the property
and with a previous purchase offer received by Mr. Gilbertson.
The acquisition would be treated as a "friendly" condemnation. Mr. Gilbertson currently maintains his
corporate offices on the second floor of the building. He would be allowed to stay rent-free until demolition
starts for the Broadway Plaza project or for four months, which ever is less. Mr. Gilbertson would not receive
any relocation assistance.
The old library block is one of the prime redevelopment sites in downtown Rochester. Half of the block is
already in public ownership (the parking lot). Royal will be investing $50 million in the redevelopment of the
southwest comer. The opposite comer is the former CJ's property. It is vacant and need of demolition or
renovation.
I believe that it makes sense to acquire the Gilbertson property now before a substantial investment is made in
the building that would drive acquisition costs up at a later date. After we obtain possession, I would like to
find a temporary user for it. One option would be to lease it to Royal's general contractor. Using the building
for a job office in lieu of a contractor's trailer would preserve limited construction staging space. If the
contractor is not interested, there are probably other temporary users.
I plan on preparing an RCA to the Council for formal action on April 16, 2001.
0 Page 1
F
City of Rochester
City Administrator's Office
MEMO
To: Stevan E. Kvenvold
From: Douglas A. Knott
Date: February 12, 2001
Subject: Gilbertson Property — 14 South Broadway
Gil Gilbertson owns the building located at 14 South Broadway. His property lies immediately north of
the Royal Management Broadway Plaza project. At the public hearing for the Broadway Plaza incentive
development zoning application, Mr. Gilbertson's attorney, Ken Moen, informed the Council of Mr.
Gilbertson's intention to proceed with a major renovation of his building.
I met with Mr. Gilbertson on February 12, 2001 to obtain additional information on his plans for the
building. He is the owner of City Looks and Cost Cutter's and maintains his corporate offices on the
second floor of 14 South Broadway. Extensive improvements were made to the property in the mid
1980's. The first floor is currently vacant It was previously occupied by the Super Tan Tanning Salon.
Gilbertson indicates that because of the past uncertainty surrounding the block and because of the
pending construction on the adjacent property, he has been unable to find a tenant for the first floor.
Mr. Gilbertson intends to renovate the building for a City Looks Salon and Spa similar to his operation
at Apache Mall. He would construct an addition to create a full second -story and replace the front and
rear facades of the building. He anticipates making an investment in excess of $300,000. It was his
intention to authorize his architect to start the design process this week. I asked him if he could wait
for a couple of weeks while the City reviews the situation. He agreed.
I believe that Mr. Gilbertson is serious with respect to his redevelopment plans. Broadway Plaza
residents will add to his customer base. Broadway Plaza will also bring the skyway system to his
building. On the flip side Mr. Gilbertson understands that a cloud will continue to hang over the
property due to the area's redevelopment potential. For this reason he would consider selling the
property.
A real estate appraisal prepared for the city for the Time Square project in July of 1999 indicated a value
of $310,000 for 14 South Broadway. Mr. Gilbertson provided me with a copy of a purchase agreement
with Royal Management dated 9/29100 with a sale price of $325,000. For whatever reason Royal chose
not to proceed with the purchase. I believe that the property could be acquired at or near the
$325,000 figure.
We should discuss whether the City has interest in purchasing the property at this time to facilitate the
redevelopment of the balance of the block. Until such time as some public action is required, Mr.
Gilbertson would prefer that any discussions with the City regarding the acquisition of his building
remain as confidential as possible.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 1 q /
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Administration
D_ T
I DESCRIPTION SALE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1813 1st AVENUE SW
PREPARED BY:
T. Spaeth
In December, 2000, the City went through a redemption process to acquire the home located at 1813 1" Avenue SW,
that was going through foreclosure, and in which the City held a second mortgage for a previouse rehab project that was
done utilizing CDBG funds. The second mortgage was extinguished at the time the City proceeded with the redemption.
The intent at that time was for the City to acquire the property for the outstanding mortgage amount ($13,040) and sell it
to the HRA for incurred acquisition and other outstnding costs. The HRA intends to operate the home as a single family
rental unit.
Along with our acquistiion costs, there are outstanding assessments on the property for rubbish and tree removal, along
with the past year's property taxes. The former owner has left the property in need of a significant amount of cleanup,
and we anticipate that the total incurred costs to the City will be approximately $20,000.
The HRA Board is scheduled to act upon this matter at their May 7d' meeting. At this time, staff would request Council
authorization to sell the property to the HRA in order to keep the project moving along.
COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED:
mcil authorization to sell the property located at 1813 l:t Avenue SW to the HRA for the City's incurred costs,
1... —nated to be approximately $20,000).
INCIL ACTION: Mobon by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING p2( /
DATE: 4/
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DE
CITY CLERK
a-5
N DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY:
DONNA JSCHOT
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.
CIRCUS
Rochester Women of Today Sponsoring
Jose Cole Circus AT 5/5101 thru 5/6/01
Olmsted County Fairgrounds — Bldg. 42
Rochester, Mn. 55904
GAMBLING —TEMPORARY
Southeast MN Assn. of Realtors
1111 14`s St. NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Raffle 7/18/01
MASTER PLUMBER
Ellingson Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning
2510 Broadway St South
Alexandria, Mn. 56308
SIDEWALKS — CONCRETE
Johnson Concrete
711 2nd St NE
Dodge Center, Mn. 55927
Rock Solid Concrete, Inc.
832 7t' Ave SE
Rochester, Mn. 55904
SIGNS
A LaPointe Sign Inc
6600 Oxford St
St Louis Park, Mn. 55426
INCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second
C2 VeLLICENSE, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
PAGE 2
APRIL 16, 2001
MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES
Rochester Area Family Y
Foot Race 612/01
Celebrating the YMCA's 150`h Year Anniversary
Studio Academy Public High School
Fundraising Auction 4/28/01
33 7`s St. NE
Rochester, Mn 55906
Ronald McDonald House
Parade of Motorcycles 7/29/01
Hwy 14 E to 2"d St. SW
Rochester, Mn. 55902
Alzheimer's Association
1001 14`h St. NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Memory Walk 9/8/01
Silver Lake West Pavilion
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above license and miscellaneous ity activities.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING YV
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
67—(0
A DESCRIPTION:
Approval of Accounts Payable
PREPARED BY:
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $1,368,744.40.
Less: Any exceptions
--JNCIL ACTION: Mobon by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING Oi
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agena
Fire
D-q
—A DESCRIPTION: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
PREPARED BY:
Jeff Leland
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has made funding available to U.S. fire departments to fund /
purchase fire fighting equipment, firefighting vehicles, personal protective equipment, wellness and fitness
programs or training. Applicants may submit requests for funding in 2 categories. Departments serving
populations greater than 50,000 are required to provide a 30% match for the grant.
City Administration and Rochester Fire Department staff have identified two priorities for this grant.
1) 6 Thermal Imaging Camera units — these units enable firefighters to see victims in heavy smoke or complete
darkness conditions. These units speed recovery efforts of downed firefighters or citizens. Total cost $ 96,000
— Seeking a grant for $67,200 — City of Rochester 30% match = $28,000
2) Rapid Intervention Team (RIT) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) - If a firefighter is lost,
trapped or injured , the established RIT team goes to their aid. We do not have a mechanism in place
with which to supply breathing air to a FF without removing their regulator from their face piece.
Removal of the victim's air mask exposes them to an IDLH atmosphere. This project would ensure that
all SCBA regulators have quick connect hoses, and that a portable air supply would be carried on each
rig (6 engines, 2 trucks) . These regulators will enable us to connect -regulators without exposing the FF
to an IDLH atmosphere. Total cost $ 15,000 — Seeking a grant for $10,500 — City of Rochester 30%
match = $4,500.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Rochester Fire Department requests permission to apply for
funding to purchase the equipment as describe above. The Fire department fiuther requests that the Council
adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a Grant Agreement in the event of an award.
JNCIL ACTION: Mouon by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 21
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Police
p '6
„c,.I DESCRIPTION: Contract for Disposal of Animal Control Waste
PREPARED BY:
Roger Peterson
The Rochester Animal Control would like to enter into a contract with Mayo Foundation for the disposal of
animal carcasses at Mayo's Waste Management Facility.
The agreement is for a term of two years, renewable for successive two year terms. Cost to the Animal Control
shelter for waste disposal is $.25 per pound, billed on a quarterly basis. Disposal costs were included in Animal
ControF s FY2001 budget.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval for the Rochester Animal Control to enter into a waste disposal agreement with Mayo Foundation.
JNCIL ACTION: motion by second by m.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: _4/16/O1
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Police
ITEM NO.
D 1 1p
_..I DESCRIPTION: Donation for Canine Dog Vests
PREPARED BY:
Roger Peterson
The Rochester Dog Obedience Club, Inc. wishes to donate $700 towards the purchase of vests
for the Department's canines.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve acceptance of $700 from the Rochester Dog Obedience Club for purchase of vests for canines.
Appropriate to 4110-13227.
--JNCIL ACTION: mtouon by: second by. to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 31
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda Police D -to
I DESCRIPTION: STOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Fund Grant PREPARED BY:
Jim Pittenger
In November of 1997 the Police Department was asked to participate in a grant -funded multi -year project to
establish a protocol process for the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases in the State of
Minnesota As a part of that project the Olmsted County/Rochester Community Sexual Assault Lnteragency
Council (SAIC) was established. The SAIC is a multi -agency group made up of representatives from the Police
Department, Olmsted County Sheriff's Office, Olmsted County Attorney's Office, Olmsted County Victim
Services, Olmsted County Adult Protection, Olmsted County Child Protection, and the Mayo Clinic.
In March, 1998, the Council granted permission for the Police Department to apply for funding for a temporary
coordinator position for the SAIC. The Police Department was subsequently awarded a gr= from the
Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services (MCCVS) to fund that position. In May 1999 and February 2000,
the Council granted permission for the Police Department to apply for further funding for the coordinator
position.
The protocol development process is entering its fourth year. MCCVS is offering funding in the amount of
$35,000 for the SAIC coordinator. The grant period is July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. The coordinator position
will be a temporary position, and will not be continued after June 30, 2002, unless funding can be secured
through an MCCVS grant, or some other grant source. MCCVS requires that a Resolution Authorizing
Execution of Grant Agreement be submitted with the grant proposal.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Police Department requests permission to apply for MCCVS
funding for the SAIC Coordinator position. The Police Department further requests that the Council adopt a
resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a Grant Agreement in the event of an award.
Ct CIL ACTION: Motion by Second by. to:
r
3a-
Overview of the Sexual Assault Interagency Council participation in the
Minnesota Model Sexual Assault Protocol Project
Captain J. Pittenger
April 2001
In 1996, Dodge/Fillmore/Olmsted Victim Services received a grant from the Minnesota Center for
Crime Victims Services (MCCVS) to initiate the Minnesota Model Sexual Assault Protocol Project.
The goals of the project were to create and to implement a statewide multidisciplinary model
protocol for the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault. The project was further meant to
develop a model that could be adapted to the needs of the many different communities
throughout the state.
The Minnesota Model Protocol Project chose the book, Improving Community Response to Crime
Victims (Boles and Patterson, 1997) as a guide to the development of a statewide model protocol.
In 1997, representatives from six jurisdictions (Carver County, Isanti County, Olmsted County,
Ramsey County, Winona County and Fond du Lac Indian Reservation) received training from the
authors in the protocol development process.
The protocol development process is an eight -step cycle. The steps in the cycle are:
1. Inventory of existing services
2. Victim experience survey
3. Community needs assessment
4. Write community -specific protocol
5. Renew interagency agreements
6. Train agency personnel
7. Monitor the implementation of the protocol
8. Evaluate the effectiveness of the protocol
When these steps have been completed, the protocol evaluation determines whether changes or
improvements to the protocol are needed. The protocol development process is intended to be
cyclical.
The protocol development process involves four core agencies. The core agencies are law
enforcement, prosecution, medical and victim advocacy. The participation of other agencies
depends upon the needs of the specific community. In the case of Olmsted County, the following
agencies agreed to participate in the process:
• Rochester Police Department
• Olmsted County Sheriffs Department
• Olmsted County Attorney's Office
• Mayo Clinic Social Services
• Methodist Hospital Patient Receiving Unit
• St. Mary's Hospital Emergency Trauma Unit
• DFO Victim Services
• DFO Community Corrections
• Olmsted County Adult Protection
• Intercultural Mutual Assistance Association
Three jurisdictions (Winona, Carver, Isanti) began the protocol development process in 1997.
Over the years, each of these test sites has progressed to the point where they will be evaluating
the effectiveness of their protocol during fiscal year 2002 (July 2001 through June 2002). In
33
SAIC Overview Page 2
1998, Olmsted and Ramsey became test sites. They have progressed to the point where they
will begin training agency personnel during fiscal year 2002. The progress made by Olmsted and
Ramsey mirrors the experiences of the initial three test sites. In 1999, Fond du Lac became a
test site. They will be completing a community needs assessment document and beginning the
protocol writing steps during FY 2002.
The Olmsted County/ Rochester Community Sexual Assault Interagency Council has been grant
funded by MCCVS since 1998. The grants, which have been renewed each year, have covered
administrative and operating costs of the SAIC. The Police Department has been the grantee for
each of the grants, and City Finance has been the fiscal agent. Each year, the required match
has been in -kind, rather than cash.
In order to participate in the Model Protocol Project, and to receive the MCCVS grants, the SAIC
has been required to conduct two different evaluations. The Model Protocol Project contracted
with Wilder Research Center of St. Paul to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the project as a
whole. At the request of the Model Protocol Project, Olmsted and the other test sites have also
contracted with Wilder Research Center to conduct individual ongoing evaluations of the protocol
development process at each site. Olmsted has also contracted with Wilder Research Center
and Professional Data Analysts of Minneapolis to evaluate the effectiveness of our protocol.
As stated above, the SAIC has progressed to the point where we will begin training agency
personnel in fiscal year 2002. We have completed the first three steps of the cycle. Our
community needs assessment document, and year-end progress reports, are available for
inspection at each of the participating agencies. Our protocol document is being prepared for
printing at this time. Interagency agreements will be signed before July 2001,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
3S
4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D_ It
:M DESCRIPTION: Joint Powers Agreement for TH 63 Right -of -Way Acquisition
PRFPPARED BY:
R. Freese
The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, the County of Olmsted and the City of
Rochester have agreed to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the joint acquisition of right-of-way
for the TH 63 interchanges at 40"' Street and 48'^ Street South and related local road improvements.
MnDOT will acquire those right-of-way parcels needed exclusively by MnDOT, those parcels needed
exclusively by the County and those parcels needed exclusively by the City in addition to those parcels
needed jointly by MnDOT, the County and the City. The use of a Joint Powers Agreement with one
agency operating as the lead agency for the acquisition of all the right-of-way for three different units of
government will be more efficient, cost-effective and timely.
MnDOT will unilaterally determine the final amount paid for each parcel, including settlement costs.
Upon completion of right-of-way acquisition for the project, MnDOT will deed to the City the portion of
right-of-way acquired for the City.
The City will reimburse MnDOT for all costs incurred by MnDOT for acquisition of right-of-way for City.
The City Administrator will be the City's authorizing agent for the purposes of review and approval of
appraisals and offers to purchase for the right-of-way to be acquired by MnDOT for the City.
The Director of Public Works will be the City's representative for the purposes of administering the Joint
Powers Agreement on behalf of the City.
The Olmsted County Board approved a similar agreement with MnDOT on April 10, 2001.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the City Administrator to negotiate the terms of the) oint Powers Agreement and further
(� authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the negotiated Joint Powers Agreement with the State of
fv, Minnesota for the acquisition of right-of-way for the TH 63 interchanges at 40'h Street and 48`^ Street
i South and related local road improvements.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3419 /
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION!
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D / OL
M DESCRIPTION: Land Acquisition - 181hAvenue 5W Trunk Sewer Project (J9753)
p PARED BY:
�M. Nigbur
The construction of phase II of the trunk sanitary sewer links the HWY 63 sewerline to 18th Avenue SW,
Phase I of this line was constructed in 1999/2000 through areas dedicated to the City. Land acquisition
for Phase II needs to begin to maintain the project schedule for constructing this project in 2001.
Staff would request authorization to retain consultants for the real estate acquisition process. Staff also
requests the authorization to negotiate and settle with the land owners for the needed land rights for a
value not to exceed 10% of the appraised value. If negotiations do not progress satisfactorily and
timely, Staff would also request authorization, at the direction of the City Administrator, to begin the 90
Day Quick Take eminent domain process. This process may be needed to maintain the project
schedule. Staff will continue to negotiate towards a settlement during the condemnation process.
I '^"' � rl
—av
I' __ ,1�✓', Phase I
S T =
+-.=�}Li1 __
i6thAVefRle --' _-}+4+'{{
I r
� E
Phase 11�
f.
^' i
F auamrlrew
I,"-��'r'�a4')'•��
H63Aav-
5 [
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adoption of a resolution authorizing the staff to retain consultants, negotiate/acquire the needed real
estate at a value not to exceed 10% of the appraised value, and authorize the use of the 90 day "Quick
Take" for land acquisition associated with the 18'b Avenue Trunk Sewer Project.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 39 /
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT,
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D —13
VI DESCRIPTION: Land Acquisition - 50 Avenue NW (J9718)
PRPPARED BY:
M. Nigbur
The reconstruction of 50th Avenue NW is a project that has been programmed by the City for
construction in 2001/20OW The Council has previously approved the project in the CIP. Design has
begun, and right-of-way limits have been established. Staff now needs to begin the acquisition process
to obtain the needed land rights to maintain the project schedule.
Staff would request authorization to retain consultants for the real estate acquisition process. Staff also
requests the authorization to negotiate and settle with the land owners for the needed land rights for a
value not to exceed 10% of the appraised value. If negotiations do not progress satisfactorily and
timely, Staff would also request authorization, at the direction of the City Administrator, to begin the 90
Day Quick Take eminent domain process. This process may be needed to maintain the project
schedule. Staff will continue to negotiate towards a settlement during the condemnation process.
_------- 65th Street NW ---.. _.__..--
i
60th Avenue = , ..; i
• `, /TMY
ya{,t Y
ZZ
3.
` ] n '` 1
1 55th Street NIN - -- :
�4t ww
t-r • Mtn r � <- i
.. _ r
$ °�'��^��� �� � 1._,�
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adoption of a resolution authorizing the staff to retain consultants, negotiate/acquire the needed real
estate at a value not to exceed 10% appraised value, and authorize the use of the 90 day "Quick Take"
for land acquisition associated with the 50th Avenue NW project.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
T( /
DATE: 4/16/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING ❑EPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
D
— f 4
M DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement and Stormwater Agreement — Kwik Trip
PREPARED BY:
at Barclay Square.
M. Nigbur 1'
The Owners of Barclay Square, Kwik Trip Inc., and City Staff have had discussions relating to
development of a portion of the Barclay Square property and impacts on the surrounding public
infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided
and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following:
• Traffic improvements/management including: controlled access along Greenview
Drive, internal median and access roadway modifications, and traffic control signage.
• Pedestrian facilities are addressed for Greenview Drive and Salem Road SW.
• Grading of the property to match Salem Roadway.
• Payment of development charges for Storm Water Management and substandard
streets.
• Maintenance of Openspace & landscaping within public easement areas.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The property owner developer
have both executed the Development Agreement.
?�` Kwik Trip Site % j / t
Barclay Square
i
i
,
\ `
Greenview Drive
Salem Road
_--
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement and Storm Water
Agreement for Kwik Trip at Barclay Square
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
3�
DATE: 4/16/00
AGENDA SECTION!
ORIGINATING DEPT,
ITEM NO -
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D—/
!M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction in Wedgewood Hills Fourth
PREPARED BY:PX
Subdivision (J9798)
M. Baker �j
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Mr. Leslie Lurken (Owner) & Elcor Construction, Co. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract
J9798 consisting of "Basic Construction in Wedgewood Hills Fourth Subdivision".
\/y\ �Magym \ \ J
VE
SEE
eme C13<
/ m
� xl 'dF�lys'�k
-
.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9798
"Basic Construction in Wedgewood Hills Fourth Subdivision"
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
K 1-1
4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D —A6
M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve The Villas of
PREPARED Ar.
Valley Side First Addition (J9767)
p—M. Bak
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
Lumber One Avon, Inc. (Owner) & Jech Excavating, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner
Contract J9767 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve The Villas of Valley Side First Addition"
w
e
�J
8
�* a� tlas�o��y ide€First ddrd°o/!
muunenn ow eE
r6
F
\
�4t
f
`s
T
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9767
"Basic Construction to Serve The Villas of Valley Side First Addition"
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING "fl� 11
DATE: 4/16/00
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works D —0
:M DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction to Serve Orchard
North Subdivision (J9681)
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
1ARED BY: r -
M. Baker"'Z)
Michael Younge Development, Inc. (Owner) & Road Constructors, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City
/ Owner Contract J9681 consisting of "Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills North Subdivision".
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9681
"Basic Construction to Serve Orchard Hills North Subdivision"
UNCIL ACTION: Moron by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CONSENT AGENDA I Public Works
:M DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
ITEM NO.
o-rs
1ARED BY:
M. Baker L
The Department of Public Works has received a request on one (1) property, to voluntarily
participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). 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:
• Olmsted Medical Center Renovations
(CUP#00-36 & VAR#00-40)
$ 3,659.85
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 Storm Water Management Plan.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second
10
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 91
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
D�
M DESCRIPTION: Amendment to Rochester Code of Ordinances Chapter 76
P pp ED BY:
Wellner
The Minnesota Health Department requires all contractors that conduct work covered under the
Plumbing Code to provide a $25,000 Code Compliance bond. RCO implies that the City Council will
require compliance with appropriate state rules and statutes in issuance of licenses. However RCO 76
does not clearly state that the person applying for a license must also comply with appropriate State
rules and statutes, nor does RCO 76 state that failure to comply with State rules and statutes is reason
for suspension or revocation of the license.
Public Works staff and the City Attorney recommend RCO 76 be amended to clarify that compliance
with appropriate State rules and statutes is required for the issuance of a license and for the continued
good standing of a license issued under this Chapter.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the ordinance amending RCO Sections 76.09 and 76.11 requiring compliance with State
statutes and rules to obtain and maintain a license and to perform sewer connection work within
Rochester.
JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
591�
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING
SECTION 76.09, SUED. 2, AND SECTION 76.11,
SUED. 1, OF THE ROCHESTER CODE OF
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO THE LICENSE
REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONS MAKING
CONNECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC SEWERS.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subdivion 2 of Section 76.09 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is
hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Subd. 2. A person desiring a license to make a connection with a public sewer
shall apply in writing to the common council, and shall furnish the council satisfactory
evidence that the applicant is a person trained or skilled in the business, is in compliance
with all requirements of state law, and is otherwise qualified to receive a license. The
application shall be referred to the city engineer for recommendation to the council. If
approved by the council, a license shall be issued by the city clerk upon the payment of
fees and filing of a bond as hereinafter provided.
Section 2. Subdivision 1 of Section 76.11 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances is
hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:
76.11. Suspension or Revocation of a License. Subdivision 1. The council may suspend
or revoke a license issued under this ordinance for any of the following reasons:
(1) Providing false information in connection with the application for a license.
(2) Incompetence of the licensee.
(3) Willful violation of any provision of this ordinance or any regulation pertaining
to the making of connections, including the failure to obtain and maintain
licensures, bonds and insurance as required by this chapter or state law.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after the date of its publication.
PAN
"ASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS DAY OF 2001.
PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
APPROVED THIS DAY OF .2001.
MAYOR OF SAID CITY
(Sea] of the City of
Rochester, Minnesota)
e]wpl0nl.neM76.09s2
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING SS �
DATE: 04/16/01
•• •
• r
•
■ITEM
• • • •- •PREPARED:
• • • •M no 911
R. Kelm
r• rr
jl1Y j�V� � t l
Fi`3r �*� � �R �� C � ,•
�•-.
�`F 1
,fix -�l� Jx'�t T�sj °� idx �f�y�, lif. f
�� Nk � �i'+ •�+JT�ylY{•1� ��Y T 1.��.'a#!"`'4.�.i(i'ryve r4
yi'
�m°4v+"' V' 4 y � .t 4 .+fF ,� ( «S'Sr� fKa i^•d+r
V-�e (f Suk4.1�•g'kl- 1� , �. i•�Yi{ g�F� , az..
.y,eHk,.c•.y.u�.ni'
.lh]WY 9i
k r�n�^r���'
�f4�A
.Y£y4i �i'�/�iy�aY �_���\\�F�/'�1�N-`•i' I..±Npl)�3a�Y ^1 •# �L�.Sa
lflYt Q+t '� �{�.i`5•:A i"gk,bY R t hlryR �/ yQN{},
r� 4w
mfl fl aye" 4�'Y�"
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /
DATE: 4/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENTAGENDA
Public Works
b-,4{
?M DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: Traffic Signals at Intersection of CSAH
PREPARED BY:
1 (11th Avenue SE) and 24th Street SE
,-'eD. Rossman
This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project:
Project No. M1-51 (J6325) SAP 159-120-10, SAP 55-601-15
Traffic Signals at Intersection of CSAH 1 (11' Avenue SW & 24' Street SE
The Signal project, engineering and construction will be funded with 50% Municipal State Aid funds and
50% County State Aid Funds
The project is included in the 2001-2006 Capital Improvement Program budget (item 8, page 40).
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid
opening on Wednesday May 9,2001 at 11:00 AM.
Note to City Clerk;
Advertise 3 times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning X- ilZ 1�1007.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING s9
DATE: 4-16-01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
ITEM NO.
D ac;)-
?M DESCRIPTION: Traffic Signal & Parking Ramp Painting Bid Award
PREPARED By:
D. Rossmanjwy
Bids were received on Tuesday April 10, 2001 for 3 City Projects those being:
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. (J4213) "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.
The bids received were:
VENDOR SIGNAL RAMP SHELTERS BONUS TOTAL
Caution Wet Paint $28,100 $23,831 $16,800 $100/day $68,731
Swanson & Youngdale $89,140 $100,334 $18,786 $200/day $208,260
Eric Danewick Painting $39,289 $26,487 $15,450 $400/day $81,226
Project Estimate $46,800 $31,028 $21,000 $450/day $98,828
Staff recommends proceeding with the bid from Caution Wet Paint. They were the painting contractor
last year and completed the work satisfactorily and on schedule. The Bonus is a per day compensation for
completing the work before September 1, 2001. It is limited to 5% of the contract amount, and is also the
amount to be used for liquidated damages for failure to complete the work by the completion date.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution awarding the contract to Caution Wet Paint of 2004 5" Avenue NE
Rochester Mn. 55906, and authorize The Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract.
UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETI
DATE:
AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
VI MEMORANDUM OF UI
6 BUS MAINTENANCE
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC WORKS D-23
ANDING / MnDOT DISTRICT PREPARED BY:
A KNAUER A
The Minnesota Department of Transportation and Southeastern Minnesota Citizens Action
Coalition (SEMCAC) have purchased a bus under a federal rural transportation program. The
bus is to be used as a district wide spare vehicle for rural and small city systems such as
SEMCAC, Red wing, Winona, Northfield, Faribault, Mower and Steel counties etc. MnDOT has
requested that the City of Rochester because of its central location in the district administrate th
lease of this bus to the various systems as needed. (The City also has use of the vehicle,)
The maintenance and repair costs are recovered from the systems that lease the bus. The City
of Rochester would add the bus to its insurance roster. However, the systems using the bus will
be required to insure the vehicle when it is under their control.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a memorandum of understanding
between the City and SEMCAC regarding the maintenance, administration and lease of the
MnDOT District 6 Bus.
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING (o3
DATE: 4/16/2001
AGENDA SECTION:
)nsent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Water Reclamation Plant
ITEM NO:
r,�
_ _EM DESCRIPTION: Bids for the Local Area Network Installation
PREPARED BY:
Lyle J. Zimmerman
Bids were received on April 3, 2001 for installation of a fiber optic Local Area Network for the process control
computer system at the Water Reclamation Plant. Two bids were received and one bid was rejected because the
bid pricing was confusing and unclear as to what was the bid amount. The City Attorney reviewed the bid and
recommended rejecting the bid of All Systems Installation, Inc. Copies of the bid sheets are attached.
Foster Electric Company Rochester, Minnesota $128,500.00
All Systems Installation, Inc. Rochester, Minnesota Bid Rejected
NOTE TO COUNCIL:
The City Attorney has recommended rejecting the bid from All Systems Installation, Inc.
since their bid document does not clearly spell out the bid amount, both in the written
form and the figure form./►//
Y�a�Qr
Council Action Requested:
Approval to award a contract to Foster Electric for installation of the Fiber Optic LAN (Local Area Network) at
the Water Reclamation Plant for $128,500.00
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To:
/J oy
LUMP SUM BID
The Bidder agrees to accept as full payment for the lump sum bid work, as defined in
these Contract Documents, based upon the undersigned's own estimate of quantities
and costs, the following Lump Sum Bid amount. The Bidder agrees that the Lump Sum
Bid amount represents a true measure of the labor and materials required to perform the
work.
The amount shall be shown in both words and figures. In case of a discrepancy, the
amount shown in words shall govern.
ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN, TWO HUNDRED
SIXTY SEVEN
and NO
(Amount written in words has precedence)
$ 127.00 267.00
(Amount in Figures)
SURETY
If the Bidder is awarded,a construction contract on this Proposal, the Surety who
provides the Performance and Payment Bond will be
whose address is
CNA
222 SOUTH 9TH STREET
Street
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402
City State Zip
I .
Page 12 of 16
Bidding Documents
Rochester, Minnesota WRP Fiber Optic LAN
March 15, 2001
i SOS
LUMP SUM BID
The Bidder agrees to accept as full payment for the lump sum bid work, as defined in
these Contract Documents, based upon the undersigned's own estimate of quantities
and costs, the following Lump Sum Bid amount. The Bidder agrees that the Lump Sum
Bid amount represents a true measure of the labor and materials required to perform the
work.
The amount shall be shown in both words and figures. In case of a discrepancy, the
amount shown in words shall govern.
One Hundred Twenty -Eight thousand Five Hundred Dollars
and _
(Amount
no cents
words has
$ 128,500.00
(Amount in Figures)
SURETY
If the Bidder is awarded a construction contract on this Proposal, the Surety who
Provides the Performance and Payment Bond will be
_ United Fire fi Casualty Company whose address is
118 Seceond Ave SE PO Box 73909
Street
Cedar Rapids Iowa 52407-3909
City - State Zip
Take exception to 60 day completion due to delivery time of Equipment.
On page 11 of 16 under Start of Construction and Contract Completion Time.
Page 12 of 16
Bidding Documents
Rochester, Minnesota WRP Fiber Optic LAN
March 15. 2001
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 04/1(7/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Finance D -.?-C
VI DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY:
Authorize Credit Card Merchant Services Agreement I D. Martinson
Customers of many City departments continue to request the City to accept credit
cards in payment for City services. Some departments, including RPU, Mayo Civic
Center and Civic Music have been accepting credit cards for some time.
The finance department has been reviewing fee structures for combining existing
departments and adding additional departments to the credit card merchant services
agreement. Reduced fee structures can be obtained by combining volume of credit
card transactions from the various departments.
The initial proposed arrangement is to add the City Clerk and Building Safety
Departments as merchants and combine with Music and Mayo Civic Center. RPU
volume may be added at a later date.
The'fee structure would be evaluated every six months based upon estimated vs.
actual transaction volumes and types of transactions (customer present, called -in,
electronic verify, etc.).
This new merchant service agreement will provide reduced fees for those
departments currently accepting this form of payment and will provide a much
needed alternative to receive payments for the other two departments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute credit card Merchant Service Agreement
with Wells Fargo Bank, Card Services Division under the fee schedule currently
proposed or as later negotiated by the Finance Director based on transaction
volume.
_ _ JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 61
DATE: 4-16-01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
S _ 1
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #00.08. The applicant is proposing to
PREPARED BY:
amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 46
Mitzi A. Baker,
acres of land for "commercial' land uses, the property is currently designated for "low
Senior Planner
density residential' and "medium density residential' types of uses. The �roperty is
located along the north side of 481h St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11` Ave. SW.
April 10, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 27, 2000.
Slaver moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08, with staff suggested findings. Quinn
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3, with Werven, Schultze and Petersson voting nay.
Council Action Needed:
1. Continue this item to May 7, 2001.
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
1. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
2. Planning Department File
3. Kane & Johnson
4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday April 16, 2001 in the Council / Board
Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
COUNCIL ACTION:
n By: Seconded By: Action:
q O
.. .. .........-_ ........ kIunI1VI L/L ) V j I I-UUL(UUL
Mitzi Baker 3-28-01
Planning and Zoning: Staff
Ms. Baker,
If possible we would like to request another extension of time as relates to
our Application on the West 80 acres of R.L. Hexum & Associates Inc. holdings.
We apologize for the delay in our planning phase. The issues surrounding the
R.O.W. being discussed at the April Idh. 2001 Public Hearing at Golden Hill
School should help resolve many of the questions so that we may move ahead.
At this time we request to be extended to the following date available, after April
16'', 2001.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas M. Hexum
R.L. Hexum & Associates Inc.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING W i
DATE: 4-16-01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NABaker
CONTINUED HEARINGS
PLANNING
�
I DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #00-16 by R.L. Hexum Associates to re-
PREPA
zone 36.32 acres from R-1 to R-2 and 45.66 acres from R-1 to M-1.
Mitzi
April 10, 2001
The applicant requests that this item be continued to May 7, 2001.
Council Action Needed.
1. Continue this item to May 7, 2001
Distribution:
Clerk
Administrator
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division -
6. Kane and Johnson Architects, Inc.
7. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday April 16, 2001 in the Council / Board Chambers in the
Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
mnu L" LUUIIIILuj IU.11 pnluufILb nuolea �PftL)7U1 L9L 9U71
Mitzi Baker 3-28-01
Planning and Zoning: Staff
Ms. Baker,
If possible we would like to request another extension of time as relates to
our Application on the West 80 acres of R.L. Hexum S Associates Inc. holdings.
We apologize for the delay in our planning phase. The issues surrounding the
R.O.W. being discussed at the April 10', 2001 Public Hearing at Golden Hill
School should help resolve many of the questions so that we may move ahead.
At this time we request to be extended to the following date available, after April
16"', 2001.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas M. Hexum
R.L. Hexum & Associates Inc.
r, uol/ffil
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I3
DATE: 4-16-01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITLNO.CONTINUED
- PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNINGylDESCRIPTION:
General Development Plan #159, 48 Street GDP by R.L. Hexum
PBy:Associates
aker,
April 10, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on December 27, 2000 and recommends approval
subject to conditions and modifications. Schultze moved to recommend approval of GOP 159 with staff suggested findings
and conditions and modifications, with #7 to be clarified prior to the Council meeting and with #1 modified to require
realignment of the north/south collector road. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Werven
voting nay.
Council Action Needed:
1. Continue to May 7, 2001.
,., Ibutlon:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Kane and Johnson Architects, Inc.
7. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday April 16, 2001 in the Council / Board Chambers in the
Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
_ _ JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
�-"j )u1 Liu iuJi I,000/UUG
qq
J
Mitzi Baker 3-28-01
Planning and Zoning: Staff
Ms, Baker,
If possible we would like to request another extension of time as relates to
our Application on the West 80 acres of R.L. Hexum & Associates Inc. holdings.
We apologize for the delay in our planning phase. The issues surrounding the
R.O.W. being discussed at the April 101', 2001 Public Hearing at Golden Hill
School should help resolve many of the questions so that we may move ahead.
At this time we request to be extended to the following date available, after
16'h, 2001. April
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas M. Hexum
R.L. Hexum & Associates Inc.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AULNUA bLU 1 IUN:
PUBLIC HEARINGS — CONTINUED
MEETING
DATE: 04-16-01
ITEM NO.
I�/
e. -
M DESCRIPTION: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #01-06 by the People of Hope PREPARED BY:
Church. The applicant has petitioned to annex approximately acres of land located Theresa Fogarty,
within apart of Sections 4 and 5 of Rochester Township along the orth side of Country Planner
Club Road and west Circle Drive I County Road 22.
April 12, 2001
4,14
NOTE: The applicant has requested to amend this request. Instead of petitioning for the annexation of 29.67
acres, the applicant is requesting to annex only 9.47 acres. Staff will notify the RochesterTownship and the
Olmsted County Board of the amended annexation request.
City Planninq and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on March 28, 2001. The Commission found that this
property is adjacent to the city limits and can be served by City services. The Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of
this request.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Annexation Petition #01-06 by the People of Hope Church.
Mr. Breda seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Pla_nnin_a Department Recommendation:
See attached REVISED staff report, dated March 6, 2001.
Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township.
or the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and
0% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township Taxes on this property for 2000 is
_23.63.
Council Action Needed.,
1. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN
Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning.
Attachments
1. Revised Staff report, dated April 12, 2001.
2. Minutes of March 28, 2001 CPZC Meeting
3. Letter from applicant, dated April 12, 2001.
4. Revised survey and legal description.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Revised Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director: Revised Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
�. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m.
Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion bv: second
�4
on Monday, April 16, 2001 in the Council Chambers at the
-' — out act 1655 P.01
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
SECTION 4 & 5
T.106 N. , R. 14 W.
f ST NW
MANO
WOODS
gz• `. THIRDRSUBDIVISIDN Ilj,, .. SUBDIVISION
III C¢M. STH ----
/• Ee 4344 5 8 �•u NTERBURYFIFTH
1993.08' 625.41' /�, 374REC. s
374.4648 MEAS. 1a
O 4 �
r0j C pBPaBpPi µL
a9e.o1' 50' I
50' • `` �`��' I
DELTA y t1.21a511 r
y4ypA • /
CHCRC w 146.
LAND DESCRIPTION
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 5, and that part of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 106 North, Range 14
West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter;
thence easterly on o Minnesota State Plane Grid Azimuth from
north of 88 degrees 43 minutes 44 seconds along the north
line of said Northeast Quarter 1993.08 feet to the point of
beginning; thence continue easterly 88 degrees 43 minutes 44
seconds azimuth along said north line 625.41 feet to the
northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence easterly 89
degrees 15 minutes 45 seconds azimuth along the north line of
said Northwest Quarter 374.59 feet to the west right—of—way
line of 36th Avenue NW; thence southerly 178 degrees 02
minutes 15 seconds azimuth along said westerly right—of—way
line 264.48 feet to the center line of County Road No. 34;
thence westerly 252 degrees 38 minutes 44 seconds azimuth
along said center line 898.01 feet; thence westerly 145.12 feet
along said center line on a tangential curve concave northerly,
having a radius of 1272.12 feet and a central angle of 6
degrees 32 minutes 11 seconds; thence northerly 358 degrees
50 minutes 45 seconds azimuth along a line not tangent to the
previously described line 548.90 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 9.47 acres.
• FOUND MONUMENT 0 200'
MONUMENTS NOT SET PER REQUEST OF OWNER I i
sun. m.r ms su,K.. cAT[ OF SURVE.: +-11-oI
wr[•R.TR� ro�6+•+suum• /� /Jb /fj Engineering Psroer•eF.,
Rv a+sa wra.nw •n mn W • II�,J. l l�,J. I(�.J. Surveying People of Hope Church
oVu uosn+[s u+o ans.a was+
+•¢ �•a u rK s•a v uxxnm• Planning 1816 2nd Streel SW
xw lwio 52 sr PA. 56)-e6)-666 Rochester, MN 55902
- fJ,Olfi+l0, UN 06913 F..50)-66)-1663
tApr-1L-U1 U/:Ut3A GGG
507 867 1665
GGG Inc.
Engineering Surveying & Planning
14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923
phone 507-867-1666
fax 507-867-1665
April 12, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department
Attn: Brent Svenby
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: People of Hope Church Annexation Request
Dear Mr. Svenby,
At the request of People of Hope Church, we would like to revise the Annexation by Ordinance
Petition #01-06 by the People of Hope Church. Instead of the original 29.67 acres, we would
like to scale down the amount of land being annexed to 9.47 acres. The legal description for the
9.47 acre parcel along with a certificate of survey is attached.
The future use of the property for the construction of a church still applies.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call at any time.
Sincerely,
euwl
Mark R. Welch
Design Engineer
Cc: People of Hope Church
P.03 f
11
r
T
DATE
ROCHESTER-OL1IISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
coux Tr ar
REVISED
City Planning and Zoning Commission
Theresa Fogarty, Planner
April 12, 2001
"F .µOC H ESTE R.,%,111Ff
p,: of •x
kgTF.O:pUG�ST-
RE: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #01-06 by the People of Hope
Church. The applicant has petitioned to annex approximately 9.47 acres
of land located within a part of Sections 4 and 5 of Rochester Township
along the north side of Country Club Road and west of West Circle Drivel
County Road 22.
Planninq Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: People of Hope
1816 2nd Street SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of County Club
Road and west of West Circle Drive / County Road 22.
Existing Land Use:
This property is currently undeveloped land.
Size:
The property proposed for annexation is approximately
9.47 acres of unplatted land.
Existing Zoning:
The property is zoned A-3 (Agricultural) District on the
Olmsted County zoning map.
Future Zoning:
Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning map.
The future use of this property is construction of a church. A
church is a permitted use in the R-1 district meeting the
requirements Section 62.930, "Area Accessory Development -
Site Location Standards". The applicant will not need to file a
zone change petition, in the future, for the use of this property
as a church.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 - GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-B345
FAX 507/287.2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
Annexation #01-06 People of Hope Church
April 12, 2001
Land Use Plan:
This property is designated for "low density residential' uses
on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Adjacency to the Municipal
The property is adjacent to the city limits along its northern
Limits:
boundary.
Sewer & Water:
The Northwest High Level Water System service is available
to this property. Sanitary sewer and water is available to
serve the easterly portion of this property.
Utilities:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a
municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric
utility service may change if the land is annexed to the
municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant.
Townboard Review:
Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard
members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days
prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public
hearing on this item on April 2, 2001. The City Clerk has sent
the certified 30 day notice.
Wetlands:
Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be
reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The
Soils Survey indicates that hydric soils exist on the site. The
property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the
property and submitting the information during the Site
Development Review process.
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division
2. Rochester Public Works Department
3. Planning Department — Wetlands staff
4. Olmsted County Environmental Resource Services
Report Attachments:
1. Annexation Map I Location Map
2. Referral Comments (4 letters)
Staff Recommendation:
I9-
This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary
sewer and water lines from their present ends. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to
adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3).
P U
we pledge, we deliver
February 22, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexation by Ordinance Petition #01-06 by People of Hope Church to annex
29.67 acres of land located along the north side of Country Club Road and west of 36`h Ave. NW
in a part of Sections 4 & 5, Rochester Township.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. The property maybe subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments.
The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department
determines the applicability of these fees.
2. The easterly one third of this property is within the Main Level Water System Area, which is
available within 36`h Ave. NW. The static pressure will be approximately 63 PSI at elevation
1020.
3. Preliminary computer water system modeling indicates approximately 1600 GPM @ 20 PSI
is available for fire protection within 36`h Ave. NW.
4. The westerly two thirds of the property is within the Northwest High Level Water System
Area, which is available to the north within Manor View Dr. NW.
5. 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,
06-JA RISLI
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Tom Glordano, People of Hope Church
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
2122 Campus Drive SE
WORKS
Rochester, MN 55904
201 4"" Street BE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
Date: 2/27/01
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for
Annexation #01-06 on the People of Hope Church Wo Sections 4 & 5. Rochester
Township) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
Municipal Sanitary Sewer and Water is available to serve the easterly
portion of this property.
C:%tempVWNX01-06 Peopie of Hope Church Sects 4 5 Rochester,doc
x
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: March 28, 2001
Bank to the Commission's April 11, 2001 me e g. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The
motion carried 7-0.
Ms. Baker asked the Commission if they would like a presentation.
The Commission agreed to not have a presentation.
Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Annexation by Ordinance Petition #01.06 by
the People of Hope Church. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
k
SE.
Ms. Mitzi Baker pr ented the staff report, dated March 8, 2001, to the Coon. ion. The staff
report is on file at the ochester-Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Hodgson moved to ommend approval of Vacation Petiti #01-03 by Betty
Blanchard and Michelle D an, with staffZintenance
s. Mr. Brede seconded
the motion. The motion car\draaiin
CONDITIONS;
1. The applicants re-dedicaament for those areas of
the vacation description ohouse, and
2. An access easement be recorded the rivate driveway access located within the
existing right-of-way or the de or that p ion of the vacated right-of-way shall be
attached to the parcel which ceives acces rom said driveway.
3. The above documents s II be provided to the prior to recording the resolution
to vacate right-of-way d shall be recorded simu neous with the resolution, with
the applicant(s) pay! the fees for recording the tw additional documents.
Ms. riitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated March 21, 2001, to the Comrrlrission. The staff
re/rt is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING AD -
DATE: 4-16-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
6 ' 6�
_.d DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #01.01 by Badger Development II, LLC.
PREPARED BY:
The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan
Mitzi A. Baker,
to designate approximately 2.3 acres of land for "commercial" land uses, the property is
Senior Planner
currently designated for "medium density residential' types of uses. The property is
located along the south side of Valleyhigh Road NW and along the west side of
Superior Drive NW.
April 9, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 9, 2000.
Mr. Stever moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment 901-01 by Badger Development 11, LLC, with
staff suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Council Action Needed.
1. The Council shall hold a public hearing. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The
Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use
Plan (as included in the staff report).
�. ,f the Council wishes to proceed with the land use plan amendment as petitioned, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated March 22, 2001
2. Minutes of March 28, 2001 CPZC Meetings
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
4. Planning Department File
5. Yaggy Colby Associates
6. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday April 16, 2001 in the Council / Board
Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building
NCIL ACTION:
motion By: Seconded By: Action:
IOf 4PL
�i
'r RO ?STER-OLMSTED PLANNING DER. 'ANENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
COUNTY OF
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: March 22, 2001
RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #01-01 by Badger Development II, LLC. The
applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land
Use Plan to designate approximately 2.3 acres of land for "commercial'
land uses, the property is currently designated for "medium density
residential' types of uses. The property is located along the south side
of Valleyhigh Road NW and along the west side of Superior Drive NW.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: Badger Development II, LLC
400 South Broadway, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave SE
Rochester. MN 55904
Location of Property: This property is located along the south side of
Valleyhigh Road, west of Superior Drive and is legally
described as the east 250 feet of the north 400 feet of
Lot 1, Block 6, Badger Ridge Subdivision.
Requested Action: The applicant requests to amend the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 2.3
acres of land for "commercial" uses. The property is
currently designated for "medium density residential"
uses. A zoning district amendment and General
Development Plan area being considered concurrent
with this application.
Existing Land Use: The property is currently platted and undeveloped.
Proposed Land Use: The applicant has not specified uses for the property
other than those allowed within the B-1 (Restricted
Commercial) district.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285.8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
Rxw r.n.PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAX 5071287.2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
VOPage 2
LUPA 00-06
March 22, 2001
Adjacent Land Use and Property to the west and south is zoned R-3 (Medium
Zoning: Density Residential). Property to the east is zoned M-
1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). The property to the
north, across Valleyhigh Road is not currently in the
City.
Transportation Access: Access to this property will be from Superior Drive.
The Badger Ridge development has access to
Valleyhigh Road and West Circle Drive.
Wetlands:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
Criteria & Staff Suaaested Findings:
There do not appear to be hydric soils on this
property.
1. Rochester Public Works
2. RPU Water
1. Location Map
2. Area Land Use Plan Map
3. Referral Comments
4. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
In March 2000, the City Council approved an amendment to the Land Use Plan to designate
approximately 55 acres of land within the Badger Ridge General Development Plan (which was
approved at the same time) for "commercial" uses. The 2.3 acre area included within this
application is contiguous to the area designated for "commercial" uses last year. Since that is the
case, staff determined that although the area currently being considered is relatively small, the
same criteria should be applied as though evaluating this area as part of the larger amendment
approved in 2000.
The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan states that regional shopping centers
are best suited in areas with the following characteristics:
a) Located at the Intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or
higher level streets. This site is adjacent to Valleyhigh Road (CSAH 4) along the north and
Superior Drive along the east. The greater area, designated for "commercial" uses last year,
also abuts West Circle Drive (CR 22). Valleyhigh Road NW is classified as an arterial
roadway and West Circle Drive is designated an expressway on the ROCOG Thoroughfare
Plan. Superior Drive is considered a collector roadway.
b) Having level terrain. This site has slightly rolling terrain. The site is at approximately 1150'
at the northeast corner and slopes to approximately 1120' at the southwest corner.
c) Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. The site does have access to an
expressway and arterial roadway. The development of the Badger Ridge GDP, along with
the anticipated development of other properties in the travelshed of Valleyhigh Road, will
require a number of traffic improvements to the adjacent roadways. The traffic analysis
includes immediate traffic improvements as well as accommodations for further
improvements necessitated by growth. There is currently inadequate sight distance for
eastbound traffic approaching this site. The inadequate sight distance could be dealt with on
an interim basis until reconstruction of Valleyhigh Road is done. The future reconstruction of
Page 3
LUPA 00-06
March 22, 2001
Valleyhigh Road and additional improvements at the intersection of Valleyhigh Drive and West
Circle Drive will improve the vehicle access to the site. Concurrent with the development of
the Badger Ridge GDP, pedestrian facilities will be constructed along roadways and a trail
facility will be developed along the perimeter of the development.
d) Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. Last year the City
Council approved a land use plan amendment to designate approximately 55 acres of land
abutting this property for "commercial" land uses and to re -zone that property to the M-1
(Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district. Together with this petition, the area exceeds 57 acres
total.
Staff Recommendation:
It appears as though findings could be made to support an amendment to the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate an additional 2.3 acres of land,
included in this petition, for "commercial' land uses. Staff recommends approval of this
petition.
N)
R
�J 1 I�t->,4 � u y � I
i t 20 Li
jlf� S 3 If * t, 1 BADGER PROPERTY
E ' PART OF SEC20. T107N, 414W � , • •
TER, OIMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA fff
i S L DEVELOPMENT PLAN
uoi;euBisaa A3!suoa rnol
sajoy W99
sajov L L 06
u013euBisa❑
umicaisaa
Ajjsuaa
jejoiewwoo
pub
wnipeW
pas�dOid
i
i
a
mm
wwo
z
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DATE: 3/15/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4s Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for an LUPA#01-01, ZONE#01-
03 and an AMENDMENT to GDP#148 on the Badger Ridge property. The following are Public
Works comments on the proposal:
1. The previous GDP conditions & Development Agreement requirements should
remain in effect and be adjusted to reflect the Commercial designation.
2. Development of the proposed B-1 area will require platting.
3. There is controlled access within 200 feet of the intersection of Superior Dr NW &
Valleyhigh Rd NW. This was based on an R-3 Zoning designation for the area that is
now proposed as B-1. Section #9, paragraph C. of the Development Agreement
should be amended to require controlled access within 300 feet from the intersection
of Valleyhigh Rd NW.
4. The pavement marking on Superior Drive NW should be added to the Development
Agreement as a new Paragraph H., in Section #9.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the existing
Development Agreement
C:ltemp%GDP148 AMENDMENT 3-01 Badger Ridge (LUPA01-01 - ZONE01-03).doc
rpu'
we pledge, we deliver
March 7, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Land Use Plan Amendment #01-01, Zoning District Amendment #01-03 and
Amendment to GDP #148 by Badger Development II, LLC to amend the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan designation and rezone 2.3 acres of land from R-3 to B-1 on at the
SW comer of the intersection of Superior Dr. NW and Valleyhigh Rd. NW.
Dear Ms. Gayness:
Our review of the referenced land use plan amendment is complete and our comments follow:
1. Preliminary water system computer modeling indicates that the current flow for fire
protection to be borderline in this area for this type of use.
2. Our records indicate that there is an 8" water main stubbed to this property from Superior Dr.
NW with the intent that it be looped westerly through the R-3 area to Kenosha Dr. NW to
provide adequate flow for fire protection, reliability and water quality for the future
development of the R-3 area. This east -west loop is still required and will need to be
provided. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm on the alignment of this
necessary water main loop.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
060A WMJL
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Badger Development II, LLC
Yaggy Colby Associates
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
507-288-5058
(TUE) 3. 20'01 11:51/ST. 11: 51/NO. 4261120605 P I
♦RCNITECTf
FROM YAGGY
COLEY
q ?..-
March 20, 2001
Ms. Mitzi Baker
Olmsted County Consolidated Planning
2122 SE Campus Drive
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Rezone (2501 x 4001 Parcel) R-3 to B-1
Badger Ridge
Dear Ms. Baker:
f YPVf\OP6
l.EVlr'N/Va
LANDSCAPE AACAITECTP
As required for the rezone application, we held a neighborhood meeting at Yaggy Colby
Associates on March 15, 2001 from 5:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Mac Hamilton, Jamey
Shandley, and myself were present to answer any questions, however, no other parties
attended.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�YAGGX. COLBY ASSOCIATES
William S. Anderson, PE
WSA:bsd
YCA t17382E2
PLANNEAS
ROCMESTER OFFICE:
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
507-288-6464
Fax 507.288.5058
MASON CRY OFFICE:
641424-6344
DFLAFIELD OFFICE:
262-64"855
Equal opparNEYY rya'
yaggymm —.._..
Page 4 q3
City Planning and Zoning Comrnission Minutes
Hearing Date: March 28, 2001
3. Parkland Dedication s all be met via; Deferred land dedication with dedication to
be met by future dedic tion of the neighborhood park identified on the General
Development Plan. Deckcation is to occurwhen the park site is cessed via
public street or the Park Tiepartment wishes to begin developjffent of the site.
4. The proposed street sectio for "Stonehedge Drive NE" all be reviewed and
approved by the City Engine r, prior to final plat sub al. Additional right-of-
way may need to be dedicate because of /heeds.
5. No parking shall be allowed,at y time, alside of the entire length of
"Stonehedge Drive NE" and mus a posteing — Fire Lane".
6. The applicant shall enter into a de
the obligations of the applicant re
management, park dedication, tra
islands, pedestrian facilities, rigjr!
infrastructure. �
7. Stormwater managementAhust be
dent agreement with the City that outlines
to, but not limited to; stormwater
provements, maintenance of landscape
ly dedication, and contributions for public
Discussion ensued regar g the formal process the ap
waive a standard of 75j4et distance a driveway can be
Discussion ensueXegarding spacing requirements.
the west side of Superior Drive NW.
this development.
it would need to go through to
an intersection.
Ms. Baker explained to the Commission that they would need to make separate motions on the
three (3) different applications.
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff reports, dated March 22, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Burke asked if there was a future proposal for signaling the intersection.
Ms. Baker replied yes and showed where it would be located.
q�
Page 5
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: March 28, 2001
The applicant's representative, Ms. Jamey Shandley, of 160 Interlockin Lane NW, Rochester,
MN addressed the Commission. She explained that the reason for the request was because
they felt there was a need for neighborhood service businesses in the area.
Ms. Shandley stated that she agreed with the staff -suggested conditions for the general
development plan.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Staver moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #01-01 by
—]
Badger Development II, LLC, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the
motion. The motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Staver moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #01-by Badger
Development Il, LLC, with staff -suggested findings. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The
motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Staver moved to recommend approval of Amendment to General Development Plan
#148 by Badger Development II, LLC, with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Mr.
Burke seconded the motion.
Mr. Quinn asked if it were possible for the consultant to move the shared access farther than the
300 feet referenced in the staff -suggested conditions.
Ms. Baker responded that 300 feet is the minimum distance required. She explained that it
would be reviewed in more detail at the platting stage.
The motion carried 7-0.
CONTINUED ITEMS:
specific design standards.
Mr. Harford explained that the item had been tabled a TVIlmes at the request of the taskforce
members. He explained that Mark Utz, representing ATTLT Wireless, met with Mike Hicken, a
taskforce member, to discuss location priorities. Due to ttkimeeting, the taskforce met again
as a group to form a new proposal in the form of a table.
Mr. Harford thanked Mike Hicken for creating the
Mr. Harford reviewed the table for locational prioritizati n, which is V file at the Rochester -
Olmsted Planning Department. He explained each pr' rity and what rocess each would entail.
Mr. Harford explained that the table would be include in the Rochester�Zoning Ordinance and
Land Development Manual.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
� L.-
MEETING
DATE: 10-2-00
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
S _(o
I DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #01-03 and Amendment by Badger
PREPARED BY:
Development II, LLC. The applicant is proposing to re -zone approximately 2.3
Mitzi A. Baker,
acres of land from the R-3 (Medium Density Residential) district to the B-1
Senior Planner
(Restricted Commercial) district. The property is located along the south side
of Valleyhigh Road NW and along the west side of Superior Drive NW.
April 9, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 28, 2001 to consider this zone change.
The Commission reviewed the zone change request based on the criteria as included in the staff report and recommended
approval, with staff suggested findings.
Motion by Staver, seconded by Burke to recommend approval Zoning District Amendment #01-03, with the
finding suggested by Staff. Motion carried 7-0.
Planning Staff Recommendation:
-- attached staff report dated March 22, 2001.
council Action Needed:
If the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and
conclusions of law to amend the Zoning Districts.
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
ator
2. City Attorne
Leg
3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached
:
4. Planning Department File
5. Yaggy Colby Associates
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday April 16, 2001 in the Council/Board
Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
See- IL9&V41 C,tm" 4- C aC �
I ICIL ACTION:
Motion By: Seconded By: Action:
IS
ri
W
y
Ol
J
W
U
Z
m
u
O
Z
O^
N �
ZW
U
o
,oat p
v
c
U�
1
m
jto,,D 121
CCUO
SG
a
W Of
J Z
uod Z
VmU
C J
'r Rol 7STER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPNx1MENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
COUNTY or
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: March 22, 2001
ffw�s� -off
RE: Zoning District Amendment #01-03 and Amendment by Badger
Development II, LLC. The applicant is proposing to re -zone
approximately 2.3 acres of land from the R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) district to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district. The
property is located along the south side of Valleyhigh Road NW and
along the west side of Superior Drive NW.
Planning Department Review:
Petitioner: Badger Development II, LLC
400 South Broadway, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Consultant: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Ave SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Location of Property: This property is located along the south side of
Valleyhigh Road, west of Superior Drive and is legally
described as the east 250 feet of the north 400 feet of
Lot 1, Block 6, Badger Ridge Subdivision.
Requested Action:
The applicant requests to amend the zoning map to
rezone 2.3 acres of land from R-3 (Medium Density
Residential) to B-1 (Restricted Commercial). A Land
Use Plan amendment and General Development Plan
area being considered concurrent with this
application.
Existing Land Use:
The property is currently platted and undeveloped.
Proposed Land Use:
The applicant has not specified uses for the property
other than those allowed within the B-1 (Restricted
Commercial) district.
Adjacent Land Use and
Property to the west and south is zoned R-3 (Medium
Zoning:
Density Residential). Property to the east is zoned M-
1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). The property to the
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • wELLSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
tJ Page 2
March 22, 2001
Transportation Access:
Wetlands:
Referral Comments:
Report Attachments:
north, across Valleyhigh Road is not currently in the
City.
Access to this property will be from Superior Drive.
The Badger Ridge development has access to
Valleyhigh Road and West Circle Drive.
There do not appear to be hydric soils on this
property.
1. Rochester Public Works
2. RPU Water
1. Location Map
2. Area Zoning Map
3. Referral Comments
d. Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Analysis forZoning District Amendment:
Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the
Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application
requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria:
1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by
formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria:
a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan;
b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative
error;
c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan,
the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive
Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use
Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range
Transportation Plan; or
d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public
interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area.
Proposed B-1: Re -zoning 2.3 acres of this property to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district
is only consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan if the Commission
and Council support a Land Use Amendment (#01-01) request to designate this property as
appropriate for "commercial" uses on the Land Use Plan. The B-1 District would provide for
uses and services that would serve households, which could minimize trips traveled to other
areas. Mixing land uses and reducing trips traveled is encouraged by the Rochester Urban
Service Area Land Use Plan.
Page 3
March 22, 2001
2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed
by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria:
a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate
on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the
neighborhood; and
Proposed B-1: if the Land Use Plan Amendment for this property is approved, uses
within the B-1 district would be considered appropriate on the subject property. At the
time that the Badger Ridge GDP, Land Use Amendment and Zone Change were
considered last year, there was discussion regarding the division of land uses within the
development. Superior Drive, adjacent to this property, and a topographic divide to the
south provide for a division between residential uses and uses in the M-1 (Mixed
Commercial -Industrial) district. The property included in this current zone change
petition would be located adjacent to R-3 zoned land along the west and south
boundaries. When this property is developed, landscaping and buffering will need to be
provided consistent with the standards in the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual The 8-1 district, unlike the more intense commercial districts,
does have limitations for hours of operation that apply to most uses. The hours of
operation, for most uses in the B-1 district, are limited from 6AM to 10PM.
The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes a brief
description of the B-1 Restricted Commercial District, as follows: The district recognizes
areas of low intensity business uses that are located adjacent to residential areas, but along
major thoroughfares so as not to encourage customer traffic through the adjacent residential
areas.
The B-1 district is considered compatible with the adjacent properties and
neighborhood. More intense commercial zoning districts would not be appropriate at
this location.
b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the
reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different
than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the
purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions
of courts in this state).
Proposed B-1: Rezoning 2.3 acre to the B-1 zoning district would not be considered spot
zoning.
Staff Recommendation:
It appears as thought findings can be made to support rezoning this property from the R-3
(Medium Density) district to the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district. Staff recommends
approval of this petition.
qj
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (Q/ /
DATE: 4-16-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
S ,07
1 DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #148, an amendment to the Badger Ridge
PREPARED BY:
GDP to identify 2.3 acres for development within the B-1 (Restricted
Mitzi A. Baker,
Commercial) district.
Senior Planner
April 9, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this item on March 28, 2001 and recommends approval subject six
conditions or modifications. Slaver moved to approve this amendment to GDP #148 known as Badger Ridge with staff suggested
findings, and conditions or modifications, Burke seconded the motion, which carried 7.0.
1. A new or amended development agreement shall be executed to include provisions for pavement markings
on Superior Drive and to identify controlled access needs along Superior Drive abutting the proposed B-1
district. Controlled access will be required along the north 300 feet of the east property line of Lot 1, Block
6, Badger Ridge Subdivision.
2. The portion of the property proposed for development In the B-1 district shall be re -platted prior to
development approvals. Cross access easements will be required at the time of platting to document shared
use of one access location for the entire B-1 area proposed with this GDP amendment.
3. The GDP shall by revised to reflect the following modifications:
➢ A 10 foot trail facility along the south side on Valleyhigh Road
➢ The shared access location proposed for the proposed B-1 area shall be shifted to the south to be at
least 300 feet from the Valleyhigh Road NW right of way.
4. Revised copies of the GDP shall be provided to the Planning Department, which reflect all required
modifications.
5. All previous conditions on this General Development Plan and Development Agreement requirements shall
remain In effect.
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.
Distribution;
1. City Clerk
2. City Administrator
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Yaggy Colby Associates
7. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday April 16, 2001 in the Council I Board Chambers in the
Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
__:NCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
1.
>-}pF.
u cm
® Q 0
>¢O ,
Ndld 1N3WdOl3A3Q IV'd3N30
V1O53NNIW'.LLNno3 031SK10'M3163NJON
Mr 3N 'NLOIl'On35 !O lava
AiSNOMd M30dd9
R�Pp 22e
1
/.
i
I
N
Z ZQ� � 1Of
;w,4 ¢,
qsR C�'
`III
w
r
w
i
/
1
CUE opN.E
I
R c ?Sxx; e
1�
fit
i
11
ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 " Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CDUN TY OF
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner
DATE: March 22, 2001
Imp-ss�\�ms.A
1 �ee�vliie4
l►�Hn,,�I��p�q�J
RE: Amendment to General Development Plan #148 known as Badger
Ridge, to identify 2.3 acres for development within the B-1
(Restricted Commercial) district.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant:
Badger Development, LLC
400 South Broadway #100
Rochester, MN 55904
Consultants: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Size and Location: This property is located along the south side of
Valleyhigh Road, west of Superior Drive and is legally
described as the east 250 feet of the north 400 feet of
Lot 1, Block 6, Badger Ridge Subdivision.
The entire GDP includes approximately 235.64 acres
of land located south of Valleyhigh Road NW, west of
West Circle Drive.
Existing Land Use:
The property currently proposed for development in
the B-1 district is platted and undeveloped.
Proposed Use:
The applicant requests to amend the Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate 2.3
acres of land for "commercial" uses and to rezone
that portion of the property to the B-1 (Restricted
Commercial) district.
Adjacent Land Use and
Property to the west and south is zoned R-3 (Medium
Zoning:
Density Residential). Property to the east is zoned M-
1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). The property to the
north, across Valleyhigh Road is not currently in the
City.
Streets: Access to this property will be from Superior Drive.
BUILDING CODE 5071265-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELVSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
(Oq Page 2
General Development Plan
March 22, 2001
Sidewalks:
Drainage:
Wetlands:
Public Utilities:
The Badger Ridge development has access to
Valleyhigh Road and West Circle Drive.
Sidewalk and pedestrian paths will need to be
incorporated into the development of this property.
The General Development Plan identifies existing
topography. The property generally drains to the
south.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required
when the property is platted.
There do not appear to be hydric soils within the
portion of the GDP proposed for development in the
B-1 district.
Utilities are present in the area. Watermain stubbed
to this property will need to be looped westerly
through the R-3 area.
Parkland Dedication: If the Land Use Plan Amendment, rezoning and GDP
amendment are approved, the parkland dedication
requirement for Badger Ridge 1 s` will be reduced by
1.17 acres.
Referral Comments: 1. Rochester Public Works
2. RPU Water
3. Rochester Park & Recreation
Report Attachments: 1. Reduced Copy of General Development Plan
Maps
2. Referral Comments
Summary:
The GDP encompasses approximately 235 acres of land located south of Valleyhigh Road and
west of West Circle Drive. In 2000, the entire GDP was annexed into the City, and the City
approved the GDP, Land Use Plan Amendments and Zoning District Amendments to designate
portions of this property for development in the R-2, R-3 and M-1 zoning districts. A Traffic Impact
Study was also completed by the developer as part of those applications. Since then, four plats
have been approved within the GDP, including Badger Ridge Subdivision (residential), Circle
Drive Business Center, Circle Drive Business Center Second and Circle Drive Business Center
Third.
The applicant is currently proposing to amend a small portion of the GDP in conjunction with
petitions to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan and zoning map to identify
2.3 acres of this GDP west of Superior Drive and south of Valleyhigh Road for development within
the B-1 (Restricted Commercial) district. The GDP identifies three lots within this 2.3 acre area
that would share one access to Superior Drive. The access location, identified on the GDP, will
need to be sifted further to the south to be 300 feet from the right of way with Valleyhigh Road.
Page 3
General Development Plan
March 22, 2001
NW. At the time the property is platted, the lot configuration and access will need to be reviewed
further.
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.
A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment are being
considered concurrent with this application. If the proposed amendments are
approved the proposed land uses would be consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan and zoning map.
Criteria S. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation
are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent
property.
The property included in this current zone change petition would be located
adjacent to R-3 zoned land along the west and south boundaries. When this
property is developed, landscaping and buffering will need to be provided
consistent with the standards in the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual. The B-1 district, unlike the more intense commercial
districts, does have limitations for hours of operation that apply to most uses.
The hours of operation, for most uses in the B-1 district, are limited to 6AM -
10PM. The Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes
a brief description of the B-1 Restricted Commercial District, as follows: The
district recognizes areas of low intensity business uses that are located adjacent to
residential areas, but along major thoroughfares so as not to encourage customer
traffic through the adjacent residential areas.
The B-1 district is considered compatible with the adjacent properties and
neighborhood. More intense commercial zoning districts would not be
appropriate at this location.
Access to this site will need to be reviewed further at time of development or re -
platting. The access location shown on the GDP will need to be modified to
move the access approximately 100 feet to the south.
Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans.
A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment are being
considered concurrent with this application. If the proposed amendments are
approved the proposed land uses would be consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan and zoning map.
l ap Page 4
General Development Plan
March 22, 2001
The B-1 District would provide for uses and services that would serve
households, which could minimize trips traveled to other areas. The Rochester
Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourages mixing land uses and reducing
trips traveled.
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.
Valleyhigh Road, 5e Avenue and West Circle will need to upgraded, improved
and/or modified to be able to carry the anticipated traffic volumes for the
development of the entire GDP. Required improvements have been included in
the executed Development Agreement for Circle Drive Business Center and
Circle Drive Business Center Second. A new or amended agreement will be
required for this property, to include some additional provisions.
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.
Valleyhigh Road, 5dh Avenue and West Circle will need to upgraded,
improved andlor modified to be able to carry the anticipated traffic
volumes for the development of the entire GDP. Required improvements
have been included in the executed Development Agreement for Circle
Drive Business Center and Circle Drive Business Center Second. Anew
or amended agreement will be required for this property, to include some
additional provisions.
2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land
use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities
to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in
the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements
Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development
agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that
adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If
needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed
development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate
to a condition that no development will occur and no further development
permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced.
Page 5
General Development Plan
March 22, 2001
Development of this site will require extension of watermain to the west.
Utilities are available in the area to serve this property.
3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of
service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for
development.
Valleyhigh Road, 50'" Avenue and West Circle will need to upgraded,
improved and/or modified to be able to carry the anticipated traffic
volumes for the development of the entire GDP. Required improvements
have been included in the executed Development Agreement for Circle
Drive Business Center and Circle Drive Business Center Second. A new
or amended agreement will be required for this property, to include some
additional provisions.
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.
Detailed grading and drainage plans will need to be submitted to the City for
review and approval. The design and placement of storm water ponds within this
development will need to be consistent with City standards.
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 B-1 district, unlike the more intense commercial districts, does have
limitations for hours of operation that apply to most uses. The hours of
operation, for most uses in the B-1 district, are limited to 6AM -10PM. The
Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes a brief
description of the B-1 Restricted Commercial District, as follows: The district
recognizes areas oflow intensity business uses that are located adjacent to residential
areas, but along major thoroughfares so as not to encourage customer traffic through
the adjacent residential areas.
The B-1 district is considered compatible with the adjacent properties and
neighborhood. More intense commercial zoning districts would not be
appropriate at this location.
Access to this site will need to be reviewed further at time of development or re -
platting. The access location shown on the GDP will need to be modified to
move the access approximately 100 feet to the south.
(OR Page 6
General Development Plan
March 22, 2001
Recommendation:
Staff would recommend approval of this General Development Plan subject to the following
conditions or modifications:
1. A new or amended development agreement shall be executed to include provisions
for pavement markings on Superior Drive and to identify controlled access needs
along Superior Drive abutting the proposed B-1 district. Controlled access will be
required along the north 300 feet of the east property line of Lot 1, Block 6, Badger
Ridge Subdivision.
2. The portion of the property proposed for development in the B-1 district shall be
re -platted prior to development approvals. Cross access easements will be
required at the time of platting to document shared use of one access location for
the entire B-1 area proposed with this GDP amendment.
3. The GDP shall by revised to reflect the following modifications:
➢ A 10 toot trail facility along the south side on Valleyhigh Road
➢ The shared access location proposed for the proposed B-1 area shall be
shifted to the south to be at least 300 feet from the Valleyhigh Road NW right
of way.
4. Revised copies of the GDP shall be provided to the Planning Department, which
reflect all required modifications.
5. All previous conditions on this General Development Plan and Development
Agreement requirements shall remain in effect.
boy
ROCHESTER PARK AND SREATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 7, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
FROM: Denny Stotz
SUBJECT: Amendment to Badger Ridge GDP
The re -zoning of the 2.3 acres from R3 to B1 will reduce the parkland dedication
required for Badger Ridge I" by 1.17 acres.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
O
MEETING it le
DATE: 4-16-01
JN:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
la-8
M DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development and Incentive Development I PREPARED BY:
rreliminary Plan #01-02 and Variance #01.02 by Home Federal Savings Bank. The Brent Svenby,
applicant is proposing to develop a 10,000 square foot office and banking building with Planner
bank drive -up windows. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and is located
north West Circle Drive, along the south side of 55`h Street NW and east of 41"Avenue NW.
April 12, 2001
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 11, 2001, to consider this Restricted Development
and Incentive Development. The applicant also requested a variance to Section 62.1008 of the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual on the amount of impervious surface coverage and to Section 63.220 on the
amount of signage permitted in the zoning district. The variances requested by the applicant were granted by the
Commission. The proposal is considered an Incentive Development to allow the construction of a 10,000 square foot office
and banking building and a restrictive development to allow drive -up windows in the R-1 zoning district.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request according to the applicable criteria and standards in the LDM. The
Commission found that this request is consistent with those criteria, subject to the following modifications or conditions:
1. The Final Development Plan application shall include:
• Complete building elevations that identify dimensions, building materials, and colors;
• Details for exterior lighting, on the building and for the parking lot;
• Detailed signage plans, elevations and dimensions for any auxiliary signs proposed for the development.
• A ten foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of West Circle Drive, abutting the
property.
2. An approved grading/drainage plan is required prior to construction. Storm water management must be
provided and a fee will apply for voluntary participation in the City's regional Storm Water Management Plan if
the proposed on -site water quality pond is not sized to address the stormwater volume for the entire site.
3. Prior to approval of the final development plan, the applicant shall execute a Development Agreement and
Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City that includes, but is not limited to, the Owner's obligations for
stormwater management, on -site traffic Improvements, public improvements and charges and right-of-way
dedication.
4. The comments in the letter dated February 13, 2001 from the RPU Water Division shall be addressed prior to
the approval of the final development plan.
5. The property is limited to a temporary access to 41•t Ave. NW until the City Engineer authorizes access from
the property onto 55th Street NW. At such time the access is permitted to 55/h St. NW, the temporary access to
41`t Ave. NW shall be removed and vegetation shall be established in its location.
6. The applicant shall obtain a revocable permit for any landscaping located within the drainage easements. If a
revocable is not executed the landscaping shall be moved outside of the drainage easement.
7. The applicant shall work with the property owner to the west on the alignment of the temporary access drive,
with a "S" curve in it, to 41•t Ave, NW.
Mr. Hodgson moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase II Incentive Development and Incentive
r)--lopment Preliminary Plan #01-02 by Home Federal Savings Bank with staff -suggested findings and
litions. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
ACTION: Moucn by: Second by: to:
Page
RCA21tV—
April 12, 2001
Council Action Needed:
1. 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
Attachments:
1. Staff Report dated March 23, 2001
2. Minutes of the February 28, 2001 and April 11, 2001 CPZC Meeting
Distribution:
1. City Clerk
1. City Administrator
2. City Attorney
3. Planning Department File
4. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 16, 2001 in the Council/Board
Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE.
5. TSP One, Inc.
T� - S
g4_61 -
April 5, 2001
R o c h e s t e r TO: Rochester City Planning and Zoning Commission
Minnesota FROM: Andrew J. Masterpole, ASLA
RE: Home Federal Savings Bank Landscape Plan
Land Surveying
I will be unable to attend the April 11, 2001, Planning and Zoning meeting to
Urban -rand Planning discuss the proposed landscape plan, so I thought a memo relating my thoughts
Consulting - Cieil Engineering about the design would be appropriate.
Geotechnical Engineering A detailed landscape plan is being required at this time because the applicant is
proposing an incentive development. The plan indicates a substantial increase
Construction Material Testing from the typical requirements, as the following will explain.
Landscape .architecture The following bufferyards are required on this site:
"ST' bufferyard along 55th Street NW, which is 14 canopy trees.
"ST' bufferyard along the future 41" Avenue NW, which is 3 canopy trees.
"B" bufferyard along the east property line which is 2 canopy trees and 3
under -story trees.
Section 62.630 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual on
criteria for incentive developments addresses two criteria for landscaping:
2e:
Foundation and sire plantings — a landscape plan for the site has been
prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the
landscape character of the surrounding area.
The proposed landscape plan satisfies this criteria. The landscape concept is to
create a "bank -like" landscape (neat, simple and traditional) around the building
that is neighborly near the street and enveloped by the existing natural area that is
behind the site.
A site visit/analysis revealed:
•:•
The site appears much larger (it is especially spacious toward Circle
Drive) than on paper.
•:•
The wooded creek provides a nice natural backdrop.
1648 Third Avenue S.E.
':•
The large evergreens in the front yards of the homes to the north give the
Rochester, MN 55904
site a protected feeling and thus, it felt more a part of the neighborhood
Tel. 507,289.3919
than Circle Drive.
Fax. 507.289.7333
e-mail. mcghiebetts.com
Established 1946
The presence of a small creek that cut through a corner of the site.
The traditional style landscaping near the bank is consistent with the residential
landscaping found throughout the neighborhood. Street trees provide a sense of
connection to the neighborhood and help soften the views of the back from the
street.
The landscape plan also proposes the use of native prairie grasses and flowers and
native trees that would wrap around the south and east sides of the site. The
sediment pond has been re -shaped and the adjacent contours softened to mimic a
natural wetland. Finally, a dry streambed is being proposed in lieu of standard
riprap in an effort to create an aesthetic element near the entrance and return the
presence of the creek. The function of slowing and dispersing the flow of storm
water would still be maintained only in a different appearance. A condition has
been placed on this project stating a revocable permit be required if trees and
shrubs are to be installed within the drainage easement. That may be necessary or
the plantings could be kept outside the easement, but the visual impact would not
be as great. The plantings would be installed on the upper parts of the bank and
are not intended to impede the flow of water.
2g:
Screening and bufferyards — the final screening and bufferyard design
contains earth forms, structures and plant materials, which are adequate
to satisfy the needs identified in preliminary development plan for the
project.
This criteria is satisfied by the proposed landscape plan. The size of the
bufferyard trees have been upgraded from the required 1-1/2" caliper to 2" caliper.
They will be planted on both sides of the walk, which will form a future canopy
for pedestrians. The street trees will also be planted in an informal pattern, which
better reflects that character of the natural site.
The parking areas will be screened with proposed hedges with a height of T-4'.
This should reduce the visual impact of the parked cars for neighborhood
residents.
The landscape concept plan was reviewed with the owner and the neighborhood
representatives on March 13, 2001, and was favorably received. The "natural
aesthetic" was explained and Home Federal agreed to make a commitment to the
establishment of the native prairie areas. The neighbors agreed to be patient and
the owners to do the extra work in the first couple of years. The end product will
be a low maintenance natural area that should keep the other residents of the site
— the wildlife — content as well.
rsP one, Inc. March 19, 2001
1500 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901
phone (507) 28"155
Brent Svenby
fax (507) 288-7220
Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department
Consolidated Planning
Architecture
2122 Campus Drive SE
Engineer.ng
Rochester, MN 55904
Interior Design
Re: Home Federal Savings Bank 55th Street Branch
orfices ,n P=hes.er Rochester Minnesota
and Mfnneapdiis. MN TSP Project No. 00022
Per your request we are submitting a proposed floor plan and exterior elevations of
the building and a proposed landscaping plan. Please note the following:
On the building exterior we have shown three signs that would be metal
letters attached to the brickwork, approximately 12" to 14" high, in three
locations. The approximate square footage of all of these signs is 80 SF ±.
We have also included in this package revisions to the pylon sign to show a
message sign incorporated with this which we would also like consideration
on.
2. There was a question concerning sidewalk locations. Both in the
development agreement and on the grading utility site plan, the walks that
were requested in the development agreement are shown to be future.
Add the following criteria for incentive developments. We believe the
comments made to the restrictive development during the February 28, 2001
meeting apply to these site design criteria:
A. Capacity of public facilities - Same as indicated previously for
restrictive development.
B. Geological hazards - Same as indicated previously for restrictive
development.
C. Natural features - Same as indicated previously for restrictive
AFFILIATED OFFICES development.
Rochester. MN D. Residential traffic impact - Same as indicated previously for
Minneapolis, MN
Denver, co restrictive development. We believe that the residential traffic
MRapidttcwn, IA impact will be improved due to the development agreement between
Rapid Ciy. SD P P P 8t'
Sioux Falls. SO the City and Home Federal Savings Bank which allows for
Gillette. WY
Sheridan. M improvements on 55th Street and 41 st Avenue.
An EGuai OpdcriY 'Ty.
AY.matrve Action 6^pbyer
I SP Project No. 00022 - 3/19/01
Brent Svenby
E. Traffic generation impact - Same as indicated previously for
restrictive development.
F. Height impact - Building will not exceed 24' which is allowed for
the R-1 zoning.
G. Setbacks - Same as indicated previously for restrictive development.
H. Internal site design - The site .plan does accommodate the stacking
requirements for financial institutions, drive -up facilities, and
accommodates parking as required by zoning code.
I. Screening and buffering - Please refer to the site plan. All buffer
areas are equal to, or greater than, what is required by the zoning
code.
J. Ordinance requirements - The drive -up facility meets the stacking
requirements for financial institutions.
K. General compatibility - Same as indicated previously for restrictive
development.
L. Incentive development, All Development:
1. Storm water management - The drainage pond that is being
put on the site accommodates not only the drainage water
from impervious areas on the site but also the storm water
from 55th Street and Fairway Drive. I believe this is an
improvement for the City.
2. The development proposes to integrate the reuse of an
existing structure which has been vacant for 24 consecutive
months. Not applicable.
3. Easements consistent with the flood control project,
propriety, or other bank treatment or beautification which
will result in increased usage of the area along the existing
stream for walking, sitting, or other means of passive
recreation are developed. Not applicable.
4. Street improvements normally paid by the city of Rochester,
constructed, dedicated, or paid for by the developer -
Examples include divisions of right-of-way for arterial streets
beyond the normally required to be dedicated or the
construction or payment of turn lanes, signal lights, increased
pavement. Due to the development agreement with the city
of Rochester, Home Federal Savings Bank is contributing
both land and dollars to the improvements of 41 st Avenue
and 55th Street.
5. Utilities Service - Not applicable.
6. Integrated Planning - Not applicable.
-2-
TSP Project No. 00022 - 3/19/01
Brent Svenby
7. Each 4% increase in landscape plant ratio, above the
minimum required, shall be considered as meeting criteria for
bonus density floor area of an increase in plant materials so
as to exceed minimum requirements. We believe we are
providing landscaping in excess of the requirements and are
only asking for the increase from .06 to .08 for floor areas as
indicated by the R-1 Zoning Ordinance.
8. The proposed development minimizes access points by
utilizing shared access point with adjacent development
resulting in reduction. A reduction in the number of
driveway openings or collectors are higher level streets. The
development agreement with the City allows only one access
and egress from the site.
9. Parking lot landscaping for the purpose of screening
residential areas and/or right-of-way areas from the
concentration of vehicles. This is being provided as an added
feature to this site.
We have met with the local neighborhood representatives to review our proposed
Building and Landscape Plan and Signage. They have expressed support for this
project.
The above information is clarification to the original submittal and to the submittal
that is being made for the elevations, floor plan, and landscape plan and revisions to
the signage variance.
L
ne, I c.
k��
William T. Meschke, AIA
Enclosures
-3-
TSP one, Inc. Januan- 23. 2001
1500 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901
phone(507) 288-8155
lax(507) 288-7220
www.leamtsp.com
Mitzi Baker
Architecture Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department
Engineering
Interior Design Consolidated Planning
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester. MN 55904
Oeices m Rochester
and Minmacciis, MIN Re: Home Federal Savings Bank Branch
Rochester Minnesota
TSP Project No. 00022
On behalf of Home Federal Savings Bank, TSP Architects and Engineers are
prodding the following information for review by the Rochester Consolidated
Planning Department.
Home Federal Savings Bank is proposing to build a 10,000 SF office building at the
site of 55th Street and 41 st Avenue NW. This building will contain a retail banking
establishment of slightly over 2,000 SF plus restrooms, mechanical space, and
space for either lease or office space to be used by the bank.
To accomplish this, we are submitting the Phase I portion of the Type III restrictive
development in which we are asking for approval of the bank drive -up portion of
'
the facility. We are also asking for this to be viewed as a Type III incentive
development allowing a .08 for area calculation. We would also like consideration
or variance for signage on the property to allow for one free-standing lighted sign as
detailed in this proposal, two business signs each 30" x 15' for a total of 37.5 SF
each to be placed on the building, and also auxiliary signage for direction/entry/exit
and indicating the drive-in facility.
AFFILIATED OFFICES
Rochester. MN
We are also asking for consideration or variance to the shoreland impervious area
Minneapolis. MN
Denver, CC
calculation, which allows 25%, to allow this development which is 35.3% or 39%.
Fart Collins. CO
Marshalltown, IA
Please see attached calculations. _.
Rapid City, SO
Sioux Falls, SO
Shertdaq WY
JAB! 2 d 2001
1 An Equal Opgcnurnry
i/ Affx,ne .e Action Ernioll
TSP Project No. 00022 - 1/23/O1
Mitzi Baker
I
We are also providing with this submittal a draft development agreement between
the City of Rochester and Home Federal Savings Bank, whereas the City would
obtain additional right-of-way on 55th Street and 41st Avenue NW. In our
discussions with the City of Rochester and the Public Works Department, unless
this agreement proceeds, the development of this property would not be approved.
This agreement indicates that access from 41 st Avenue to the bank facility shall
take place at the beginning of this project and only after the City has updated 41 st
Avenue and 55th Street NW a new access to the site will be provided on 55th Street
and then the 41 st Avenue access will be eliminated.
We have included for your review the following pieces of information:
• Narrative of the major considerations for the Zoning R-I Mixed Single
Family District requirements
• Site Survey by McGhie & Betts, Inc.
• Proposed Site Plan
• Proposed Grading Plan
• Proposed draft Development Agreement between Home Federal Savings
Bank and the City of Rochester
• Pylon Sign Designs
The requirements of the restrictive development submittal and the incentive
development submittal are incorporated on the drawings and/or in the narrative.
If you should have any questions concerning any of these items, we would like to
meet with you to discuss them.
TSP One, Inc.
�20
William T. ZC-.c"
Enclosures
1A0501 WTMs
-2-
INDEX
r
1. Narrative of Zoning R-1 Mixed Single Family District as it refers to this project
2. Site Survev
3. Proposed Site Plan
4. Proposed Grading Plan
5. Proposed draft Development Agreement between Home Federal Savings Bank
and the City of Rochester
6. Pylon Sign Designs
TSP Project No. 00022 January 23, 2001
HOME FEDERAL, SAVINGS BANK
PROPOSED 55TH STREET NW LOCATION
PROPERTY BOUNDED BY WEST CIRCLE DRIVE,
55TH STREET NrNti' AND 41ST AVENUE NW
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
TSP PROJECT NO.00022
Zoning: R-1 Mixed Single Family District
1. Nonresidental Uses Office and Personal Services (62.264):
Office and personal service developments may be considered as a Type lI use if they
meet all standards except those for floor area and landscape area and are located on a lot
of at least 8,000 SF in size with a floor area not exceeding 5,000 SF.
a. Floor Area Ratio:
(1) Type 1 (for permitted uses) - .06 office permitted.
(2) Type III (for incentive development) - .08
2. Other Uses (62.149):
Drive-in facilities not permitted.
�. Apply for Restricted Development (62.700):
a. Type III to allow bank drive -up.
b. Minimum % of landscape area - 60%
C. Permitted maximum height - 24 feet
d. Required off-street parking - 1 per 200 SF of floor area
Setbacks:
Required front yard
Side yard
Back yard
Hours of operation
25 feet
10 feet
15 feet
6:00 a.m. to 9 p.m.
4. Exterior Lighting (63.210) "A":
a. Standard for a light source or luminaire with no cutoff are:
(1) Maximum permitted illumination - .20
(2) Maximum permitted height - 15'
TSP Project No. 00022
' b. Standard for luminaire which has a total cutoff angle greater than 900 are:
(1) Maximum permitted illumination - .75
(2) Maximum permitted height - 20'
1C. Luminaire with a total cutoff of tight of less than 90' shall be designed so the bare
bulb, lamp, or source is completely shielded from the direct view of an observer
standing at the property line at a point five feet above grade. The maximum
permitted design requirements for cutoff luminaires are:
(1) Maximum permitted illumination - 1.0
(2) Maximum permitted height - 25'
5. Sign Regulation (63.220) "A":
a. Permitted Number of Signs:
The number of signs permitted on a site is as follows - In residential districts, any
permitted nonresidential use shall be permitted one free standing sign and one
other primary sign. If the use has frontage on more than one street, an additional
priman• sign may be permitted. Each sign may have an area equal to the
maximum sign area permitted in the district.
b. Sign Type:
Free standing Area - 24 SF
Height - 10'
Projecting sign Area - 12 SF
Height - 12'
Wall sign Area - 24 SF
Height - 12'
Graphic sign Area - 10% of wall area
Auxiliary sign:
(Free standing) Area - 10 SF
Height - 7'
C. Lighting of sign:
General, spot light, or internal
d. Purpose:
Business sign
1 1/23/01 -2-
1' TSP Project No. 00022
Note: Proposing exception to zoning ordinance:
1. One free standing lighted sign.
2. Two business signs on building, each 30" x 15' = 37.5 SF.
3. .auxiliary signage for directions, entry/exit, and drive-ins.
6. Exterior Storage (63.240) "A", "T":
' a. Exterior Storage Standard "A":
There shall be no external storage or display of any goods, vehicles or equipment,
except for construction or landscaping equipment and materials currently being
used on the premises.
b. Exterior Storage Standard "T":
Trash storage shall be accommodated within structure, or adequate outside area
shall be set aside for such trash storage and indicated as such on the site plan. All
outdoor storage or containers shall be placed on a hard surface such as concrete
and shall be aesthetically screened by a permanent fence, wall, or landscaping
from adjacent properties and right-of-ways.
C. Site Location Requirement:
(1) Site Location "A":
In an Established Zoning District, uses may locate at the intersection of a
collector street and a higher order street (street classifications are based on
the Thoroughfare Plan) or at the intersection of two higher order streets.
In the Developing District, uses may locate at the intersection of a major
local street and a higher order street or at the intersection of two higher
s order streets.
Buffer Yazd Indicator Type I, II, and IV (63.260):
a. From Zoning Administrator:
North property line: S2 buffer yard
West property line: S2 buffer yard
East property line: B buffer yard
S2:
Width 0
Canopy planting 2
Under story planting 0
Shrubs 0
1 1/23/01 - 3 -
TSP Project No. 00022
1.1
n.
Width Canopy
10, 1.0
15' .8
20' .6
b. Site Capacity Calculation:
Under story Shrubs
2.0 0
1.6 0
1.2 0
184,188 SF Gross site area from survey
-39,280 SF Less existing right of ways. (City to verify existing 33' on
55th Street is existing right of way) (Assumed it is for this
calculation)
-10,952 SF Less - Additional right of way from Development Agreement
with the City of Rochester
133,956 SF
-1,304 SF Less -Resource protected lands (drainage easement)
6,518 SF X 20 = 1,303.6
132,652 SF
7,959 SF .06 floor area ratio Type 1
10,612 SF .08 floor area ratio Type 3 incentive development
Shoreland District (62.1000):
The uncontrolled use of shorelands within the City of Rochester, Minnesota, affects the
public health, safety, and general welfare not only by contributing to the pollution of
public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interest
of the public health, safety, and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and
development of public waters. The Legislature of Minnesota has delegated this
responsibility to local governments within the State. This responsibility is hereby
recognized by the City of Rochester.
Shoreland means land located within the following distances from public waters: 1,000
feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a
river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on a river
or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the
waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the
waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner.
Note: Kings Run is classified as a tributary and is located on the City of Rochester
property abutting this property.
1/23/01 - 4 -
ITSP Project No. 00022
9. Placement. Design, and Height of Structures (62.1005)
a. Placement of structures on lots:
When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be
located to meet all setbacks. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both
sides of a proposed building site. structure setbacks may be altered without a
variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level,
provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a
bluff impact zone. Structures shall be located as follows:
(1) Structure and On -site sewage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary high
water level:
River Type Setback
Tributary 175'
Ordinary high water level:
Means the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and shall be an
elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained
for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape,
commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from
predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the
ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the
channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the
operating elevation of the normal summer pool. Ordinary high water level
is assumed to be contour 1020 from site survey.
b. Design criteria for structures:
(1) High water elevations:
Structures must be placed in accordance with any floodplain regulations
applicable to the site. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to
which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or flood -proofed
must be determined as follows:
(a) For lakes, by placing the lowest floor at a level at least three (3)
feet above the highest known water level, or three (3) feet above
the ordinary high water level, whichever is higher.
1/23/01 - 5 -
TSP Project No. 00022
I
I
(b) For rivers and streams, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3)
feet above the flood of record, if data is available. If data is not
available, by placing the lowest floor at least three (3) feet above
the ordinary high water level. or by conducting a technical
evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon
flood stages and flood flows and to establish a flood protection
elevation. Under all three approaches, technical evaluations must
be done by a qualified engineer or hydrologist consistent with parts
6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood plain
areas. If more than one approach is used, the highest flood
protection elevation detemtined must be used for placing structures
and other facilities.
Note: Assumed elevation of floor line shall be 1028 or higher.
Will technical evaluation be required?
10. Placement and Design of Road, Driveways, and Parking Areas:
a. Public and private roads and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of
natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from
public w aters. Construction of roads and parking areas must be designed and
constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters.
b. Roads. driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not
be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible
placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within
these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts.
C. Public and private watercraft access ramps. approach roads, and access related
parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative
screenine and erosion control conditions of this ordinance are met.
11. Stormw-ater Management (62.1008):
a. General Standards:
(1) When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated
soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater
runoff before discharge to public waters.
(2) Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will
minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential,
and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized
and protected as soon as possible.
1/23/01
TSP Project No. 00022
12.
(3) When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation
conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using
natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such
as dikes. diversion, settling basins, and ponds may be used. Preference
must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and
infiltration rather than buried pipes and manmade materials and facilities.
(4) Public utility projects located within shoreland areas will be processed
through the Type II review process, and stormwater management
standards will be considered in the review process.
b. Specific Standards:
(1) Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed twenty-five (25)
percent of the lot area.
Calculation
IA Lot Area 133,956 1B Lot Area 133,956
Less impervious service with
final entrv:
47,221 SF
35.3%
Less impervious service with
temporary road:
52,196 SF
39%
(2) When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management,
documentation must be provided by a qualified individual that they are
designed and installed consistent with the local soil and water
conservation district guidelines.
(3) New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for
filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris
before discharge.
Conditional Use Permits - Standards for Approval (62.1010):
a. When deciding on a conditional use permit within the shoreland district, the
following factors, in addition to the standards in Paragraph 61.146, shall also be
considered:
(1) A thorough evaluation of the waterbody and topographic, vegetation, and
soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure:
(a) The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public
waters, both during and after construction.
1/23/01
-7-
TSP Project No. 00022
(b) The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from
public waters is limited.
(c) The site is adequate for water supply and on -site sewage treatment.
(d) The types. uses. and numbers of watercraft that the project will
generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public
waters to safely accommodate these watercraft.
(2) Additional Conditions:
(a) Increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level.
(b) Limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the
requirement that additional vegetation be planted.
(c) Special provisions for the location, design, and use of structures,
sewage treatment systems, watercraft launching and docking areas,
and vehicle parking areas.
Homefedttudy
I/2J/01 - 8 -
tl,
i
�nE a aE, 1 I I I I
---
.Ft7,
11aw
Ei
_ d1a
r,
tmecy[r tLLY—i " n�W
���� L@1b lzta Pl
l3ai
❑ lxCVi'10Y'+oMIRs3
�jH3 wm aA A 2 wY
oa[azlex)'ee +eI W%"-qw' xPW NVau�
RLPWt ItRI Pl m Yw o.d- p . wpn
®LC�$ NIY'rMwPAI N YW {�Q i� w IPEYI �
�M A AuuPM C05L 'YFNUt UW 2FM11 RW .(pUYo ApW94 Uay t
t=I
,l1yfT2lIV3
3nN3A+Y IGIV
IN3WdOl3A3O 311E 03SOdOkk
Aanl.S HON"S 133HIS HISS _ 'a
:NNVS SONIAdS 1"3(333 3WOH
ayNVG
C
I
/ DF,
\\\
osap)
\
pjsw
—t --
1P �i
k et lIM�tE115 a
i
_
w , ii tl 9.t
r
/
t1
i9
I
+
1 /
1 / 1
°
`� ✓p
(00'CL LLL
vg, U
3 .00,50.10 N
1
1
i
I
I
DRAFT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Home Federal Savings Bank Project
10/3/00
THIS AGREEMENT, is made as of this _ day of , 2000, by and between Home
Federal Savings Bank (hereinafter the "Owner"), and the City of Rochester, a Minnesota
municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City").
WHEREAS, the Owner owns and desires to develop properties within Olmsted County,
t
Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the "Project" and / or the "Property") described and shown
on Exhibit A: and,
WHEREAS. Owner and City agree that a Development Agreement will serve to facilitate the
orders} and efficient development of the Property to the mutual benefit of the Owner, and the
City; and.
WHEREAS, Owner Acknowledges that the Property may impact the adjacent, and in some cases,
inadequate public infrastructure; and,
WHEREAS, the City has outlined certain public improvements and/or facilities which in part
provide needed infrastructure for the development of the Property; and,
WHEREAS, Owner desires to begin the Project prior to many of the necessary improvements to
the existing infrastructure being in place: and.
r.
1
WHEREAS. City agrees to allow the development to proceed subject to the execution of an
agreement that addresses the impacts of the Project on the public infrastructure.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to the parties set forth herein, and
iother good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner
and City agree as follows:
I. OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS.
1. Annexation. None
2. Cirv/Owner Contract. Owner or its successors who own the Property will execute a
"City/Owner Contract" with the City prior to the commencement of construction, by the
Owner on their respective property, of any public infrastructure associated with local
roadways and/or utilities, (including but not limited to public roadways, watermain, sanitary
sewer or storm sewer) to serve the Project or the grading of the Property. All improvements
authorized for construction in the City/Owner Contract will be paid for by the Owner.
Stormwater. Owner acknowledges the development of the property necessitates the need
for storm water management due to the increase in stormwater run-off rate and the increase
of imperious area within the Project.
a. Owner agrees to voluntarily participate in the City's Regional Storm Water
Management Plan (SWMP). The base cost for this participation is $2043.01
per acre for residential type development (rates vary on land use and
percentage of impervious surface), and are a one-time charge for the
availability of connection to the regional stormwater facilities, representing the
contribution of the connecting development to existing and prospective
stormwater facility capital cost obligations of the City. The SWMP charges
will be in effect for the year in which each phase of development of the
Property occurs and will be used to calculate the SWMP charges for that phase
of development. The charges are made against the developable acreage of
each phase of development and shall consist of the gross acres of the project
less wetlands, privately constructed stormwater sedimentation and detention
facilities, and natural slopes in excess of 18% remaining after site grading, as
reflected on an approved Grading Plan. Owners agree to pay the SWMP
charges within 30 days of invoicing and shall occur after the execution of the
City -Owner Contract or this agreement and notice by the City, whichever
occurs first.
b. Owner is responsible to design and construct the Project to effectively manage
the additional stormwater generated by the development of the Property and
the stormwater from upstream areas of the watershed that currently flows
along or across the Property. This obligation also applies during the
construction phase of the Project.
4. Substandard Streets. Owner acknowledges the Project is subject to the City's Substandard
Street Policy.
a. Owner acknowledges the Project is subject to the Substandard Street
Reconstruction Charge along the entire frontages of 41" Avenue NW and 55'"
Street NW,. The current rate (8/l/00 through 7/31101) for the Substandard
Street Reconstruction Charge is $49.44 per front foot. The total estimated
charge for the estimated 835 feet of Property frontage is 541,282.40.
b. Owner agrees to make the entire payment for the Substandard Street
Reconstruction Charge for the entire Property frontage along 41" Avenue NW
and 55i° Street NW within 30 days of invoicing after Project Site Plan approval
by the City.
5. Traffic Improvements. Owner acknowledges the development of the Property creates the
need for additional improvements to the existing public roadway infrastructure. Owner
understands the City's Land Development Manual may require a Traffic Impact
Report/Analysis. In lieu of providing said report Owner agrees to the following traffic
improvements:
• Owner agrees that access to the site must be limited due to existing and future
traffic congestion and management problems along the 55" Street NW corridor
between 41" Avenue and West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) in the vacinity of the
Property.
i • Owner shall dedicate, at no cost to the City, sixty-seven (67) feet of right-of-way
j along the Eastside of 41" Avenue NW as measured from the center of the
original right-of-way.
• Owner shall dedicate, at no cost to the City, fifty (50) feet of right-of-way along
the South side of 55" Street NW as measured from the center of the original
right -of --way.
• Owner agrees to prepare and submit for City review and approval a detailed Site
1 Development Access Phasing Plan for the Property. Owner agrees to limit
N
access to the Property from 41" Avenue W (Site Development Access Plan
Phase 1) until such time as the City Engineer authorizes access from the Property
onto 55'" Street NW. The City Engineer shall be required to grant access to 55"
Street NW when:
1. the City has completed the reconstruction of 41" Avenue
between 55" Street NW and West Circle Drive (CSAH 22), and
2. the City and Olmsted County have installed a traffic control
signal at the intersection of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and
41" Avenue NW and removed the traffic control signal from the
intersection of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) and 5511 Street
NW, and
1 3
3. the Owner has constructed Site Development Access Plan Phase
2 to serve the Property, including the closure of the 41" Avenue
Nei% access to the Property.
,. • Owner agrees that it their sole cost and expense to design and construct to Gily
standafds any temporary access improvements to 41" Avenue NW, from 55`s
1 Street NW to the south side of the approved access driveway on 41" Avenue,
necessary to provide safe access to and from the Property under Access Plan
Phase 1.
• Owner agrees to grant controlled access along 41" Avenue NW except for one
access point seeing the property as shown on the approved site plan.
• Owner agrees to grant controlled access along 55id Street NW except for ene the
access point(s) serving the property as shown on the approved site plan.
• Bus shelter. NONE REQUIRED.
• Owner agrees to grade the Property to match the proposed centerline profiles and
cross -sections for 41" Avenue NW and 550' Street NW, if Provided to Owner by
the City before 1 1 '01. A Grading Plan is required for the Project.
• Owner agrees to pay for traffic control signs including, but not limited to, stop
signs and no parldng lying within the Project.
6. Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Connection Charges: Owner and City agree the Project
Property is subject to deferred assessments for trunlanain sanitary sewer and watermain.
Assessments for the construction of the water tower to serve the Property were previously
levied by the City.
a. Owner and City agree that the Property is subject to a Water Availability
Charge and a Water Connection Charge for City Project 1-9173 of S22,182.06
plus 7.5% interest from 9 5/16/94. Owner agrees to pay the WAC &
Water Connection Charge for the Property within thirty (30) days invoicing by
the City.
b. Owner and City agree that the Property is subject to a Sewer Availability
J Charge for 1-9173 of S1,413.59 plus 7.5% interest from 12;23'99 5/16/94.
Owner agrees to pay the SAC for the Property within thirty (30) days invoicing
by the City.
c. Owner and City agree that the Property is subject to a Sewer Connection
Charge of $8,742.30 for a portion of the 55'h Street NW frontage of the
Property. Owner agrees to pay the Sewer Connection Charge for the Property
within thirty (30) days invoicing by the City.
d. Owner and City agree that the Property is subject to a Water Connection
Charge for the 41" Avenue NW frontage of the Property of $5,569.50. Owner
agrees to pay the Sewer Connection Charge for the Property within thirty (30)
days invoicing by the City.
4
e. Owner and City agree that the City previously levied S4,156.81 for the
Property's share of the City Project J-9265 North Park Water Tower. The
Owner and City acknowledge that the current balance for the North Park
Tower Water Availability Charge is $2,994.41. Owner agrees to pay the North
Park Tower Water Availability Charge for the Property within thirty (30) days
invoicing by the City.
' 7. Pedestrian Facilities. Owner agrees to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement, attached
as Exhibit B to address the Owner's obligation for providing pedestrian facilities along the
' 41" Avenue NW, 55'h Street NW. and West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) frontage of the
Propertyy.
8. Permits. Owner understands that it is their sole responsibility to obtain all of the necessary
permits for the construction within the Project Property.
9. Conditions of Approval. Owner agrees with the specific conditions, as approved by the
City Council, for the Restricted Development Final Plan, Conditional Use Permit OR Site
Plan of the Project. Owner further aerees that no required site feature specified by the City
Council, through the review process, will be modified without Council review and approval.
10. Assessment for Non-Pavment. In the event Owner fails to make payment according to
terms of the Agreement, the City may assess the unpaid amount, plus interest at a rate of
1 7.5%. against the Property for a term not to exceed one (1) year. Owner agrees to waive its
rights to a special assessment hearing as provided in Minnesota statutes Chapter 429 and
further waives all rights to file an appeal of the charges/special assessments costs and
benefits in a court of law. Owner also agree the City may also initiate an action for specific
performance if the charges are not paid within the time provided.
11. Charge Rate Adiustment. These rates/charges identified in paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7 of
this document will be adjusted annually on August 1 of each year based on the change in the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index as measured in the Minneapolis / St. Paul
area during the preceding twelve-month period. The rates and charges will be in effect for the
year in which each phase of development of the Property occurs and will be used to calculate
the charges for that phase of development. The charges are made against the developable
acreage of each phase of development and shall consist of the gross acres of the project less
wetlands, privately constructed stormwater sedimentation and detention facilities, and
natural slopes in excess of 18% remaining after site grading, as reflected on an approved
Grading Plan (unless noted otherwise in each section. Owners agree to pay the charges
within 60 days of the execution of the City -Owner Contract or this agreement and notice by
the City, whichever occurs first.
12. Recording Fee. Purchaser agrees to pay a document preparation and recording fee for the
development of this document in the amount of $62.25 payable to the City of Rochester upon
execution by the Owner.
5
H.
CITY'S OBLIGATIONS.
1.
The Ciry agrees to accept the dedicated and donated portions of the Property and easements
outlined herein.
2.
The City agrees to include $40,000 in its 2001 Capital Improvement Program Budget
representing the City's maximum contribution towards the cost of constructing the
improvements to 55`h Street NW and 41" Avenue NW.
genermed by the . See Exhibit C.
' III.
GENERAL PROVISIONS.
1.
Waiver and Amendment. This agreement will not be altered, modified, supplemented, or
amended in any manner whatsoever except by written agreement signed by both parties.
2.
Entire Agreement. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.
There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, beyond those
specified in this agreement.
3.
Successors and Assigns. The obligations set forth in this document will apply to the Owner,
its successors or assigns.
4.
Ordinances. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Owner and the City
acknowledge that they will remain subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and
_
other governmental regulations.
5.
Force Maieure. If either party fails to perform under this Agreement because of any delays
caused by fire, flood, explosion, hurricane, earthquake, tornado, wind storm, heavy rain
storm, unusually inclement weather, or other casualty, strikes, walk -outs, labor disputes,
governmental laws or regulations, unavailability of labor or materials, contractor delays, or
other similar causes beyond either party's control, performance by such party will be
1
extended for the period of time attributable to such causes.
6. Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
7. Notices. Any notice or election herein required or permitted to be given or serviced by any
party hereto upon the other will be in writing and delivered in person, by facsimile,
recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express, UPS, etc.), or sent by United
States certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
If to Owner:
Attention:
Facsimile No.:
,MN
13
' If to the City: City of Rochester
Attention: Michael J. Nigbur
Rochester Public Works Department
i 201 4" Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
1 Facsimile No.: 507/281-6216
Any such communication, if mailed as provided herein, will be deemed to have been
received on the expiration of four (4) business days after mailing. Any such communication,
if sent by recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express, UPS, etc.) will be
deemed to have been received on the first business day after the communication is sent by
such means. Anv communication personally delivered or sent by facsimile will be deemed to
have been given upon delivery thereof in the manner above provided on the date delivered. If
the last day of a period within which either party is required or allowed to provide a notice,
demand. offer, election, acceptance or other communication hereunder should fall upon a
Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday then, the next full business day will be included in such
period and such notice. offer, demand, request or communication may be made and given on
such next full business day.
I
Dated this _ day of , 2000,
11 WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties set their hands and seals as of the date and year first above
written.
CITY OF ROCHESTER, a Minnesota Owner:
Municipal Corporation
By By:
Its Mayor Michael McNeil,
President
Attest: By:
Its City Clerk Dwain C. Jorgenson,
Senior Vice -President
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2000, by Charles Canfield and Judy Scherr, the Mayor and acting City Clerk,
respectively, of the City of Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the
corporation.
Notary Public
iSTATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of 2000,
by and
the and
respectively, who acknowledged that they were authorized to execute this Agreement
Notary Public
8
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND DRAWING OF PROJECT
PROPERTY
9
PEDESTRIAN FACII.ITIES AGREEMENT
1 THIS AGREE-IE\T, made as of this _ day of 2000, by Home Federal
Savings Bank hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the City of Rochester, a Minnesota
municipal corporation. hereinafter referred to as "City."
WHEREAS. the Owner owns and desires to develop properties within Olmsted County,
Minnesota. described on the preceding Exhibit A and hereinafter referred to as "Project":
WHEREAS. Owner and City agree that a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement will serve to facilitate
the construction of required pedestrian facilities to serve the Project, to the mutual benefit of the
Owner, adjoining property owners and the City; and,
WHEREAS. there exist practical difficulties that have been acknowledged by the Owner and the
City, that hamper the immediate construction of the required pedestrian facilities concurrent with
the development of the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to the parties set forth herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Owner
and Citv agree as follows:
OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS
! 1. The Owner agrees that the following pedestrian facilities are required to serve the Project
and can not practically be constructed concurrent with development:
A ten (10) foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of 41'
Avenue NW. abutting the Property.
i • A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the frontage of 55's Street NW from 41'
Avenue NNV to the east side of the Fairway Drive and 551h Street NW intersection.
• A ten (10) foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of West
Circle Drive (CSAH 22), abutting the Property.
1. The Owner agrees that it is at the sole discretion of the City to determine when the required
pedestrian facilities will be constructed, and to determine when payment for said facilities
will be required of the Owner.
2. A. The Owner agrees to have all costs associated with providing the required pedestrian
facilities, described in #1 above, levied against the Property, as a special assessment, payable
over a period of time not to exceed one (1) year.
Aill
r B. Upon notice by the City of a proposed Pedestrian Facilities construction project, the
Owner may coordinate, with City staff, to privately contract to have the required facilities
constructed, at the Owner's own expense, within a timeframe that is acceptable with City
Engineer.
[to]
3. The Owner agrees that if the required pedestrian facilities are to be constructed under the
terms of # 3 B above. and completion of the work is not completed within the time agreed
upon by the City. the City may complete the work and assess all applicable charges under the
terms of #3A above.
4. If the required pedestrian facilities are constructed under the terms of #3A above, the Owner
agrees to waive any and all legal rights it may have to contest the levying of assessments for
the agreed upon required pedestrian facilities, and furthermore, that the validity of said
assessments will not be contested.
5. The Owner hereby grants to the City a temporary construction easement, of reasonable
width, for the construction of the pedestrian facilities within the right-of-way.
CITY'S OBLIGATIONS:
The City agrees to allow the Owner to proceed with the development of the Property subject to
the provisions of this Agreement, and compliance with all other applicable City Codes,
Ordinance provisions. and any other Agreements between the City and the Owner, which pertain
to this Property.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. This agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or amended in any
manner whatsoever except by written agreement signed by both parties.
2. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to pedestrian
facilities for the Project. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or
written, beyond those specified in this agreement.
3. The obligations set forth in this document shall run with the land and shall apply to the
Owner, his/her heirs. his/her successors or assigns.
4. This agreement shall survive closing.
5. The Owner and the City are subject to other regulations, ordinances and policies in effect
including, but not limited to: zoning ordinance, grading ordinance, drainage policies,
building code requirements, substandard street charges and parkland dedication.
6. This agreement is subject to the approval of the Rochester City Council.
Dated this _ day of 2000.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties set their hands and seals as of the date and year first above written.
11
City of Rochester, a Minnesota
Municipal Corporation
Its Mayor
Attest:
Its City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
Owner
Michael McNeil,
President
Owner
By_
Dwain C. Jorgenson
Senior Vice -President
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2000. by Charles Canfield and Judy Scherr, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of
Rochester, a Minnesota municipal corporation, for and on behalf of the municipal corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
SS
COUNTY OF OLMSTED )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this _ day of . 2000, by Michael
McNeil and Dwain C. Jorgenson, personally known to me to be the persons who executed the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act and on their own behalf.
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY
Rochester Public Works Office
201 4 ° St SE, Room 108
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Notary Public
EXHIBIT C
IIntersection Improvements at 55t° Street and 41" Avenue NW
is
12
04/16/01
15:36 FA% 507 287 2275 ROCK-OLM PLANNING DEPT.
+ CITF CLERK
C¢J002
-
8
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Common Council.
From: Brent Svenby, Planning Department
Date: 04/16/01
Re: E-8 Restrictive Development and Incentive Development Preliminary Plan by
Home Federal Savings Bank/North West Circle Drive Along South Side of
55`' Street NW and East of 41 `t Avenue NW
In order to clarify the seventh condition recommended on the application, staff
would recommend revising the condition to read as follows:
The applicant shall put a curve in the temporary access drive so that its access
point to 41st Ave. NIV does not align directly with the front window of the
property to the west The City ]Public Works Department shall approve the
design and location of the access.
1
uecrtrtLtm ai
j
(f
{ana.lxtan
A
C3
u�vc ra. •�nwoa
d1
M�.B •MM {L
Ruaee 4oa pi
sst..0 uw rl
®{rox
Mv'r+�mu
�c�w a �wY4t aou
3AIOQ \
1NaNdOl3A30 311S 03SOd0
� brOrL. WIP.W as
+ILLFY
+rWtl jaiuMaav wlw.I..+NM. uw
I wa pu. uopynNu Pulp wpn
A0R1S HONVtlB 133H15 HISS
n oukPuul.d wMtnOunuopo
t
NNVS S`VNIAVS lVH303d 3WOH
1P.'ti u.p wPw 4Nu+RW+rV1
ac.pu
3nNand islti
v
C0�
G
---mm a
lob
��{(�t�ygcFpq�eB it
ISK PJsw
rd
—ql
i1 �i+l' 1 /.• /
r 1, h I I � / � •
1 h ( I
I I II 1 1 • v
II I�u
r I I � IY � � , •! .
iL•;, tE�Bd !4�? 4 I s { pd�� ,�. d dNLLL l id i; d /LlSt ��6y�I fir; 1
J
1
AININEW61WEf 1
EIf
\I/
II\ 111 1 IM Y y'' I Ir',
�i\ 11111 11 �I
I
1 \U lijl
W
1 � � � Ir � � Q�• j 1 � � �
`
�J.l1r/Il
CIO (/ 11,
11 i,
Will
'EI
II If r
11
/
1 I/ I I pr II/
1 �rNlt/�•l
/ /
l /` I
I
IIC
I I'I / IIIII I11'Ai
II '• IIIII
pp66ppCppp
�
. I
N
\! I t'�/ (I I
9
9
4£
4
_
u�\ Ilk IIrY
fA
y�.
/�,ler
Jill
\ '
I
@P@
(00'fLl^'�saP)—
yd
r@
I3IlVI
fe
31i
bS'ZLl 'P�sn+
3 .00,90.L0 N
R
m
P
N
�r
P
J.
I
�Hill
13 !!ii 11 if {ooLl$}$}yy v
GJ% O x. �I o f P i ii1I SlR 92��
11
TSP One, Inc.
A hn .
s;v: '-v
Inlalveeelpn
«9
EAGLE STATUE
,
,
SPOT LIGHT
BACK -LIT PLASTIC Sir -
HOME
+ FEDERAL
DARK BRONZE
MESSAGE
SIGN
BRICK
ROCKFACE CONC. BLG
I It a1_0II I
' I I
r-`-----------
- - - - - - - - - - -
1500 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901 LIEN
Tel. (507) 288-8155
Fax (507) 288-7220
21 Water Street ❑
Excelsior, MN 55331
Tel. (612) 474-3291
Fax (612) 474-3928
Project Title:
HOME FEDERAL SAVING BANK
Project No.:
00022
Oate:
3/16/01
r
ROurnESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPHx1MENT �t.ROcFiESTER.n,/1.y
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 ''•r�
'4
COUNTY OF �:• •s
Rq TED:A UG UST.:
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: March 23, 2001
RE: Type III, Phase 11 Restricted Development and Incentive
Development Preliminary Plan #01-02 and Variance #01-02 by
Home Federal Savings Bank. The applicant is proposing to
develop a 10,000 square foot office and bank building with drive -
up windows. The applicant is also requesting a variance to
Section 62.1008 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual on the amount of impervious surface
coverage and to Section 63.220 on the amount of signage
permitted in the zoning district. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed
Single Family) and is located north of West Circle Drive, along the
south side of 55th Street NW and east of 41st Avenue NW.
Plannina Denartment Review:
Applicant/Owner: Home Federal Savings Bank
Attn: Dwain Jorgenson
101 North Broadway
Spring Valley, MN 55975
Consultant: TSP One, Inc
Attn: Bill Meschke
1500 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901
Referral Comments: City Public Works Department
RPU — Water Division
RPU —Operations Division
MnDOT
Rochester Fire Department
Planning Department — Wetlands
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Project Narrative
3. Site Plan
4. Referral Comments (3 Letters)
Development Review:
Location of Property: The property is located north of West Circle Drive
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING20NING 5071265-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 2 of 16
along the south side of 55'h Street NW and east of
41't Avenue NW.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on
the City of Rochester Zoning Map. The property is
designated of the "medium density residential' uses
on the Land Use Plan.
Proposed Development;
The applicant is proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot office building. The building would
contain a 2,700 square foot banking facility with the remaining portion of the building being leased
or used as office or commercial banking. The site plan for review shows a 10,000-sq. ft. building
with 4 drive up lanes. A total 45 parking spaces are shown on the site. The plan also identifies
two entrances into the property. A temporary entrance is shown to 41't Avenue NW. This
entrance would be a temporary entrance until improvements are made to 551" Street NW. Once
the improvements are made to 551" Street NW, entrance to the property would be off of 55t"
Street, lining up with Fairway Drive NW. At the time this entrance is constructed, the temporary
entrance to 413t Avenue NW would be removed.
This application is the combination of 3 different applications. The first application is that of a
Restricted Development. The proposed drive -up facilities of the bank facility needs to considered
through the Restrictive Development process because drive -up banking facilities are not permitted
in the R-1 zoning district. The second application is that of the Incentive Development. The
applicant is requesting approval to construct a facility that has a floor area ratio of .075. In the R-1
zoning district a proposed building with that floor area ratio needs to be approved through the
Incentive Development process. Third portion of this application is a request for Variances to the
sign standards for a office use in the R-1 zoning district and a variance to the amount of
impervious surface coverage in the shoreland district.
The staff report is broken down into three different sections (Restrictive Development, Incentive
Development and Variances).
Restrictive Development
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 11, procedure with a
hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council.
The proposed drive -up facilities of the bank facility needs to considered through the Restrictive
Development process because drive -up banking facilities are not permitted in the R-1 zoning
district.
Criteria & Findings:
The criteria to be considered when reviewing a Restrictive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.708 (1), which is attached for your review. This section considers the suitability of the area and
the site design. The preliminary plan may be approved if it is found that the development has
IQ(
(a00-k Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 3 of 16
addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest can be incorporated into the design. Staff suggests the following findings:
(A) Capacity of Public Facilities: Utilities are available to serve this development. The RPU
Water Division has indicated that the copper water service must be sized according to the
probable peak flow for the facility. The existing fire hydrants along the north property
boundary needs to be raised to the level of the adjacent pavement and relocated outside of
the proposed sidewalk. if additional on -site fire hydrants are required, the applicant will need
to enter into a City -Owner contract for the installation of the public water main and the water
main must be located within a 20' minimum public utility easement.
(B) Geologic Hazards: This property is within the Shoreland Overlay District. The applicant is
proposing a stormwater management pond on -site. A wetland delineation has been approved
for the site.
(C) Natural Features: The property is located in the shoreland overlay district. The applicant is
requesting a variance to the amount of impervious surface coverage in the shoreland district.
A wetland delineation has been approved for this site.
(D) Residential Traffic Impact:
a) The proposed request should not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on
local residential streets. 550 Street NE is designated as a Collector roadway on the adopted
Thoroughfare Plan and is designed to carry larger amounts of traffic. This street is excepted
to be reconstructed in the future.
b) This proposal will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets.
c) This development should not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours
on local residential streets.
(E) Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic generated by the development should not
cause the capacity of the adjacent streets to be exceeded. The majority of the traffic using
the bank facility will use West Circle Drive and 55s' Street NW, which are designated on the
adopted thoroughfare Plan as expressway and collector roadways respectively.
(F) Height Impacts: According to the building elevations, the building height is below the
permitted height in the R-honing district..
(G) Setbacks: The setback for the drive -up facility exceeds the setback requirements.
(H) Internal Site Design: The site plan does accommodate the stacking requirements for
financial institutions drive -up facilities.
(1) Screening and Buffering: The site plan does identify the required bufferyards along the
boundaries of the property. The landscaping plan does provide for a number of trees and
shrubs to be planted and consists of 65% percent of the site area.
(J) Ordinance Requirements: The drive -up facility meets the stacking requirements for financial
institutions.
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 4 of 16
(K) General Compatibility: The drive -up could be compatible with the adjacent land uses. The
property is surrounded by right-of-way on three sides (west, north and east) and to the south
is property owned by the City of Rochester, which is the drainage way for Kings Run Creek.
The closest residential development is north of the site across 5e Street NW.
Incentive Development:
The Incentive Development provisions of the Land Development Manual allow for a higher
intensity development when certain actions are taken by the landowner to make the development
more attractive and publicly acceptable. These actions may include additional open space
amenities, traffic and pedestrian amenities and/or design features. The Incentive Development
approval procedure is a two step process consisting of a preliminary plan and a final development
plan. The preliminary plan is reviewed under a Type III, Phase II, procedure with a public hearing
before the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Council. The final plan is
reviewed under the Type III, Phase III, procedures
The criteria to be considered when reviewing an Incentive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.630 (1), which is attached for your review. This section looks at both the suitability of the area
and the site design. The preliminary plan may be approved if it is found that the development has
addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest can be incorporated into the design.
The development is proposing an increase in density of floor area. The allowed floor area ratio for
an office building within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) zoning district is .06 for a Type I (staff
approval) permit. This site would allow for a 7,959 sq. ft. building as a Type I development. The
applicant is proposing a 10,000-sq. ft. building, which is a F.A.R. of approximately .075 and
requires that the proposal be reviewed through the Incentive Development process. According to
the site capacity calculation the net buildable area is 132,652 Square feet or 3.04 acres.
The applicant submitted preliminary building elevations and a detailed landscaping plan. The
building plan submitted shows a single story, 10,000 square foot building. The exterior building
materials consist of rock face block, face brick and E.I.F.S. The roof of the building is shown as
being a standing seam metal roof. A detailed landscaping plan was also submitted. The plan
shows a number of deciduous trees planted on the property. The plan also shows numerous
shrubs and perennials planted around the building and the parking areas. The applicant has also
shown that a portion of the property being planted with a native prairie seed mix. This area is
mostly on the eastern portion of the property around the stormwater management pond and
continues to the west behind the building.
Density bonuses are granted in exchange for the incorporation of features determined to be of
public benefit. Features to be considered are listed in Paragraphs 62.651-62.659 of the
Ordinance. The sections applicable to this project are attached for your information.
Density Bonuses:
Section 62.658 All Development
#1 Storm Water Management: The storm water management pond will not onty
accommodate the drainage water from the impervious areas on the site but it will also
accommodate drainage from 55f8 Street NW and Fairway Drive NW. The pond will act as
the sediment pond, filtering the water prior to its flow into Kings Run Creek.
Pq Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 5 of 16
#4 Street Improvements: According to the draft development agreement, the applicant will
dedicate 67 feet of right-of-way along the east side of 414f Ave, NW. Typically the applicant
would only be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way for this roadway.
#5 Utility Service: Utilities exist adjacent to this project. Some utilities will need to be
modified (i.e. hydrants and valve boxes) to accommodate this development. The applicant
will need to coordinate these modifications or improvements with the appropriate agencies.
#6 integrated Planning: This site is more than one acre in size and is infill development in an
established district.
#7 Increased Landscape Area: The total landscape area of the site is 65%. The is 5% over
the required minimum 60% landscape area.
#8 Parking Lot Landscaping: The perimeter of the parking stalls are shown as being planted
with trees and shrubs which will provide screening to the residential areas and the adjacent
right-of-ways.
Criteria & Findinas:
The criteria to be considered when reviewing an Incentive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.630 (1), which is attached for your review. This section considers the suitability of the area and
the site design. The preliminary plan may be approved if it is found that the development has
addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest can be incorporated into the design. Staff suggests the following findings:
1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Suitability of the Area: The proposed use of the property (bank) should the compatible
with the existing land uses in the area. The proposed site is suitable as the location for an
incentive Development as it is located at an entrance to a residential neighborhood and is
not proposed to be located in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
b) Site Design Criteria:
1) Capacity of Public Facilities: Utilities are available to serve this development. The
RPU Water Division has indicated that the copper water service must be sized
according to the probable peak flow for the facility. The existing fire hydrants along
the north property boundary needs to be raised to the level of the adjacent pavement
and relocated outside of the proposed sidewalk. if additional on -site fire hydrants are
required, the applicant will need to enter into a City -Owner contract for the installation
of the public water main and the water main must be located within a 20' minimum
public utility easement.
2) Geologic Hazards: This property is within the Shoreland Overlay District. The
applicant is proposing a stormwater management pond on -site. A wetland delineation
has been approved for the site.
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 6 of 16
3) Natural Features: The property is located in the shoreland overlay district. The
applicant is requesting a variance to the amount of impervious surface coverage in
the shoreland district. A wetland delineation has been approved for this site.
4) Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic generated by the development
should not cause the capacity of the adjacent streets to be exceeded. The majority of
the traffic using the bank facility will use West Circle Drive and 55' Street NW, which
are designated on the adopted Thoroughfare Plan as expressway and collector
roadways respectively. 5e St. NW and 41" Ave. NW will be reconstructed in the
future.
5) Height Impacts: The height of the building is less than the permitted of an once
building in the R-1 zoning district. A building at this height will not deny adequate
sunlight to the surrounding properties.
6) Setbacks: The building setbacks meet the setback requirements.
7) Internal Site Design: The site has been designed to accommodated the future
reconstruction of 5e Street NW and 41" Avenue NW. Access will be limited to 41"
Avenue NW until 556 Street NW has been reconstructed. Once 5eh St. NW is
reconstructed, the access to 41" Ave. NW will be removed and the site will only be
served by one access. The access to 55i6 St. NW does align with Fairway Drive NW.
6) Screening and Buffering: The site plan does identify the required bufferyards along
the boundaries of the property. The landscaping plan does provide for a number of
trees and shrubs to be planted. The landscaping proposed should be adequate to
protect the privacy of residents in the surrounding residential areas.
9) Ordinance Requirements: The applicant has riled a request for a variance from
Section 62.1008 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual,
to permit 39% of impervious surface on the lot. Section 62.1008 restricts the
impervious coverage within the Shoreland Overlay District to 25% of the /at The
applicant has also rile a request for a variance from Section 63.220, the amount of
signage permitted for an office in the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) zoning district.
Variance:
According to the R-1 zoning district standards, an office use is permitted a sign type W. in
residential districts, any permitted nonresidential use is permitted one free standing and one other
primary sign (in this case a wall sign). if the use has frontage on more than one street, an
additional primary sign may be permitted. Since this proposal has frontage on more than one
street an additional primary sign is permitted for a total of 3 signs. The applicant is proposing 4
primary signs for the development, one more than what is permitted. One sign is a free standing
sign while the other three signs are wall signs.
The following chart compares what is permitted and what the applicant proposes for signage.
SIGN TYPE
Proposed
Permitted —]
"Av,
r aL
(a4I,
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 7 of 16
FREE STANDING SIGN
Maximum Area
77 SO. Fr.
i 24 SO.FT.
Maximum Height
27'8' FT
10,
Permitted Lighting
Back Lit B Spot 8
Message Board
G,S
Pu ose
BS
eS
PROJECTING SIGN
Maximum Area
NIA
12 SO.FT.
Maximum Height
12'
Permitted Lighting
G,t
Purpose
BS
WALL SIGN
Maximum Area
3 signs fora total of
80 SO. FT.
24 SO.FT.
(2 signs with a total of
4e so,ft
Maximum Height
2.5'
12'
Permitted Lighting
None
G,B
Purpose
BS
BS
GRAPHICS SIGN
Maximum Area
N/A
10%OF
WALL
Maximum Height
NA
Permitted Lighting
G
Purpose
BS
ROOF SIGNS
Maximum Area
WA
NOT PERMITTED
Maximum Height
Permitted Llghfino
Purpose
AUXILIARY SIGNS
Maximum Area
Free Standina Auxiliary Sin
No info. 10 SO.FT.
Maximum Height
Free Standing Auxiliary Skin
No info. 7'
Maximum Area
Maximum Area of any single Auxiliary
Wall Sion
No info.
10 SO.FT.
Maximum Area
Maximum Area of Window
Dis la devoted to AuxiliarySin
WA
7%OF
WINDOW
ABBREVIATIONS/SYMBOLS:
PERMITTED LIGHTING
G - General 8 - Spot light 1- Internal
PURPOSE
BS - Business Sign
The landscaping plan does show the location of the free standing sign. It's located in the
southeast portion of the property. The greatest visibility to the sign will be from West Circle Drive
and the intersection of 55s' Street NW and West Circle Drive. For an office use in the R-1 zoning
district, a free standing is permitted to be 10 feet tali and 24 sq. ft. The free standing sign
proposed by the applicant is 27' 8" tall, exceeding the permitted height by 17' 8". The area of the
sign is approximately 77 sq. ft, which exceeds the permitted area by 53 sq. ft. Also a portion of
the sign is proposed to be back lit and have a changeable message board, both which are not
permitted in the zoning district.
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 8 of 16
The total amount of wall signage permitted for this use in the R-1 zoning district is 48 sq. ft, and is
limited to 2 wall signs. The applicant is proposing 3 wall signs for a total of 80 sq. ft. The total
wall signage exceeds the permitted signage by 1 sign and 32 sq. ft.
The variance requested includes the following for signage:
1) A variance of seventeen (17') feet eight (8") inches to the maximum height of a
free standing sign from the required ten (10') to twenty-seven feet 8 inches (27'
8").
2) A variance of fifty-three sq. feet to the maximum area of a free standing sign
from the permitted twenty-four (24) square to seventy-seven (77 sq. ft) square
feet.
3) A variance to allow the free standing sign to be back lit.
4) A variance to allow the free standing sign to contain a message board.
5) A variance to allow one (1) additional wall sign.
6) A variance of thirty-two (32 sq. ft.) square feet to allow the total amount of wall
signage to equal eighty (80) square feet from the maximum square footage of
forty-eight (48sq. ft.) square feet to eighty (80 sq. ft.) square feet.
The other Variance requested by the applicant is to the impervious surface coverage on a lot.
Shoreland Districts regulations are designed to protect water resources and shoreland areas by
regulation development density and intensity, stormwater management and water quality, and
grading and vegetation alterations. Shoreland District regulations are found in Section 62.1000 et.
Seq. of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The applicant request
is permit 39% of impervious surface on this lot. With the temporary entrance on 41 Ave. NW
removed and the entrance to 55 h Street, the impervious surface coverage on the lot drops to
35.3%. Section 62.1008 restrict the impervious coverage within the Shoreland Overlay District to
25% of the lot.
The variance requested includes the following:
1) A variance of fourteen (14%) percent to the amount of impervious surface
coverage in the shoreland district from the maximum of twenty-five (25%)
percent to thirty-nine (39%) percent impervious surface coverage on the lot.
Section 60.417 (attached) establishes the guidelines for a variance. In this case the staff
suggests the following findings:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS:
Signage regulations: There would appear not to be extraordinary circumstance or conditions
that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other properties in the area.
The property is located in the R-1 zoning district, which has signage standards to make non-
residential developments compatible to single family residential developments.
impervious surface coverage: There would appear not to be extraordinary circumstance or
conditions that would apply to this property that would not apply generally to other properties
in the area. The applicant could redesign the site plan to accommodate a smaller building
requiring less parking. With a smaller building requiring less parking, the shoreland district
regulations could possibly be met.
ids '
129 Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 9 of 16
REASONABLE USE:
Signage regulations: The granting of this variance does not appear to be necessary to permit
the reasonable use of the property. The applicant could redesign the proposed signage to
meet the sign type A'standard permitted in the R-1 zoning district.
impervious surface coverage: The granting of this variance does not appear to be necessary
to permit the reasonable use of the property. in order to develop the proposed use, the
variance would be needed. With a smaller building design, the parking requirements would
be less, thus creating less impervious surface. With a smaller building (sq. R.) ft is likely that
the impervious surface coverage of the lot would be reduced.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENTAL:
Signage regulations: The granting of this variance request could be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or to other property in the area. The applicant is proposing signage for the
development, which exceeds the sign type standards permitted in the zoning district. The
property is located in a residentially zoned area. The location of this property acts as an
entrance point to residential properties located in this part of the City. Sign standards were
developed for the zoning districts in order to control the amount of signage permitted in a
zoning district. The amount and type of signage proposed for this property may not be
appropriate for its location.
Impervious surface coverage: The granting of this variance request does not appear to be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other property in the area. The applicant is
proposing to construct a stormwater quality pond to provide treatment of the water prior to
discharge to Kings Run Creek.
MINIMUM VARIANCE:
Signage regulations: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the alleged
hardship would be a variance to sign type A" in order to permit the four primary signs
proposed for the development.
Impervious surface coverage: The minimum variance that would be necessary to alleviate the
alleged hardship would be a variance of 14% in order to proceed with developing this site with
a bankloffice facility.
Staff Recommendation:
Variance: The planning Commission will need to consider the Variance request to Section
62.1008 and 63.220 and determine whether the variances should be approved or denied, as part
of this application, The Commission makes the decision on the Variances and adopts findings.
The City Council will only hear the Variance request if the Commission's decision is appealed to
the Council.
Restrictive and Incentive Development: The Commission will need to make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding this application.
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 10 of 16
Staff recommends the following modifications or conditions if the Commission recommends
approval the application:
The Final Development Plan application shall include:
• Complete building elevations that identify dimensions, building materials, and
colors;
• Details for exterior lighting, on the building and for the parking lot;
• Detailed signage plans, elevations and dimensions for any auxiliary signs
proposed for the development.
• A ten foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of West Circle
Drive, abutting the property.
2. An approved grading/drainage plan is required prior to construction. Storm water
management must be provided and a fee will apply for voluntary participation in the
City's regional Storm Water Management Plan if the proposed on -site water quality
pond is not sized to address the stormwater volume for the entire site.
3. Prior to approval of the final development plan, the applicant shall execute a
Development Agreement and Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City that
includes, but is not limited to, the Owner's obligations for stormwater management,
on -site traffic improvements, public improvements and charges and right-of-way
dedication.
4. The comments in the letter dated February 13, 2001 from the RPU Water Division shall
be addressed prior to the approval of the final development plan.
5. The property is limited to a temporary access to 41st Ave. NW until the City Engineer
authorizes access from the property onto 55t° Street NW. At such time the access is
permitted to 55t° St. NW, the temporary access to 41st Ave. NW shall be removed and
vegetation shall be established in its location.
6. The applicant shall obtain a revocable permit for any landscaping located within the
drainage easements. If a revocable is not executed the landscaping shall be moved
outside of the drainage easement.
laqj 11
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 11 of 16
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
Restrictive Development
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:
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.
Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights
and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding
development. Factors to consider include:
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 12 of 16
Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a
majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year:
2. Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary
exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in
elevation.
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.
Incentive Development:
62.620 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The Council shall approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the
development has addressed and satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.630 (1)
or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the
final development plans.
62.621 Standards for Approval, Final Development Plan: The Council shall approve or
approve with conditions a final development plan if it finds that the development has
satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.630(2).
62.630 CRITERIA FOR INCENTIVE DEVELOPMENTS:
131
3 Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 13 of 16
In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application, the
Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria:
2) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria:
a) Suitability of the Area: The Commission and Council shall find that the
proposed site is suitable as the location for an Incentive Development based on
consideration of the following factors:
1) The proposed use is compatible with the existing land uses in the area or
the pattern of zoning within 1,000 feet of the property boundaries.
2) The natural characteristics of the site under consideration, including
topography and soil characteristics, necessitate increased density to allow
for economic development of the site.
b) Site Design Criteria: The Commission and Council shall find that the
preliminary development plan design is consistent with the following guidelines:
1) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the
area are adequate to serve the proposed development.
2) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard,
such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., has been identified and
the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be
addressed in the final development plan.
3) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the
arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent
practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation
of the site.
4) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the
development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded,
and conceptual improvements or the need for improvements to reduce the
impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been
identified where needed.
5) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights
and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding
development in the following manner:
a) The structures will not deny adequate sunlight to surrounding
properties;
b) The siting of the structures will not destroy views from the primary
exposures of adjacent residential dwellings;
6) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed
setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with
that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district.
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 14 of 16
7) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the
preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable
orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal
points.
8) Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards
proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the
development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior
traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage,
unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in
architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses.
9) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate
amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new
construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance
requirements.
62.640 BONUS DENSITY OR FLOOR AREA:
The amount of bonus density will be negotiated with the Commission and Council during
the Type III review process. Density bonuses are granted in exchange for the
incorporation of features determined to be of public benefit. The features to be
considered are listed in Paragraphs 62.651 through 62.659. The features to be used
can be chosen at the option of the applicant.
62.658 All Development: The criteria in this paragraph may be considered for granting bonus
density in all developments:
1) Storm Water Management: The developer provides on -site or off -site
improvements to stormwater facilities that will minimize existing flooding, erosion or
siltation problems resulting from obsolete or non -existing stormwater facilities up or
downstream from the tract in question; or the developer provides improvements
such as over -sized retention basins, channel improvements, or recharge facilities
which reduce or eliminate existing flooding, erosion or siltation caused by urban
development either up or downstream. The City Council shall determine that the
existing problems are sufficient to grant the bonus, based upon the
recommendation of the City Engineer.
2) The development proposes to integrate the reuse of an existing structure which has
been vacant for 24 consecutive months.
3) Easements consistent with the flood control project are provided, or other bank
treatment or river beautification which will result in increased usage of the area
along existing streams for walking, sitting, or other means of passive recreation are
developed.
4) Street improvements normally provided by the City of Rochester are constructed,
dedicated or paid for by the developer. Examples include the provision of right-of-
way for arterial streets beyond that normally required to be dedicated, or the
133
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 15 of 16
construction or payment for turn lanes, signal lights, increased pavement depths,
etc.
5) Utility Service: The development of the site will lead to increased efficiency in the
existing public utility delivery system or the more efficient use of already existing
utilities. This means, a) that the necessary utilities already exist on the property to
be served, or b) the development of the property will provide a necessary link or
connection to complete the system or improve service.
6) Integrated Planning: The proposed development involves the integrated
development of a site which is a minimum of one acre in size and located in an
established district.
7) Each four (4) percent increase in the landscape area ratio above the minimum
required shall be considered as meeting the criteria for bonus density/floor area or
an increase in plant materials so as to exceed minimum requirements.
8) The proposed development minimizes access points by utilizing shared access
points with adjacent developments, resulting in a reduction in the number of
driveway openings on a collector or higher level street.
9) Parking lot landscaping for the purpose of screening residential areas and/or right-
of-way areas from concentration of vehicles.
60.417 Findings for Variances: in taking action on a variance request, the approval authority
shall make findings supporting the decision based on the following guidelines:
1) The approval authority may grant a variance to the provisions of this ordinance if it finds that:
a) there are extraordinary conditions or circumstances, such as irregularity, narrowness, or
shallowness of the lot or exceptional topographical or physical conditions which are
peculiar to the property and do not apply to other lands within the neighborhood or the
same class of zoning district; and
b) the variance is necessary to permit the reasonable use of the property involved; and
c) the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious
to other property in the area, is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this
ordinance, and will not adversely affect implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and
d) the variance as granted is the minimum necessary to provide reasonable economic use of
the property.
The extraordinary conditions or circumstances shall be found not to be the result of an
action by the applicant or property owners who have control of the property.
In addition, the approval authority shall find that development of the parcel in question
cannot be integrated with development of adjacent parcels under the same ownership in
such a manner so as to provide for the reasonable economic use of the total site in a
manner consistent with the provisions of this ordinance.
Home Federal Savings
March 23, 2001
Page 16 of 16
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.
r36-
�3 woCHFSTEP • Mlti.
AU-
ROCHESTER
MER7CA arY
GRATEp MUGUST•�•�
./�ir�ceeata
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507)285-8256
DATE: February 9, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
SUBJECT: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development and Incentive Development
Preliminary Plat #01-02 and Variance #01-02, Home Federal Savings
Bank, located north of West Circle Drive, south of 55th Street NW, and
east of 41st Avenue NW.
This project is within the 4 minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire
Department according to the ISO rating system and is adding a 10,000 square foot
commercial building, to the city's fire protection area. With that regard the fire code has
the following requirements:
An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
No hydrant locations were shown on this submittal.
2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance
with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development
Manual. All fire department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and
during building construction.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any
residential buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when
located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road
fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
Home Federal Savings Bank, 101 North Broadway, Spring Valley, MN 55975
TSP One, Inc. 1500 Hwy 52 North, Rochester, MN 55901
u, t 37
we pledge, we deliver
February 13, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Type III, Phase II, Restricted Development and Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #01-02
and Variance #01-02 by Home Federal Savings Bank to allow for the development of a 10,000 SF office and retail
banking building with drive up windows and to vary the amount of impervious surface and signage permitted. The
property is located along the south side of 55a' St. NW and east of 41" Ave. NW.
Dear Ms. Garness:
Our review of the referenced Restricted Development Request is complete and our comments follow:
1. The copper water service shown must be sized according to the probable peak flow for this facility and include a
curb stop and box to be located within the green area.
2. The existing hydrant north of the building must be raised to the level of the adjacent pavement for better visibility.
3. The existing hydrant at the northwest corner of the property (shown to be within the proposed sidewalk) must be
relocated and adjusted to final grade.
4. All existing valve boxes within the construction area must be adjusted to final grade per the standard City of
Rochester Requirements.
5. The fire Prevention Bureau will need to comment on the location of the existing fire hydrants as they relate to
protection of this building. If they require additional on -site fire hydrant(s), water mains connecting to and
including any fire hydrant are considered public and need to be centered within a 20' minimum public utility
easement. The owner would be required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the
installation of the public water main. Contact the Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works
Department for details. Final water main construction plans would need to be prepared by a civil engineer and
conform to standard City of Rochester requirements.
6. The pylon sign, which is not shown on the site plan, must be located no closer than 10' from the public water
system and must not block the visibility of any fire hydrant.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
064A R
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Home Federal Savings Bank
TSP One, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
(3g
ROCHESTER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DATE: 2/16/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4 h Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
Public Works has reviewed the requested Restricted Development & Incentive Development
Preliminary Plan #01-02 & VAR#01-02 for the Home Federal Savines Bank (55ih St NW & 41"
Ave 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. A draft Development Agreement and a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement have been
prepared for this property. Execution of the Final Agreements, by the Owner, is required
prior to final approval of this request.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the Development
Agreement
a�l
Page 10 (�q
City Planning and Zoning Conunission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 28, 2001
of the sidewalk at the time of havelopment to determine if repair or replace is needed.
3. The existing access locationsX10"' Avenue SE and 121h StreSfSE shall be closed.
4. Stormwater Management must b rovided for the deve ment. A Stormwater
Management Fee will apply for pa ipation in the Ci Regional Stormwater
Management Plan, If on -site detenti is not provi Separate grading and
drainage plan approval is required p r to the di,&4 elopment.
5. Construction of a five (5) foot concret id alk Is required, concurrent with
construction of the addition at the own expense, along the entire frontage of 10th
Avenue SE north of th/\creasloading.
s d ' ay only.
6. The applicant is requia the ex ing water service to the existing
building from a %" co1 '/2" cop r line and the water meter shall be
increased to a 1" to acthe increas loading. The applicant shall also
abandon the existing line to the se shown at 1212 10`h Ave. SE per
the requirements of thPublic Utilitle epartment.
7. Prior to the issuan5pFof building permits, the applishall provide to the Planning
Department Infor tion on the exterior lighting that complies with lighting standard
"A" in Section 210 of the Zoning Ordinance.
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. Svenby stated that the applicant submitted
on Monday to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning
Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
pictures of a similar bank facility in Spring Valley
Department. These pictures are on file at the
Mr. Svenby explained that the staff suggested in the staff report that the incentive development
portion be tabled. However, the applicant would like the Commission to take action rather than
table the request.
Mr. Svenby explained that drive -up facilities are not permitted in the R-1 zoning district.
Therefore, that is why staff suggested the applicant go through the restrictive development
application process for the drive -up facilities.
ri
V Page 11
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 28, 2001
Mr. Svenby explained that the Commission needed to take action on three different applications.
He explained the three different applications: Restrictive Development, Incentive Development,
and Variances.
Mr, Svenby showed pictures of how the building would look. He explained that the pictures
submitted do not explain what amenities the site would have, why they should be granted a
higher density than what the zoning district allows, what the proposed landscaping would be,
and how the development meets the Incentive Development criteria.
Mr. Svenby explained that the staff -suggested findings listed in the staff report for the variances
were not in favor of approval. Therefore, if the Commission were to approve the variance, they
would need to prepare appropriate findings. He further explained that, if the incentive
development portion of the application were denied, the variance for the shoreland coverage
would also need to be denied.
Mr. Werven questioned if staff was recommended denial or tabling of the incentive development
application.
Mr. Svenby responded that, based on the information submitted on Monday, staff would
recommend denial of the incentive development application. He indicated that the applicant
needed to submit their reasons why the incentive development should be granted for the site.
He stated that typically an applicant would go through the criteria for the incentive development.
Mr. Burke asked if there would be criteria to rezone the property.
Mr. Svenby responded that the land use plan designates the area for medium density. He
explained that, in the R-3 zoning district, the same sign standards would still apply. Also, the
impervious surface coverage and shoreland would still apply to the site.
Mr. Staver asked why they could not rezone the property to a B-1 zoning district.
Ms. Baker responded that she had early conversations with the applicant 6 to 9 months before
the applications were submitted. She indicated that the land use plan does not designate the
property for commercial uses. Therefore, to obtain a commercial zoning, a land use plan
amendment, zone change, and general development plan would need to be done.
Ms. Baker stated that there was some concern with zoning the property for a commercial zoning
district due to the potential for other types of land uses that could occur on the site that would
not be as compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the property is an
entrance into a larger residential neighborhood.
Ms. Baker stated that staff was not aware that the applicant would submit all of the other
applications (variances and incentive development) early on in the process, along with the
restricted development application.
Mr. Burke asked if it could be rezoned and be subject to specific restrictions.
Ms. Baker responded that a zone change could not be conditioned.
The applicant's representative, Bill Meschke with TSP Architects Engineers, addressed the
Commission. He stated that the restrictive development application is the most critical approval
11
Page 12 1 �'
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 28, 2001
process they need. He explained that, if the drive -up were not allowed, they would need to walk
away from the project.
Mr. Meschke stated that he has been working with the Rochester Public Works Department on
a development agreement so that the owner of the property gives land to the City to help the
traffic situation.
Mr. Meschke stated that the applicant intends to accommodate a branch bank facility in the
neighborhood of 2,500 to 3,000 square feet and potential either leased space or space required
by the bank for other operations in the amount of 5,000 square feet. He explained that the rest
of the building would be occupied by restrooms, mechanical space, and an entry.
Mr. Meschke explained that he provided staff with pictures of a similar facility to show good
faith. He explained what the building would be constructed of.
Mr. Meschke stated that there would be a pond on the site and that there would only be one
access point.
Mr. Meschke stated that he was confused as to what to do with the incentive development
portion. He explained that, if the variances were approved, they would come back to the
Commission to present the architecture of the building and the improvements to the site in more
detail.
Mr. Meschke stated that staff indicated that they would need more parking spaces. He
indicated that they felt there was 1,200 square feet that should not be in the calculation for
parking. Therefore, they feel the 45 parking spaces showed on the plan should be adequate.
Mr. Meschke stated that they would be willing to work with staff on where the location of the
signs and sidewalks need to go. He indicated that the development agreement alludes to a bike
path in the future. However, there has been no discussion with the public works department as
to where it would be placed.
Mr. Meschke explained that the property primarily drains straight down from Fairway Lane. He
also explained that he was unsure if they could deal with the bufferyard in the respect that they
might be crossing the drainage.
Mr. Quinn asked who owned the property to the south.
Mr. Meschke responded that the City of Rochester owned the property.
Mr. Freese stated that it is a drainage way.
A representative of the Home Federal Savings Bank, Mr. Dwain Jorgensen, addressed the
Commission. He stated that he is the Senior Vice President with Home Federal Savings Bank.
He stated that he resided at 4315 Arbor Lane NW, Rochester, MN.
Mr. Jorgensen explained that they have outgrown their present facility and would like to move
their retail bank facility or branch bank and commercial lending area into the new facility. He
stated that he thought the pictures provided to staff would show that the building would fit into
the surrounding area.
I(�1 Page 13
T1 V _City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 28, 2001
Mr. Jorgensen stated that they are requesting a variance to signage because they feel people
will not see the sign with all the competition in the area.
Mr. Werven asked if he would consider allowing the Commission to table the request, as staff
needs additional information before a decision could be formally made.
Mr. Jorgensen responded yes.
Mr. Svenby asked if the additional information could be provided to the Rochester -Olmsted
Planning Department by Monday, March 5, 2001. He indicated that additional information
regarding detailed landscaping plan, architectural features of the building, and language
addressing the criteria in the incentive development that they are providing on the site.
Mr. Meschke stated he would not have enough time to gather all that information by March 5,
2001. He indicated that perhaps they could continue the item to March 28, 2001.
Ms. Baker stated that, if the applicant were agreeable to continue the item to March 28, 2001,
staff would not need to republish the item.
Mr. Meschke asked if the Commission could act on the restrictive development portion, as it is
crucial to them proceeding with the project.
Ms. Wiesner questioned whether or not the applicant had enough parking spaces planned on
the site.
Mr. Svenby responded that they do meet the parking space requirement, based on a 10,000
square foot building.
Mr. Brede stated that he would like the Commission to do whatever needs to be done to move
the project along. He would like to ultimately approve the project.
Mr. Svenby stated that staff would recommend keeping all the application requests in one
package. However, he suggested that the Commission could give a general consensus on
whether or not they are in support of the Restrictive Development portion to allow drive -up
facilities.
Mr. Meschke stated that a general consensus would be appropriate.
Mr. Bill Oswald, of 5718 Lancaster Place NW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. He
indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the Northwest Neighbors Association. He made the
following comments:
1. The smaller the building the better.
2. They are not concerned with the building wall signs. They are only concerned with
the free-standing sign. He questioned the location of the sign and the size.
3. He expressed dissatisfaction with not enough details of the project.
4. He expressed gratitude with the bank president having communication with the
neighborhood.
5. He indicated that the neighborhood is generally in favor of the project.
6. Minimal traffic would be generated and there would not be a lot of weekend traffic.
7. He stated that, of all the uses that could be put on the property, the bank is the best.
i
Page 14
City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Hearing Date: February 28, 2001
16
8. The neighborhood is against the property being rezoned. They are concerned that, if
the property is rezoned and the bank does not go through, other uses could be
placed there.
9. The issues and concerns expressed by staff and the neighborhood can be worked
out with the bank and would like to be a part of that process.
10. He stated that the neighborhood would like the sign close to West Circle Drive. If it
were placed there, they would be more amenable to a larger sign. He also asked
that, if there were a message box on the sign, the neighborhood would like to ask to
place neighborhood events on it.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding the ratio for parking.
There was a general consensus by the Commission to approve the restrictive
development part of the application.
Mr. Brede moved to continue Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development and Incentive
Development Preliminary Plan #01.02 and Variance #01-02 by Home Federal Savings
Bank to March 28, 2001. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0
. j
The Commission took a break.
Ms. Baker explained that she would be A
establish a Special District and rezone the
development plan. She asked the Comm!:
Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff reports,
staff reports are on file at the Rochester -Oh
ng two se ate applications; 1) proposal to
arty tot Special District and 2) general
tom two separate motions.
23, 2001, to the Commission. The
Department.
Ms. Baker explained that the Thompson rtion of the eral development plan is not in the
proposal before the Commission. Th ore, no action wi regard to that property should be
made.
Ms. Baker explained that the hester Zoning Ordinance and nd Development Manual
allows different methods for odifying roadway widths, roadway ndards, and building
setbacks. She explained t there are provisions in the Ordinance at outright permit zero lot
line development.
144
Draft Minutes of the City Planning & Zoning Commission
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2001
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated March 23, 2001, to the Commission.
The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. He explained
that the item was continued at a previous meeting so that the applicant could provide
staff with additional information with regard to the Incentive Development Preliminary
Plan.
Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant was requesting three different types of
applications: 1) Restricted Development Preliminary Plan, 2) Incentive Development
Preliminary Plan, and 3) Variances to Sections 62.1008 and 63.220. He further
explained that separate motions would need to be made on each.
Mr. Svenby stated that the applicant asked the Commission at the previous meeting if
they would support the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan. The Commission
gave a general consensus to support the request. The applicant submitted building
elevations, floor plan, and detailed landscaping plan.
Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant requesting approval for one (1) more primary
sign than what is allowed.
Mr. Svenby explained that, if the Commission were to approve the variances, they would
need to prepare findings in support of their decision. He further explained that the
variances would not go before the City Council, unless an individual filed for an appeal of
,;he decision of the Commission.
The applicant's representative, Bill Meschke of TSP Architects Engineers, addressed the
Commission. He stated that he worked closely with the neighborhood on the
landscaping plan. He stated that the only concern he received from a neighbor was from
a property owner west of the site that would have headlights shining into his home from
the parking lot. He explained that the neighbor asked for the temporary road to be
moved further north. However, he explained that it could not be accomplished.
Therefore, they are in the process of figuring out how to buffer (ex. fence) on the
property owner's property to help the situation.
Page 1 of 6
/V� i
Mr. Meschke stated that the site is 10 feet below West Circle Drive. Therefore, they are
requesting a variance to the sign height. He explained that they worked out signage with
the neighborhood to add a message board to be used by both parties.
Mr. Meschke explained that the metal lettering on the building would be separate letters
and not a long sign. The lighting for the wall signage would be overhead lighting. He
explained that they felt they were accomplishing signage in a tasteful way.
Mr. Meschke explained that the variance for impervious surface was driven by the
parking requirements. He expressed dissatisfaction with Code not being more up to
date.
Discussion ensued regarding how signs are measured.
Ms. Petersson asked how tall the signs were in Northwest Plaza.
Mr. Svenby responded that they were approximately 20 to 25 feet in height.
Ms. Baker explained that they were located in two different zoning districts.
Mr. Brede asked how long the temporary road would be in place.
Mr. Meschke responded approximately 4 to 5 years.
Mr. Hodgson asked how large the lettering would be on the building.
Mr. Meschke responded approximately 12 to 15 inches high.
Ms. Rivas asked what would happen to signage if the uses changed.
Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant could change the signage letters but not style.
A representative of the Home Federal Savings Bank, Mr. Dwain Jorgensen, addressed
the Commission. He explained that they worked very closely with the neighborhood on
the proposal to include natural grasses and a message board for everyone's benefit. He
stated that it was very important to receive the variances and to retain the size of the
building.
Ms. Kate Herness, of 4136 57°i Street Lane NW, addressed the Commission. She
explained that she was on a development committee who worked with Home Federal on
the proposal. She expressed gratitude to Home Federal for working with the
neighborhood. She explained that the neighborhood was in full support of the proposal
before the Commission.
Mr. Bill Oswald, of 5718 Lancaster Place NW, addressed the Commission. He stated
that the neighborhood is in full support of the proposal, especially since they were a part
of the process. He stated that he felt the bank would be a good neighbor and would like
to see the project approved. He explained that the landscaping and layout would fit well
into the neighborhood.
Page 2 of 6
4�
Mr. Quinn asked Mr. Oswald if he had spoken to the property owner to the west that
would be affected by the headlights.
Mr. Oswald responded no and explained that the individual was actually not a part of the
neighborhood association due to location.
Mr. Brede asked if the exit onto 55th Street NW would be a controlled access.
Mr. Svenby responded no.
Mr. Meschke stated that, in discussions with Public Works, when 4151 Street is in place
the congestion between Fairway Drive and 55'h Street would most likely cease. He
stated that there could possibly be lights at 41 at Street and 55th Street in the future.
Mr. Svenby stated that the Commission could place a condition on the Incentive
Development Preliminary Plan to have the applicant work out a possible solution with the
property owner to the west but could not move the access closer to 55th Street. He
explained that the S curve would move the access further south on 41 s' Ave. NW.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hodgson moved to recommend approval of Restricted Development and
Incentive Development Preliminary Plan #01-02 by Home Federal Savings Bank
with staff -suggested findings and conditions, adding that the applicant work with
the property owner to the west on the alignment „of the temporary access to 41"
Ave. NW, Ms. Rivas seconded the motion.' The motion carried 7-0.
CONDITIONS:
1. The Final Development Plan application shall include:
• Complete building elevations that identify dimensions, building materials,
and colors;
• Details for exterior lighting, on the building and for the parking lot;
• Detailed signage plans, elevations and dimensions for any auxiliary signs
proposed for the development. ,
• A ten foot wide bituminous pedestrian path along the entire frontage of
West Circle Drive, abutting the property.
2. An approved grading/drainage plan is required prior to construction. Storm
water management must be provided and a fee will apply for voluntary
participation in the City's regional Storm Water Management Plan if the
proposed on -site water quality pond is not sized to address the stormwater
volume for the entire site.
3. Prior to approval of the final development plan, the applicant shall execute a
Development Agreement and Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with the City that
includes, but is not limited to, the Owner's obligations for stormwater
management, on -site traffic improvements, public improvements and charges
and right-of-way dedication.
Page 3 of 6
(4110) le
The comments in the letter dated February 13, 2001 from the RPU Water
Division shall be addressed prior to the approval of the final development plan.
5. The property is limited to a temporary access to 41" Ave. NW until the City
Engineer authorizes access from the property onto 551h Street NW. At such
time the access is permitted to 55'h St. NW, the temporary access to 41"Ave.
NW shall be removed and vegetation shall be established in its location.
6. The applicant shall obtain a revocable permit for any landscaping located
within the drainage easements. If a revocable is not executed the landscaping
shall be moved outside of the drainage easement.
7. The applicant shall work with the property owner to the west on the alignment
of the temporary access drive, with a "S" curve in it, to 41'x. Ave. NW
Mr. Burke moved to approve a variance to Section 62.1008 on the amount of
impervious surface coverage, based on the Idea that the applicant is providing a
storm sewer and sediment pond. Mr. Brede seconded the motion.
Mr. Staver expressed concern with not having appropriate findings to approve such a
request.
Mr. Burke stated that parking requirements in the R-1 zoning district actually add to the
impervious surface coverage.
Ms. Petersson stated that it seems as though the bank must have more lanes than
needed.
Mr. Stever stated that one-half of the building would be leased, which means it could be
reduced in size. He stated that he did not feel comfortable approving a variance to
impervious surface.
Discussion ensued regarding parking requirements.
Ms. Rivas questioned why the applicant did not request a variance to the parking
requirements instead of the impervious surface.
Mr. Svenby responded that, if the building were smaller in size, less parking would be
required.
Mr. Burke asked if the applicant could request for a variance to the parking
requirements.
Mr. Svenby responded yes. However, they would still need a variance for the shoreland
district.
Discussion ensued regarding the intention of the shoreland district.
Page 4 of 6
el
FINDINGS:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: Caused by virtue of R-1 zoning district requiring
additional parking spaces.
REASONABLE USE. Compatible with neighborhood and surrounding structures.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENTAL: The granting of this variance request does not
appear to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or to other property in the
area. The applicant is proposing to construct a stormwater quality pond to
provide treatment of the water prior to discharge to Kings Run Creek.
Ms. Rivas moved to approve a variance of seventeen (17') feet eight (8") inches to
the maximum height of a free standing sign from the required ten (10') to twenty-
seven feet 8 inches (27' 8") with the following findings:
FINDINGS:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: The elevation of the road (West Circle Drive)
warrants on higher sign so that it can be more visible.
REASONABLE USE: The location of the signage is away from the residential
uses.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The signage would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood based on neighborhood's comments and support of the project.
Mr. Burke seconded the motion.
Mr. Staver stated that he did not support the motion, as they were requesting a large
amount of signage.
The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Staver voting nay.
Mr. Burke moved to approve a variance of 53 square feet to the maximum area of a
free standing sign from the permitted 24 square feet to 77 square feet, a variance
to allow the free standing sign to be back lit, and a variance to allow the free
standing sign to contain a message board, with the following findings.
FINDINGS:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: The reason for a larger sign is conditions driven
by the request of the neighborhood.
REASONABLE USE: The signage size and use is compatible with neighborhood
and is supported by the neighborhood.
Page 5 of 6
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: Based on the neighborhoods input, the signage would
not be detrimental to the neighborhood, there doesn't appear to be anyone
against it.
Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Staver voting
Mr. Burke moved to approve a variance to allow 1 additional wall sign and a
variance of 32 square feet to allow the total amount of wall signage to equal 80
square feet from the maximum square footage of 48 square feet to 80 square feet,
with the following findings:
FINDINGS:
EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS: The location of buildings relates to West Circle
Drive and is more conducive to a business district.'
REASONABLE USE: The type of signage is compatible and pleasing to the
building.
ABSENCE OF DETRIMENT: The style and design of the signage is compatible to
the building and the neighborhood.
Mr. Brede seconded the motion.
Mr. Staver and Mr. Hodgson expressed concern with having too many signs on the
building.
The motion carried 4-3, with Mr. Staver, Mr. Hodgson, and Ms. Petersson voting
nay.
Page 6 of 6
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 4/16/011
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO
PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING e
"'M DESCRIPTION: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Section 62.937, Commercial Wireless PREPARED
Telecommunications Services and Towers I John Harford,
April 12, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
On June, 2000 the CPZC initiated an interim ordinance covering telecommunications facilities in residential areas.
Staff started immediately to work on changes to the ordinance. The Council later in the simmer agreed to establish a
citizens committee to be facilitated by Jim Carlson of the RPU Board to review possible text amendments to Section
62.937. The citizens committee started meeting in September, 2000. The committee completed its initial report in
November, 2000. The CPZC first discussed the issue in January, 2001. Members of the CPZC met with the
committee several times during the winter and a public hearing held on February 14, 2001.
A number of suggested changes were developed and made for consideration by the CPZC. The CPZC completed its
hearing process and voted to approve the attached version of the text amendment on April I Vh. The major changes
made to the current ordinance text include: 1) procedures for review tied to locational priorities; 2) clarifies accessory
building setbacks; 3) tower and antenna height requirements; 4) lighting requirements for towers and accessory
buildings; 5) clarifies the buffering and screening requirements; 6) requires registration of tower and service
companies on an annual basis.
ing the review by the CPZC several amendments were made to the original proposal of the citizens committee.
se changes addressed 1) limiting tower and service locations to non-residential areas; 2)tower and antenna height
limitations in residential districts; 3) burying and bemiing of accessory buildings; 4) increased buffering and screening
requirements.
The attached staff report represents the final CPZC adopted version of the text. On additional element was added
based on the CPZC discussion to clarify the registration requirement. Subsection 17 c) states that registration updates
shall occur at least on an annual basis.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See the attached staff report dated April 12, 2001. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment.
Council Action Needed: The Council should pass an ordinance approving the text amendment.
Attachments:
1. Staff report dated April 12, 2001 and attachments.
^^UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
lam:
ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CCUNTY nr
TO: CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FROM: JOHN HARFORD
DATE: MARCH 30, 2001; Am4b ded April 12, 2001
�rir+f�'4iiiV
Ila�►����pr.r
O..cs�ll.mce��
p..ogJ.o.jy
wgirriv,�'IQigr'h
• r�p�y�1.�a�ti1
RE: ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL TEXT
AMENDMENT #00-03 TO SECTION 62.937 COMMERCIAL WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND TOWERS. THE INTENT OF THE
TEXT AMENDMENT IS TO ADDRESS LOCATION PRIORITIES, PROCEDURES
FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, AND SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS
The CPZC initiated a zoning ordinance text amendment to Section 62.937 that
establishes standards for commercial wireless telecommunications services and towers.
At the March 28, 2001 CPZC meeting the Commission directed staff to develop a final
draft for review at the April 11th meeting. This draft presents the recommendations of the
CPZC at the April 11, 2001 meeting.
Section 62.937 of the Zoning Ordinance:
62.937 Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services and Towers:
1) Purpose: The City of Rochester acknowledges the legal right of wireless
telecommunications providers to do business within the City. However,
the City wishes to implement its legal authority to impose zoning
requirements which are nondiscriminatory, not intended to prohibit
telecommunications service, and not based on the health effects of radio
frequency emissions. Accordingly, in order to establish uniform,
nondiscriminatory, and competitively -neutral regulations that protect the
public health, safety and general welfare of the community, these
regulations are intended to:
a) facilitate the provision of commercial wireless telecommunication services
in City of Rochester and surrounding area;
b) minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and
siting standards;
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - Gs/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
�-
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
/S3
c) avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower or antenna
failure and weather related occurrences through structural standards,
careful siting and setback requirements;
d) encourage the placement of commercial wireless telecommunication
service towers in non-residential zoning districts or alternatively on
commercial, industrial, or institutional property and large publicly -owned
parcels as is specified in the Locational Priorities section; and
e) minimize the total number of existing and new towers needed to serve the
community, and maximize the use of existing towers and buildings to
accommodate commercial wireless telecommunication service antennas.
2) Locational Priorities and Zoning District Procedural Requirements:
The suitability of sites for commercial wireless telecommunications
facilities must be determined based on location and facilities needs. The
table below establishes priorities for location. The table proceeds from
those sites and facilities that the city identifies as having the least impact
designated as #1 (the most attractive settings for new commercial
wireless telecommunications facilities) to settings that have the most
impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods designated as #9
(considered the least attractive settings).
The table specifies the zoning procedure that will be required. The
procedure is dependent on the zoning district, location, and type of
commercial wireless telecommunications facility that is proposed by an
applicant. (Within this table the term "facility" shall apply to any portion of
a commercial wireless telecommunications service and related facilities.)
Tnhla R7 Qq7
oning District and location
Property located in a non-
Property located in a
Property located In a
residential zoning district
residential zoning district
residential zoning district
and on an Institutional or
and on property that is less
public property over two (2)
than two (2) acres in size;
acres in size and greater
or located on any property
than 200' from a residential
zoned residential that is
dwelling
withln 200 feet of a
Telecommunications
residential dwelling
facility
construction of a facility on
Procedure: Type I
Procedure: Type I
Procedure: Type II
an existing tower, building,
Priority location: 1
Priority location: 2
conditional use*
or structure currently used
Priority location: 5
as a facility site
Construction of a facility on
Procedure: Type I
Procedure: Type II
Procedure: Type 111, Phase
an existing tower, building,
Priority location: 3
conditional use"
I conditional use*
or structure where no
Priority location: 4
Priority location: 6
facility is currently located
Construction of a tower for
Procedure: Type I, unless
Procedure: Type II
Procedure: Type III, Phase
a facility
located within 200' of a
conditional use
I conditional use
dwelling then the procedure
Priority location: 8
Priority location: 9
shall be a Type III, Phase I
conditional use
Priority Location 7
*NOTE: Installations of accessory equipment within the base of a
Rochester Public Utilities water tower shall be processed as a Type
permit.
3) Tower and Accessory Structure Height: in residential zoning districts
telecommunications towers shall not exceed 199 feet in height including
the tower and attached antennas. All proposed towers and all accessory
structures or buildings shall meet the maximum height provisions of the
underlying zoning district and Section 60.424(6)(a)(3). The height of
towers shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the
tower's point of contact with the ground or rooftop to the highest point of
the tower, including all antennas or other attachments. When towers are
mounted on top of other structures or buildings, the combined height of
the structure or building and tower must meet the height requirements of
the applicable zoning district. Antennas placed on non -
telecommunications related structures or buildings shall have a height of
not more than 25 feet.
4) Tower and Accessory Structure Setback: Towers shall conform to the
setback requirements of the underlying zoning district as determined for
area accessory development. Where a tower exceeds maximum height
limitations in the zoning district the minimum setback shall be established
by Section 60.424(6)(a)(3), Design Modification - Height. Towers located
in districts with no height restriction shall be required to meet the setback
requirements of Section 60.424(6)(a)(3).
5) Equipment, Structure or Cabinet Setback: All structures or cabinets
shall conform to the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district
as specified for area accessory development.
Under a conditional use permit the Commission must determine, by
means of a Design Modification (Section 60.422-60.423) as part of the
conditional use application, the structure or cabinet setback and buffering.
The Commission must consider the lot size, surrounding land uses, site
characteristics such as topography and existing vegetation, and proximity
of dwellings to the proposed accessory structures. The Commission must
determine the most appropriate method for buffering structures or
cabinets by applying the requirements of subsection 11 of this section.
Where fences are used to control unauthorized climbing of towers, the
site plan shall conform to the requirements for fence setbacks in Section
63.126. Fences or walls shall be located between the bufferyards and
tower based on the standards of Section 63.265(1).
6) Towers and Services as the Principal Use: In any residential district, a
commercial wireless telecommunications tower shall be the only principal
use permitted on a lot, except where located on institutional or publicly
owned property where it may be an accessory use. Equipment structures
or cabinets serving the telecommunications tower on a property may be
permitted as regulated by this section of the ordinance. Equipment
structures or cabinets separate from a tower or antennas may be
permitted as specified in Subsection 2, Locational Priorities and Zoning
District Procedural Requirements
7) Tower Design Requirements:
a) Towers and antennas shall blend in to the surrounding environment
through the use of color and camouflaging architectural treatment
except where color is dictated by federal or state authorities. Tower
color shall be a solid color, not multi -colored, and shall be light blue,
light beige or rust colored. Rust color on towers shall be used only on
sites where there is a predominance of woodland.
b) New towers shall be a monopole design. Existing towers may be
used for the placement of antennas and will not be required to be of a
monopole design.
c) No tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any
way, any platform, catwalk, crow's nest, or like structure, except
during periods of construction or repair when the tower is located in
any residential zoning district or located on a lot that is within 200 feet
of a residential zoning district, a designated residential area on the
land use plan, or where residential uses currently exist.
8) Antenna Co -location: All commercial wireless telecommunication
towers or antennas erected, constructed or located within the City shall
comply with the following requirements.
a) A proposal for a new tower or antennas shall not be approved unless
the City finds that the telecommunications equipment planned for the
proposed structure cannot be accommodated on an existing or
approved tower or structure within a one mile search radius of the
proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons:
1) the planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the
existing or approved tower or structure, as documented by a
qualified and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or
approved tower or structure cannot be reinforced, modified, or
replaced to accommodate planned equipment at a reasonable cost;
2) the planned equipment would cause interference materially
impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the
tower or structure as documented by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer or qualified radio frequency engineer and the
interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost;
3) existing or approved towers and structures within the search radius
that are 60 feet or over in height that cannot accommodate the
planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as
documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer;
4) other unforeseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the
planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or
approved tower or structure.
(4.0
b) Any proposed tower shall be designed (structurally, electrically and in
all other respects) to accommodate both the applicant antennas and
comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is
over 100 feet in height, or for at least one additional user if the tower
is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future
rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas
mounted at varying heights.
c) Zoning certificate or conditional use permit applicants must submit in
writing a response to Section 63.937(8)(a-b), above. Where an
applicant is proposing to locate commercial wireless
telecommunications equipment on an existing tower, building, or
structure and located in Priority locations 1, 2, or 3 as specified in
Table 62.937, this information is not required as part of the
application.
9) Antennas Mounted on Existing Structures or Towers: The placement
of wireless telecommunication antennas on existing buildings, structures,
or towers, and placement of equipment structures or cabinets shall meet
the standards of the underlying zoning district as specified for an area
accessory development and the procedural requirements and standards
of this section. A site plan and building plan shall be submitted to the City
as part of the zoning certificate.
10) Equipment Buildings or Cabinets:
a) All buildings, excluding cabinets, accessory to a tower or antenna, or
separate from a tower or antenna location shall be:
1) constructed of material on the exterior of the building walls and roof
similar to the surrounding residential area when located on property
in or within 200 feet of a residential zoning district;
2) buffered and screened from adjoining uses as established in
subsection 11 below.
b) Equipment buildings or cabinets shall meet the height limitations as
stated in Section 62.273.
c) Equipment buildings or cabinets equipped with exterior lighting shall
meet the lighting requirements of Section 63.210. No more than one
light located on the equipment structure shall be permitted when the
facility is located within a residential zoning district. The light shall be
controlled such that the light is on only during nighttime hours. The
light shall illuminate only the equipment structure to which it is
attached.
11) Buffering and Screening: Towers and equipment structures and
cabinets shall be buffered and screened from adjoining uses as
established in the requirements of the underlying zoning district for Area
Accessory Development and Section 63.260 Bufferyard Regulations.
a) In a residential zoning district all cabinets located on the ground shall
be surrounded by a wood stockade fence that is the same height or
higher than the cabinet or related electrical connections, but no more
than 6 feet in height. A fence will not be required where a cabinet is
located with one or more other buildings or structures housing
telecommunications equipment or located within another structure.
b) In residential zoning districts equipment structures and towers shall be
required to meet minimum requirements for landscaping as specified
in one of the options of this section.
Location of a new telecommunications service in an existing
developed residential neighborhood: the minimum landscaping
required for all property or lease boundaries of a new
telecommunications service location shall be the applicable
bufferyard requirement of the most restrictive bufferyard required
for the property as specified in Section 63.260.
Additional landscaping may be required by the Commission as
part of a conditional use permit as specified in this subsection.
The added landscaping may be in response to the size of the
property used for the telecommunications towers, equipment
structures and cabinets, surrounding land uses, proximity of
dwellings on adjacent properties to the lot lines, topography, and
existing woody vegetation on the property.
The commission may require that plant material be up to twice the
size of the minimum required in Section 63.154.
2. Location of a new telecommunications service in an undeveloped
residential neighborhood: The minimum landscaping required of a
new telecommunications service location shall consist of the
applicable bufferyard requirements as specified in Section 63.260.
3. Location of a new telecommunications service in a non-residential
zoning district: The minimum landscaping required of a new
telecommunications service location shall consist of the applicable
bufferyard requirements as specified in Section 63.260.
4. Location of a new telecommunications service at an existing
telecommunications service location: Where a proposed site is
found to be non -conforming for bufferyard requirements the
applicant shall be required to bring the site into conformance with
Section 63.260 where located within a residential zoning district.
c) All landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner or a
designated company or public agency. All plant material that dies
must be replaced within one growing season.
(e�
12) Signs and Advertising: The use of any portion of a tower for signs other
than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited.
13) Tower Lighting: A tower shall not be illuminated by artificial means and
shall not have affixed or attached to it in any way, except during time of
repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers or other illuminating
device, except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration,
Federal Communications Commission or any state agency. Strobe lights
will not be permitted for night time tower lighting. The applicant shall
choose from alternative lighting standards supplied by the Federal
Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission or state
agency. The applicant shall submit with their application the required
lighting standards specified by these agencies.
When incorporated into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures
used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots or similar areas may be attached
to the tower.
14) Abandoned or Unused Towers: Abandoned or unused towers and
associated facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of
operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the zoning
administrator. In the event that a tower is not removed within 12 months
of the cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities
may be removed by the City and the costs of removal may be assessed
against the property.
15) Public Safety Telecommunications Interference: Commercial wireless
telecommunications services shall not interfere with public safety
telecommunications. All zoning certificate applications shall include
adequate information that will be reviewed by the City and County public
safety communications system before a certificate may be issued. Before
the introduction of new service or changes in existing service,
telecommunication providers shall notify the City and County at least ten
calendar days in advance of changes and allow the City and County to
monitor interference levels during the testing process.
16) Additional Submittal Requirements: In addition to the information
required elsewhere, applications shall include the following information:
a) A report from a licensed professional engineer that describes the
tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it
can accommodate;
b) A letter of intent from the commercial wireless telecommunication
service tower owner committing the tower owner and successors to
allow the shared use of tower if an additional user agrees in writing to
meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use; and
c) Information specifically indicating how a tower affixed to the ground
shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized
persons.
/51.
17) Registration of Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services
and Towers:
a) Purpose. The purpose of registration under this ordinance is to
provide the city with accurate and current information concerning
commercial wireless telecommunications services and to assist the
city in the administration of this section of the ordinance. This
requirement shall apply to companies that offer or provide services
within the City or that own or operate facilities, including but not
limited to antennas and towers, within the city.
b) Registration and Application Requirements: Commercial wireless
telecommunications services and tower companies that offer or
provide any telecommunications services for a fee directly to the
public or have facilities within the city shall register and provide to the
city, pursuant to this ordinance the following information:
1. the identity and legal status of the registrant, including affiliates;
2. the name, address and telephone number of the officer, agent or
employee responsible for the accuracy of the registration
statement;
3. a narrative and map description of registrants existing
telecommunications facilities with the city and adjacent townships;
4. such other information as the city may reasonably require.
c) This information shall be updated on an annual basis by the
companies. The city may request updates of the list whenever a
tower or facility is added or removed from service by a company.
In Section 60.200 Definitions two new definitions should be added.
1. Institutional property: Land used by a nonprofit, religious, or educational organization,
such as a church, library, public or private school, hospital, or airport. Government
owned or operated building, structure, or land used for public purpose shall be
considered separate from institutional property.
2. Equipment structures or cabinets: A cabinet, structure or building housing
telecommunications and related electrical equipment used by commercial wireless
telecommunications services.
Staff Recommendation:
The procedural criteria that need to be addressed for a zoning ordinance text
amendment include:
Whether there is a public need for the amendment.
Whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies;
(�O
PA
3. Whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful.
Findings to consider are as follows:
1. The CPZC has determined that additional zoning requirements are necessary to
encourage commercial wireless telecommunications facilities to locate in areas of the
city that are compatible with this use. Specific additional standards on site
development are necessary for commercial wireless telecommunications facilities to
locate within residential districts and residential neighborhoods.
2. The proposed amendment will require additional site improvements such as
landscaping, establish additional regulations such as height limitations, and require
public notification in residential zoning districts. These new requirements will more
fully implement the city policies on telecommunications facilities as established in the
purpose statement and locational priorities of Section 62.937.
3. The proposed text amendment has been reviewed by the City Attorney and
determined to be lawful.
Well- ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Wk 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
COUNTY OF
TO: CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FROM: JOHN HARFORD
DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2001
RE: ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL TEXT
AMENDMENT #00-03 TO SECTION 62.937 COMMERCIAL WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND TOWERS. THE INTENT OF THE
TEXT AMENDMENT IS TO ADDRESS LOCATION PRIORITIES, PROCEDURES
FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, AND SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS
The CPZC initiated a zoning ordinance text amendment to Section 62.937 that
establishes standards for commercial wireless telecommunications services and towers.
At the January 24, 2001 meeting the CPZC evaluated the recommendations of a task
force chaired by Jim Carlson of the RPU Board and made a number of
recommendations for changes to the ordinance. At that meeting the CPZC directed staff
to prepare a draft amendment that would be the focus of a public hearing. The rest of
this report represents the proposed changes.
Changes are shown as a strikethrough or italicized and in bold format. Some notes are
included that would not be a part of the final ordinance language but point out where
there have been questions raised about the recommended language.
Section 62.937 of the Zoning Ordinance:
62.937 Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services and Towers:
1) Purpose: The City of Rochester acknowledges the legal right of wireless
telecommunications providers to do business within the City. However,
the City wishes to implement its legal authority to impose zoning
requirements which are nondiscriminatory, not intended to prohibit
telecommunications service, and not based on the health effects of radio
frequency emissions. Accordingly, in order to establish uniform,
nondiscriminatory, and competitively -neutral regulations that protect the
public health, safety and general welfare of the community, these
regulations are intended to:
a) facilitate the provision of commercial wireless telecommunication services
in City of Rochester and surrounding area;
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS�ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/Hr1A 507/285-8224
PLANNINGIZONING 507/285.8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
i�R'.
r
b) minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and
siting standards;
c) avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower or antenna
failure and weather related occurrences through structural standards,
careful siting and setback requirements;
d) encourage the placement of commercial wireless telecommunication
service towers in non-residential zoning districts or alternatively on
institutional, commercial or industrial property and large publicly -owned
parcels as is specified in the Locationa/ Priorities section; and
e) minimize the total number of existing and new towers needed to
serve the community, and maximize the use of existing towers and
buildings to accommodate commercial wireless telecommunication
service antennas PR GFdeF to Minimize the numbeF Of t9WeFS Reeded to
aen.e the ..'I.
2) Locational Priorities: The suitability of sites for commercial wireless
telecommunications facilities must be determined based on location
and facilities needs. The list establishes priorities for location
proceeding from the sites and facilities that the city identities as
having the least impact, and therefore, the most attractive settings
for new commercial wireless telecommunications facilities to
settings that have the most impact on surrounding neighborhoods,
and therefore, are considered the least attractive settings.
a) Co -location on an existing telecommunications tower
1) in a non-residential zoning district,
2) on an institutional property or on public property over 2 acres in
size.
b) Location on an existing building/structure:
1) in a non-residential district,
2) on an institutional or public property over 2 acres in size in any
zoning district.
c) Construction of a new telecommunications tower.
1) in a non-residential zoning district,
2) on an institutional or public property over 2 acres in size in any
zoning district.
d) Co -location on an existing tower or location on an existing
building/structure.
e) Construction of a new telecommunications tower in a residential
zoning district.
163
(Note: The effect of this prioritization is to make water tower sites less acceptable
where located on individual non -institutional lots. The CPZC would need to consider
this list when considering a conditional use permit application in a residential district.)
3) Zoning District Procedural Requirements:
a) /n residential zoning districts commercial wireless
telecommunications facilities operators and owners, including
towers, are required to be obtain a Type /I/, Phase I conditional use
permit and then a Type I zoning certificate. /n addition to the
information required for submittal listed in Section 61.144 the
applicant shall provide in writing a response to Section 62.937(9)(a).
(Note: The alternative to this process is to differentiate between towers and use of
existing buildings/structures. Second, a required neighborhood notification or Type II
process could be used instead of the Type III process to avoid hearings where there is no
request for the hearing. If a Type II process is decided as adequate then some additional
standards may be needed for staff to be able to apply them equally to all parcels)
b) in non-residential districts commercial wireless telecommunications
facilities operators and owners, including towers, are required to
obtain a Type 111, Phase I conditional use permit if the location of the
tower or antenna is located within 200 feet of a residential zoning
district (alternative — within 200' of a dwelling.) A Type I zoning
certificate is required in all other non-residential district locations.
(Note: same comments as in a above)
2) 4) Tower Height: in residential zoning districts telecommunications
towers shall not exceed 150 feet in height. All proposed towers and all
accessory structures or buildings shall meet the maximum height
provisions of the underlying zoning district and Section 60.424(6)(a)(3).
The height of towers shall be determined by measuring the vertical
distance from the tower's point of contact with the ground or rooftop to the
highest point of the tower, including all antennas or other attachments.
When towers are mounted on top of other structures or buildings, the
combined height of the structure or building and tower must meet the
height requirements of the applicable zoning district. Antennas placed
on non -telecommunications related structures or buildings shall
have a height of not more than 20 feet.
4) 5) Tower Setback: Towers
shall conform to the setback requirements of the underlying zoning
district. Where the a towers exceeds maximum height limitations in the
zoning district the minimum setback shall be established by subsection 4
of this section and Section 60.424(6)(a)(3). Towers located in districts
with no height restriction shall be required to meet the setback
requirements of Section 60.424(6)(a)(3).
6) Equipment Structures or Cabinet Setback: All structures or
cabinets shall conform to the setback requirements of the
underlying non-residential zoning district.
Under a conditional use permit the Commission must determine the
structure or cabinet setback and buffering by considering the lot
(W
size, surrounding land uses, site characteristics such as topography
and existing vegetation, and proximity of dwellings to the proposed
accessory structures. The Commission must determine the most
appropriate method for buffering structures or cabinets. The
Commission must decide in descending priority that:
a) a structure or cabinet must be partially or fully buried;
b) the electrical equipment be placed inside of other structures
located on the property;
c) a landscape berm of at least 4 feet in height to screen the
structures or cabinets; or,
d) the cabinets are fenced.
The Commission may vary the accessory structure setback from the
minimum setback established for the underlying zoning district.
Where fences are used to control unauthorized climbing of towers, the
site plan shall conform to the requirements for fence setbacks in Section
63.126. Fences or walls shall be located between the bufferyards
plantings and tower based on the standards of Section 63.265(1).
4) 7) Towers as the Principal Use: In any residential district, a
commercial wireless telecommunications tower shall be considered the
principal use on the property. The telecommunications tower located on
a residential lot or parcel shall be the only principal use allowed on the
property. Ascesseq tk. ildirags Equipment structures or cabinets
serving to the telecommunications tower on a property may be permitted
as regulated by this section of the ordinance.
5) 8) Tower Design Requirements:
a) Towers and antennas shall blend in to the surrounding environment
through the use of color and camouflaging architectural treatment
except where color is dictated by federal or state authorities. Tower
color shall be a solid color, not multi -colored, and shall be light blue,
light beige or rust colored. Rust color on towers shall be used only on
sites where there is a predominance of woodland.
b) New towers shall be a monopole design. Existing towers may be
used for the placement of antennas and will not be required to be of a
monopole design.
c) No tower shall have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any
way, any platform, catwalk, crow's nest, or like structure, except
during periods of construction or repair when the tower is located in
any residential zoning district or located on a lot that is within 200 feet
of a residential zoning district, a designated residential area on the
land use plan, or where residential uses currently exist.
/6s-
3) 9) Antenna Co -location: All commercial wireless telecommunication
towers erected, constructed or located within the City shall comply with
the following requirements.
a) A proposal for a new tower shall not be approved unless the City finds
that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed
tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or
building within a one mile search radius of the proposed tower due to
one or more of the following reasons:
1) the planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the
existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified
and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved
tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate
planned equipment at a reasonable cost;
2) the planned equipment would cause interference materially
impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the
tower or building as documented by a qualified and licensed
professional engineer or qualified radio frequency engineer and the
interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost;
3) existing or approved towers and buildings within the search radius
that are 60 feet or over in height that cannot accommodate the
planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as
documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer;
4) other unforeseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the
planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or
approved tower or building.
b) Any proposed tower shall be designed (structurally, electrically and in
all other respects) to accommodate both the applicant antennas and
comparable antennas for at least two additional users if the tower is
over 100 feet in height, or for at least one additional user if the tower
is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future
rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas
mounted at varying heights.
c) Zoning certificate or conditional use permit applicants must
submit in writing responding to each request for information in
Section 63.937(9)(a-b), above. Where an applicant is proposing
to locate commercial wireless telecommunications equipment on
an existing telecommunications tower, structure, or building this
information is not required as part of the application.
7) 10) Antennas Mounted on Existing Buildings or Towers: The
placement of wireless telecommunication antennas on existing buildings,
or towers, er and equipment structures or cabinets shall meet the
requirements of the underlying zoning district. A site plan and building
plan shall be submitted to the City as part of the zoning certificate.
r
6) 11) Equipment Structures or Cabinets:
a) All ba}ldlags-aad structures, excluding cabinets, accessory to a tower
shall be:
1) constructed of material on the exterior of the structure walls and
roof similar to the surrounding residential area when located on
property in or adjaseR within 200 feet of to a residential zoning
district;
b) ascessegr-IUildiAgs Equipment structures or cabinets shall meet
the height limitations as stated in Section 62.273.
c) Equipment structures or cabinets equipped with exterior lighting
shall meet the lighting requirements of Section 63.210. No more
than one light located on the equipment structure shall be
permitted when the facility is located within a residential zoning
district. The light shall be controlled such that the light is on
only during nighttime hours. The light shall illuminate only the
equipment structure to which it is attached.
12) Buffering and Screening: Towers and equipment structures and
cabinets shall be buffered and screened from adjoining uses as
established in the requirements of the underlying zoning district for
Area Accessory Development and Section 63.260 Bufferyard
Regulations.
a) In a residential zoning district all cabinets located on the ground
shall be surrounded by a wood stockade fence that is the same
height or higher than the cabinet or related electrical
connections. A fence will not be required where a cabinet is
located with one or more other buildings or structures housing
telecommunications equipment. in addition, landscaping shall
be required as specified for Area Accessory Development in
Section 63.260 for the perimeter of the property.
b) in residential zoning districts equipment structures and towers
shall be required to meet increased minimum requirements for
landscaping. Landscaping shall be in two parts, one part will
consist of the required perimeter landscaping specified in the
bufferyard requirements. The second landscaping area shall
consist of internal landscaping at the base of a commercial
wireless telecommunications tower and the equipment
structures and cabinets, or where only the equipment structures
or cabinets are constructed on the ground. The internal
landscaping shall surround the tower base, where applicable,
and the equipment building and cabinets. The minimum
landscaping shall consist of the applicable bufferyard
147
requirement of the most restrictive bufferyard required for the
property as specified in Section 63.260. The plant material
required for all landscaping on a site shall be twice the size of
that required in Section 63.154.
c) Additional landscaping may be required by the Commission as
part of a conditional use permit. The added landscaping may be
in response to the size of the property used for the
telecommunications towers, equipment structures and cabinets,
surrounding land uses, proximity of dwellings on adjacent
properties to the lot lines, topography, and existing woody
vegetation on the property.
d) All landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner or a
designated company or public agency. All plant material that
dies must be replaced within one growing season.
9) 13) Signs and Advertising: The use of any portion of a tower for signs
other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited.
9) 14) Tower Lighting: Towers shall not be illuminated.by artificial means
and shall not have affixed or attached to it in any way, except during time
of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers or other illuminating
device, except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal
Communications Commission or any state agency. When incorporated
into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball
fields, parking lots or similar areas may be attached to the tower.
(Note: we have received a number of complaints about strobe lights.
Federal rules address towers over 200'in height and required lighting.
There are alternative lighting options to avoid this problem. Strobe lights
are a nuisance at night, especially when located on towers near or in
residential areas.)
444 15) Abandoned or Unused Towers: Abandoned or unused towers and
associated facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of
operations at the site unless a time extension is approved by the zoning
administrator. In the event that a tower is not removed within 12 months
of the cessation of operations at a site, the tower and associated facilities
may be removed by the City and the costs of removal may be assessed
against the property.
424 16) Public Safety Telecommunications Interference: Commercial
wireless telecommunications services shall not interfere with public safety
telecommunications. All zoning certificate applications shall include
adequate information that will be reviewed by the City and County public
safety communications system before a certificate may be issued. Before
the introduction of new service or changes in existing service,
telecommunication providers shall notify the City and County at least ten
calendar days in advance of changes and allow the City and County to
monitor interference levels during the testing process.
r.
4-214 17) Additional Submittal Requirements: In addition to the information
required elsewhere, applications shall include the following information:
a) A report from a licensed professional engineer that describes the
tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it
can accommodate;
b) A letter of intent from the commercial wireless telecommunication
service tower owner committing the tower owner and successors to
allow the shared use of tower if an additional user agrees in writing to
meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use; and
c) Information specifically indicating how a tower affixed to the ground
shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower by unauthorized
persons.
18) Registration of Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services
and Towers:
a) Purpose of Registration: the purpose of registration under this
ordinance is to provide the city with accurate and current
information concerning commercial wireless
telecommunications services and towers who offer or provide
services within the City or that own or operate such facilities
within the city and to assist the city in the administration of this
section of the ordinance.
b) Registration and Application Requirements: Commercial
wireless telecommunications services and tower companies that
offer or provide any telecommunications services for a fee
directly to the public or have facilities within the city shall
register and provide to the city, pursuant to this ordinance the
following information:
1. the identity and legal status of the registrant, including
affiliates;
2. the name, address and telephone number of the officer,
agent or employee responsible for the accuracy of the
registration statement;
3. a narrative and map description of registrants existing
telecommunications facilities with the city and adjacent
townships;
4. such other information as the city may reasonably require.
In Section 60,200 Definitions two new definitions should be added. The terms
are:
1. Equipment structures or cabinets: A cabinet, structure or building
housing telecommunications and related electrical equipment used by
commercial wireless telecommunications services.
2. Buried (partially or fully): To put into the earth by one of two methods;
by placing the structure completely below the level of the earth at the
time of application for a zoning certificate, or by placing the structure
partially above the grade of the earth at the time of application and
placing soil against the structure walls.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the CPZC request guidance from the City Attorney regarding the
final draft language prior to submitting a recommendation to the City Council. Further,
you will want to consider several issues including
1. the process for review and approval in residential zoning districts;
2. the locational priorities, as this section is a different than the current priority of using
existing buildings/structures;
3. "burying" equipment structures or cabinets;
4. the requirement to register all companies and collect information on an annual basis;
5. tower lighting recommendations have not been decided.
The procedural criteria that need to be addressed for a text amendment include:
1. Whether there is a public need for the amendment.
2. Whether the amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of this
ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies;
3. Whether adoption of the amendment will be lawful.
Findings to consider are as follows:
1. The CPZC has determined that additional zoning requirements are necessary to
encourage commercial wireless telecommunications facilities to locate in areas of the
city that are compatible with this use. Specific additional standards on site
development are necessary for commercial wireless telecommunications facilities to
locate within residential districts and residential neighborhoods.
2. The proposed amendment will require additional site improvements such as
landscaping, establish additional regulations such as height limitations, and require
public notification in residential zoning districts. These new requirements will more
fully implement the city policies on telecommunications facilities as established in the
purpose statement and locational priorities of Section 62.937.
3. The proposed text amendment has been reviewed by the City Attorney and
determined to be lawful.
Draft Minutes of the City Planning & Zoning Commission
Date of Hearing: April 11, 2001
Mr. John Harford presented the staff report, dated March 30, 2001, to the Commission.
The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Harford stated that a member of the taskforce, Mike Hickens, spoke with him regard
possible revisions to the proposal before the Commission. He made the following
suggested changes in Section 62.937:
1. In priority number 7 (listed in the table), the words "residential dwelling" take
the place of "dwelling."
2. Adding an astericks to priority number 4 (listed in the table).
3. The wording "subsection 3 of this section and" be taken out of paragraph
regarding tower and accessory structure setbacks.
4. The last two sentences of 8 (c) be deleted and replaced with new language.
Mr. Harford asked the Commission if the section on buffering reflected their
expectations. He explained that he was unsure if the Commission was in favor of
berming structures and/or buildings.
Ms. Petersson responded that the Commission did not want to see berming
Mr. Brede and Mr. Staver both stated that they agreed with the proposed language
prepared by staff, with regard to buffering.
Mr. Brede asked if there was any way that staff would know when a tower was
abandoned.
Mr. Harford suggested that, with an annual update of the registration information, we
would be better able to keep track of abandonment.
Mr. Harford responded that the proposed section with regard to registration would help
staff.
Mr. Brede moved to recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance and Land
Development Manual Text Amendment #00-03 with staff -suggested findings and
as presented by staff. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING /
DATE: 4/16/01�/
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Public Hearings
City Administrator
A DESCRIPTION Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Business Subsidy for proposed
PREPARED BY:
PEMSTAR Expansion
T. Spaeth
PEMSTAR is proposing an expansion of its facility located at 3535 Technology Drive NW in Rochester, and has
requested the City to provide TIF assistance to facilitate this expansion. PEMSTAR is proposing a 96,000 square feet
addition along the west side of its existing facility at the above mentioned address. As part of that expansion,
PEMSTAR is proposing additional new job creation.
The area of the new addition is located within the existing TIF District # 7-1, which is a Redevelopment TIF District.
The staff has recommended the provision of $400,000 in tax increment assistance to the proposed PEMSTAR
expansion project. In return, PEMSTAR must create an additional 65 jobs with an annual salary of $40,000 or greater
as of February 1, 2003.
Along with the TIF assistance being provided by the City for the proposed expansion, the City has also agreed to sell
PEMSTAR the 5 acre parcel of land located on the north side of Technology Drive NW, directly east of West Circle
Drive. The fair market value of the land has been determined to be $400,000. However; the City is proposing to sell
this parcel to PEMSTAR for $250,000, thereby providing a land write down of $150,000. This write down is also
considered a "business subsidy".
In this instance, the "business subsidy" is the $400,000 of tax increment financing assistance being provided to
'ISTAR by the City and the $150,000 land cost write down, for a total of $550,000 in business subsidy
once. The public purposes of the subsidy is new job creation, along with increasing the City's commercial tax
base.
In order to comply with the "business subsidy" statutes, an Agreement outlining the parties' responsibilities and
obligations is required. This is referred to as a "business subsidy agreement", which is similar to a development
assistance agreement. In this particular instance, the prepared Development Assistance Agreement contains the
business subsidy provisions and is considered a business subsidy agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a Development Assistance Agreement with
PEMSTAR, Inc.
1NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
la -
0
CD
N
L
d
L
0
a
x
w
U
L
a
V)
w
� -/o
q'ffoA l A5rJA1
Execution Draft
DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
By and Between
THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
And
PEMSTAR, INC.
This document drafted by: BRIGGS AND MORGAN (JOM)
Professional Association
2200 First National Bank
Building
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Tel: (651) 223-6600
Fax: (651) 223-6450
1
1241625.2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE I - Definitions ........................................ 1
Section 1.1. Definitions ................................. 1
ARTICLE II - Representations, Warranties and Covenants .........4
Section 2.1. Representations, Warranties and Covenants
by the City.................................4
Section 2.2. Representations, Warranties and Covenants
by the Company .............................. 4
ARTICLE III - Completion of Improvements;
Reimbursement of Certain Costs ..................6
Section
3.1.
Completion of Improvements by the Company...
6
Section
3.2.
Reimbursement by City of Certain Development
Costs.......................................
6
Section
3.3.
Release and Indemnification Covenants.......
8
Section
3.4.
Certificate of Completion ...................
9
Section
3.5.
Job Covenants; Possible Repayment of
Assistance ..................................
9
Section
3.6.
Business Subsidy Agreement .................
10
Section
3.7.
Sale and Purchase of the Land ..............
12
ARTICLE IV -
Events
of Default ................................
15
Section
4.1.
Events of Default Defined ..................15
Section
4.2.
Remedies on Default ........................
15
Section
4.3.
No Remedy Exclusive ........................16
Section
4.4.
No Additional Waiver Implied by One
Waiver.....................................16
ARTICLE V - Additional
Provisions .............................
17
Section
5.1.
Titles of Articles and Sections ............
17
Section
5.2.
Notices and Demands ........................
17
Section
5.3.
Counterparts ...............................
17
4
1241625.2
Section 5.4. Law Governing .............................. 17
ARTICLE VI - Termination of Agreement; Expiration;
Limitation on Assignments ....................... 18
Section 6.1. The City's Option to Terminate ............. 18
Section 6.2. Expiration ................................. 18
Section 6.3. Effect of Termination or Expiration ........ 18
Section 6.4. No Third Party Beneficiaries ...............18
Section 6.5. Limitations on Transfer of Property
and Assignment of Agreement ................ 18
EXHIBIT A - DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY .............. A-1
EXHIBIT B - DESCRIPTION OF LAND .............................. B-1
EXHIBIT C - FORM OF TIF BOND ................................. C-1
EXHIBIT D - CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION ........................ D-1
EXHIBIT E - BUSINESS SUBSIDY REPORT .......................... E-1
3
1241625.2
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of April 16, 2001; is by and
between the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and PEMSTAR, INC., a
Minnesota corporation; and provides as follows:
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement, the
following terms have the following respective meanings:
"Administrative Expenses" means "administrative expenses,"
as defined in Section 469.174, Subdivision 14, of the TIF Act,
at any time actually incurred by the City with respect to the
TIF District, subject to the 10% statutory maximum provided in
Section 469.176, Subdivision 3, of the TIF Act.
"Agreement" means this Development Assistance Agreement, as
the same may be amended.
"Assistance" means the assistance given by the City to the
Company under this Agreement and the TIF Bond, including
specifically the estimated $150,000 write -down of the value of
the Land and the potential reimbursement of up to $400,000 of
eligible Development Costs.
"City" means the City of Rochester, Minnesota.
"Company" means PEMSTAR, INC., a Minnesota corporation, or
permitted successors or assigns.
"Development Costs" means the Company's costs of installing
within the Development Property the necessary utilities, streets
(including roads) and sidewalks and parking facilities for (and
as part of) the Improvements. These Development Costs may
include without limitation: for utilities, exterior electrical,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, hydrant and water distribution
costs; for streets and sidewalks, paving, curb and gutter,
pavement markings and fire road costs; for parking facilities,
all paving, marking and other necessary costs; and for each of
the above categories of costs, all necessary and allocable site
preparation and grading.
n
1241625.2
"Development Property" means the real property described in
Exhibit A of this Agreement, which does not include the Land,
but which constitutes that portion of the Company's facilities
located at 3535 Technology Drive NW in the City which lies
within the TIP District.
"Event of Default" means an event of default defined in
Section 4.1 of this Agreement.
"Improvements" means the approximately 100,000 square foot
building addition to be constructed by the Company to its
existing facilities on the Development Property, including all
utility, road, sidewalk, parking and other related improvements.
"Land" means the property described in the attached Exhibit
B, being the real property to be sold to the Company hereunder.
"Party" means either the Company or the City.
"Parties" means the Company and the City.
"Payment Amounts" means the amounts which may be payable
from time to time on the TIP Bond, as described and limited in
paragraph (41 of the TIP Bond.
"Project" means the Development Property and the
Improvements.
"Tax Increments" means those tax increments which the City
shall be entitled to receive and retain, and which the City
shall have actually received, from Olmsted County from time to
time from the TIP District pursuant to the TIP Act; provided
that the term "Tax Increments" shall specifically not include
any amounts of tax increment generated by the TIP District which
pursuant to the applicable terms of the TIP Act (as it may exist
or be amended from time to time) may be required to be paid to
or reserved for the State of Minnesota, Olmsted County, or any
other entity or official; and "Available Tax Increments" means,
for a given period, the Tax Increments received by the City
during that period minus any outstanding and unpaid
Administrative Expenses.
"Term" means the period beginning on the date of this
Agreement and ending on the earliest of the following dates: (1)
E
1241625.2
on December 31 of the year which is 25 years after the year in
which the City first received Tax Increments from the TIF
District, (2) on such date (if any) as the City shall have
terminated this Agreement pursuant to its terms, and (3) on the
date upon which all amounts payable on the TIF Bond shall have
been paid; provided, however, that in no event shall the Term
end prior to the day after the date which is five years after
the date of this Agreement.
"TIF Act" means the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act,
that is, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179,
as the same may be amended or supplemented.
"TIF Bond" means the tax increment revenue bond of the City
in the form of the attached Exhibit C, as further described in
Section 3.2.
"TIF District" means the City's Tax Increment Financing
District No. 7-1 within its Development District No. 7, as the
same may be amended.
"Unavoidable Delays" means any delay outside the control of
the Party claiming its occurrence which is the direct result of
strikes, other labor troubles, unusually severe or prolonged bad
weather, unavailability of materials, Acts of God, fire or other
casualty to the Improvements, litigation (including without
limitation bankruptcy proceedings) and which directly results in
delays; or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit
which directly result in delays.
0
1241625.2
ARTICLE II
Representations, Warranties and Covenants
Section 2.1. Representations Warranties and Covenants by
the City. The City represents and warrants that it is
authorized to enter into and perform its obligations under this
Agreement.
Section 2.2. Representations Warranties and Covenants by
the Company. The Company represents and warrants that:
(a) The Company is a corporation duly organized and
in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota,
is not in violation of any provisions of its organizational
documents or the laws of the State of Minnesota and is
authorized to enter into and perform its obligations under
this Agreement.
(b) The execution and delivery of this Agreement, the
consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and
the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement are not prevented or limited
by and will not conflict with or result in a breach of any
provision or requirement applicable to the Company or of
any provision of any evidence of indebtedness, agreement or
instrument of whatever nature to which the Company is now a
party or by which it is bound.
(c) The Company, with respect to its construction,
operation and maintenance of the Improvements upon the
Development Property, will cause the same to occur in
accordance with this Agreement and all local, state and
federal laws and regulations (including without limitation
environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws
and regulations).
(d) The Company has received no notice or
communication from any local, state or federal official or
body that any activities of the Company respecting the
Development Property contemplated by this Agreement,
including the construction of the Improvements on the
Development Property, may be or will be in violation of any
law or regulation.
7
1241625.2
(e) The Company will obtain, in a timely manner, all
required permits, licenses and approvals, and to meet, in a
timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local,
state and federal laws and regulations which must be
obtained or met before the Improvements may be lawfully
constructed and completed.
(f) The Company represents that the construction of
the Improvements on the Development Property within the
reasonably foreseeable future is conditioned on the
assistance and benefit to the Company provided for in this
Agreement. It is also the belief of the Company that the
level and expected duration of the cash flow assistance to
be provided pursuant to the TIF Bond are essential in order
to make feasible the financing of the Improvements.
(g) The Company acknowledges that the Land is not in
the TIF District. The Company desires to purchase the Land
as a desirable part of its corporate campus, facilitating
the possibility of further expansion thereon. The Company
represents and covenants that the Improvements (including
the portions thereof giving rise to the Development Costs
eligible for reimbursement hereunder) will be constructed
within the TIF District.
E
1241625.2
ARTICLE III
Completion of Improvements; Reimbursement
of Certain Costs
Section
Subject to
substantially
3.1. Complet
Unavoidable
completed the
)rovements by _t
Delays, the Company shall have
Improvements by December 31, 2001.
Section 3.2. Reimbursement by City of Certain Development
Costs. The Company hereby represents to the City that the
Company will incur and pay significant Development Costs. The
City hereby agrees to defray up to $400,000 of the Development
Costs by issuing the TIF Bond to the Company, as registered
owner thereof, substantially in the form of Exhibit C to this
Agreement, the issuance of which TIF Bond is hereby authorized
and approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The TIF Bond shall be dated, issued and delivered
on or as soon as practicable following the date of
execution and delivery of this Agreement, provided no
Event of Default shall have occurred and be at the time
continuing.
(2) As conditions to such reimbursement of
Development Costs pursuant to the TIF Bond, the Company
shall have completed the Improvements and shall have
submitted (from time to time) such written proofs and other
documentation as may be reasonably satisfactory to the City
of the exact nature and amount of the particular
Development Costs for which the Company is seeking
reimbursement, together with such other information or
documentation necessary to enable the City to substantiate
its tax increment expenditures and/or to comply with its
tax increment reporting obligations to the Commissioner of
Revenue, the Office of the State Auditor or other
applicable official. The documentation shall include
specific invoices for the particular work from the
contractor or other provider and shall include paid
invoices, copies of remittances and/or other suitable
documentary proofs of the Company's payment thereof.
Without limitation, the Company shall separately identify
its costs for utilities, streets and sidewalks and parking
facilities, respectively. Referencing Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.1763, Subdivision 3(a)(4), in order for a
1241625.2
Development Cost to be eligible for reimbursement under
this Agreement and the TIF Bond, the Company shall have
actually paid said cost prior to February 27, 2002 (being
five years after certification of the TIF District), and
certified in writing to the City the date of said payment.
(3) Subject to the provisions thereof, the TIF Bond
shall be payable on August 1, 2003, and on each February 1
and August 1 thereafter throughout the Term (the "Payment
Dates"), or until earlier paid, in the respective amount or
amounts described in this subsection. The sole source of
funds required to be used for payment of the City's
obligations under this Section and correspondingly under
the TIF Bond shall be the Available Tax Increments to the
extent the same constitute "Payment Amounts from time to
time, and except as otherwise provided pursuant to
paragraph (81 of the TIF Bond. The amounts payable on the
TIF Bond on each Payment Date shall be limited to the
respective "Payment Amounts" defined in paragraph [41 of
the TIF Bond. The principal amount of and total aggregate
amount payable on the TIF Bond shall be the lesser of
$400,000 and the sum of the amounts certified by the
Company and accepted by the City pursuant to Section
3.2(b). All amounts of Available Tax Increments in excess
of applicable Payment Amounts are not subject to this
Agreement, and the City retains full discretion as to any
authorized application thereof, regardless of whether the
Payment Amounts are sufficient to reimburse the Company in
full for the above -described costs. To the extent that the
Payment Amounts are insufficient, through the final Payment
Date, to pay all amounts otherwise due on the TIF Bond,
said unpaid amounts shall then cease to be any debt or
obligation of the City whatsoever.
(4) The TIF Bond shall be a special and limited
revenue obligation of the City and not a general or moral
obligation of the City, and only Payment Amounts shall be
required to be used to pay the amounts due on the TIF Bond.
(5) The City's obligation to make payments on the TIF
Bond shall be conditioned upon the requirement that there
shall not at the time have occurred and be continuing an
Event of Default; provided, however, that (unless the City
shall have terminated this Agreement) if such Event of
Default shall subsequently have been cured to the
10
1241625.2
reasonable satisfaction of the City, such unpaid
obligations shall thereupon be reinstated and thereby
become due and payable.
(6) The TIF Bond shall be governed by and payable
pursuant to the additional terms thereof, as set forth in
Exhibit C. In the event of any conflict between the terms
of the TIF Bond and the terms of this Section 3.2, the
terms of the TIF Bond shall govern.
(7) Following any termination of this Agreement by
the City pursuant to Section 4.2 hereof, no further or
unpaid amounts of the TIF Bond shall then or thereafter be
due and payable by the City under this Section or the TIF
Bond but shall thereupon be extinguished.
Section 3.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants.
(a) The Company releases from and covenants and
agrees that the City and the governing body members,
officers, agents, including its independent contractors,
consultants and legal counsel, servants and employees
thereof (hereinafter, for purposes of this Section,
collectively the "Indemnified Parties") shall not be liable
for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property
or any injury to or death of any person occurring at, about
or in connection with the Improvements, or the Company's
undertaking and completion thereof, or resulting from any
defect. therein, except to the extent such loss, damage or
death is caused by the negligence or other wrongful acts of
the Indemnified Parties.
(b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any
willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the
Indemnified Parties, the Company agrees to protect and
defend the Indemnified Parties, now and forever, and
further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any
claim, demand, suit, action or other proceeding whatsoever
by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly
arising from this Agreement, or the transactions
contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction,
installation, ownership, and operation of the Improvements,
provided, that this indemnification shall not apply to the
11
1241625.2
warranties made or obligations undertaken by the City in
this Agreement.
(c) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements
and obligations of the City contained herein shall be
deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises,
agreements and obligations of the City and not of any
governing body member, officer, agent or employee of the
City.
(d) This Agreement shall not create nor be construed
to create any partnership, joint venture, agency, or
employment relationship between the Parties.
Section 3.4. Certificate of Completion.
(a) Promptly after completion of the Improvements in
accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, and upon
written request made to the City by the Company, the City
will execute the Certificate of Completion in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit D, which shall then be a
conclusive determination of satisfaction and termination of
the agreements and covenants in this Agreement with respect
to the completion of the Improvements. The following shall
be conditions precedent to the City's obligation to execute
the Certificate of Completion:
(i) There shall exist no Event of Default
hereunder, and the Improvements shall have been
completed in substantial conformity to the terms
of this Agreement; and
(ii) The City shall have issued a
Certificate of Occupancy for all of the
Improvements.
(b) If the City determines that it cannot execute the
Certificate of Completion, it shall, within 20 days after
written request therefor, provide a written statement
indicating in adequate detail why it cannot do so and also
indicating what measures or acts it will be necessary to be
taken or performed in order to permit execution of the
Certificate of Completion.
12
1241625.2
Section 3.5. Job Covenants; Possible Repayment of
Assistance. The Company hereby covenants to have created and to
be maintaining as of February 1, 2003, at least 65 new jobs in
its business operations in the City as follows:
(a) The Company represents that as of the date of
this Agreement the Company provides a total of 324
existing, full-time equivalent jobs in the City which have
a salary of at least $40,000 per year, or approximately
$20.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits. The Company
covenants that, as of February 1, 2003, the Company shall
provide within the City at least 65 more full-time
equivalent jobs (the "New Jobs") over and above that number
of such existing jobs. The New Jobs shall have an annual
salary of at least $40,000 per year, or approximately
$20.00 per hour, exclusive of benefits.
(b) By March 1, 2003, the Company shall file a
written report with the City which details the total number
of such full-time equivalent jobs provided in the City by
the Company as of February 1, 2003, and the number thereof
which are New Jobs, and the necessary salary and/or wage
information for those jobs, together with sufficient data
supporting those determinations. The Company shall supply
such additional information as the City may reasonably
request to substantiate or verify those determinations.
(c) If, as of February 1, 2003, there are more than
40 but less than 65 of such New Jobs, the Assistance shall
be reduced by the percentage arrived at by multiplying A
times B, where A equals 65 minus the number of New Jobs
actually created and B equals 4.00%. In such event, the
Company shall repay the City $150,000 times that
percentage, and the amount of the TIF Bond shall be reduced
by the amount which equals that percentage times the amount
of the TIF Bond which would otherwise obtain. If 40 or
fewer New Jobs are created, under this Section the Company
shall not be entitled to any Assistance under this
Agreement or the TIF Bond and the Company shall repay to
the City the $150,000 land write -down and any other
Assistance theretofore received hereunder.
(d) This Section 3.5 contains the City's own
discretionary requirements respecting job creation.
13
1241625.2
Nothing in this Section is intended to limit or amend the
provisions of Section 3.6.
Section 3.6. Business Subsidy Agreement. The City and the
Company recognize and agree that the Assistance under this
Agreement is a "business subsidy" under Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995, as amended (the "Subsidy
Law"), and is subject to the provisions thereof, including
without limitation reporting requirements and five year
commitment by the Company.
Law:
Accordingly, it is agreed under and pursuant to the Subsidy
(a) The estimated fair market value of the Assistance
is $550,000. The type of the subsidy is a forgivable loan
for certain Development Costs and land write -down.
(b) The public purposes of the subsidy are to further
development of the City's commercial and tax base and to
create jobs.
(c) For purposes of Section 116J.994, Subdivision 3,
of the Subsidy Law, the goals of the subsidy are completion
of the Project and the operation thereof by the Company for
at least five years after the "Benefit Date" of the
subsidy, as defined in the Subsidy Law, which is hereby
determined to be the date of this Agreement.
(d) For purposes of the Subsidy Law, the Assistance
shall be considered to be a forgivable loan to the Company
from the City. It is agreed, as required by Section
116J.994, Subdivision 6, if the Company is in default under
this Section 3.6, the Company shall immediately be
obligated to repay to the City the full amount of the
Assistance plus interest thereon from its date at the
implicit price deflator, as defined under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 275.70, Subdivision 2. The Assistance is
needed in order to induce the Company to continue to
develop, use and occupy the Project in the City. The
Company covenants that it will continue to operate the
Project for at least five years after the Benefit Date.
(e) The Company represents that it has no parent
corporations.
14
1241625.2
(f) The Company represents that the following are all
of the State of Minnesota and "local government agency"
grants for the Improvements (other than the Assistance
hereunder) to the Project:
Grantor
Grantor
Value ($)
value ($)
(g) The Company represents that it is not in default
on the date hereof on any subsidy agreement entered into by
the Company under the Subsidy Law.
(h) For its "Job Goals" under this Section 3.6, the
Company covenants that it will provide at least 40
additional full-time equivalent permanent jobs in the City
by February 1, 2003, with these jobs having an annual
salary of at least $40,000, or approximately $20.00 per
hour, exclusive of benefits.
(i) The Company shall complete and file with the City
from time to time the report in the form of the attached
Exhibit E. The Subsidy Law provides that if the Company
does not make such reports, when due, the City must mail
the Company a warning within one week of the required
filing date, and if, after 14 days after the postmark date
of that warning, the Company continues to fail to report,
then the Company is required to and shall pay the City a
penalty of $100 for each subsequent day until the report is
filed, up to a maximum of $1,000. The Company shall file
these reports with the City, in care of the Rochester
Assistant Administrator, on March 1 of each of the years
2002 and 2003, or until the job goals stated in Section
3.6(h) are met, whichever is later. Each March 1 report
shall report on the prior calendar year, and each other
report shall report on the period since the last reporting
period.
(j) This Section 3.6 is intended to be the "subsidy
agreement" required by Section 116J.994, Subdivision 3, of
the Subsidy Law. In the event that any provision of this
15
1241625.2
Section 3.6 is inconsistent or in conflict with any
provision of the Subsidy Law, and in the event that any
provision of the Subsidy Law provides additional
requirements, the provisions of the Subsidy Law shall apply
and govern. In addition to all reporting obligations of
the Company under this Section 3.6 and Exhibit E, the
Company agrees to provide the City with any additional
information which may be required in order for the City to
comply with its reporting requirements, as they may exist
or be amended from time to time, under the Subsidy Law.
(k) Nothing in this Section 3.6 is intended to limit
or otherwise amend Section 3.5 or any of the other terms of
this Agreement. To the extent that provisions in this
Section 3.6 are more extensive or restrictive than any
related term elsewhere in this Agreement, the provisions
hereof shall govern. Similarly, the City's own job
requirements under Section 3.5 of this Agreement shall not
be limited or amended by the terms of this Section 3.6.
The above commitment of the Company to operate the Project
for at least five years from the Benefit Date is a
requirement of the Subsidy Law (subject to procedures
therein allowing relaxation or waiver of said requirement)
and shall apply and govern.
Section 3.7. Sale and Purchase of the Land.
(a) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the City shall
sell and convey the Land to the Company and the Company
shall purchase and accept conveyance of the Land from the
City, subject to the following additional conditions
precedent:
(i) No Event of Default shall have occurred
and be continuing under this Agreement.
(ii) The Company shall have provided
evidence satisfactory to the City that it has
obtained financing which, together with other
funds demonstrated to be available to the Company
for such purposes, shall in the reasonable
judgment of the City be sufficient to complete
the Improvements.
16
1241625.2
(iii) The Company shall have paid the City
the $250,000 purchase price for the Land, which
the Parties acknowledge and agree represents an
estimated $150,000 of Assistance and business
subsidy under this Agreement.
(b) Conveyance; Land Deed. When the conditions of
Section 3.7(a) shall be satisfied, the City shall, subject
to Unavoidable Delays, convey marketable title to and
possession of the Land to the Company by warranty deed (the
"Land Deed") subject only to such encumbrances ("Permitted
Encumbrances") of a routine or customary nature which would
not substantially or adversely affect the Company's ability
to construct and operate facilities on the Land similar to
the Improvements. All special assessments against the Land
levied prior to or pending on the date of conveyance of the
Land to the Company hereunder, together with all real
estate taxes on the Land payable after the date of
conveyance, prorated in the case of real estate taxes
payable in the year of closing based on the number of days,
shall be Permitted Encumbrances, and the Company shall pay
its share, prorated as described above, of said real estate
taxes due in the year in which the conveyance occurs. The
City represents that as of April 16, 2001, there were no
unpaid special assessments levied or pending against the
Land. The Company shall promptly purchase the Land from
the City as provided herein; provided, however, that such
conveyance and purchase of the Land is intended by the
Parties to be completed as soon as possible after the
Company shall have complied with all of the requirements of
Section 3.7 of this Agreement or as may otherwise be
provided in this Agreement.
The Parties agree to use their best efforts and to
take such actions as may be necessary in order that title
to and possession of the Land may be transferred to and
acquired by the Company under this Agreement as soon as
possible. As soon as practicable but in no event later
than 20 days prior to the proposed conveyance of the Land
to the Company hereunder, the City shall provide to the
Company updated evidence of title to the Land, including at
a minimum an updated abstract of title. Following the
receipt of such evidence, the Company shall have 20 days
for examination thereof and for delivery to the City in
writing of a list of any objections to title and
17
1241625.2
encumbrances which in the opinion of the Company are not
permitted under this Section. The Company's failure to so
object to any encumbrance or title defect shall
conclusively establish its permissibility. No objection by
the Company to the title of the Land may be based upon an
interest therein which is a Permitted Encumbrance. The
City shall voluntarily take no actions to encumber the
title to the Land between the date that the City acquires
the same, or applicable portions thereof, and the date upon
which the Land Deed is delivered to the Company. The
Company shall not be obligated hereunder to purchase the
Land unless the title thereto conforms to the provisions of
this subsection.
(c) Costs. Unless otherwise mutually agreed by the
Parties, the execution and delivery of all deeds shall be
made at the principal office of the City. The Land Deed
shall be in recordable form and shall be promptly recorded
by the Company. The Company shall pay all costs for
recording the Land Deed. The City shall pay its own
closing costs.
E
1241625.2
ARTICLE IV
Events of Default
Section 4.1. Events of Default Defined. The following are
Events of Default under this Agreement:
(a) There shall have occurred a failure in the
observance or performance of any covenant, condition,
obligation or agreement to be observed or performed under
this Agreement or any other agreement between the Parties
respecting the Improvements.
(b) There shall have occurred a failure in payment,
when due, of any property tax, special assessment, or other
governmental imposition respecting the Development
Property, subject to statutory or other legal rights to
contest or defer payment of the same.
(c) The filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or
against the Company under the United States Bankruptcy
Code; or failure by the Company within 90 days to have
discharged any execution, garnishment or attachment of such
consequence as would impair the ability of the Company to
carry on its operations respecting the Improvements; or the
assignment by the Company for the benefit of creditors; or
the entry by the Company into an agreement of composition
with creditors or the failure generally by the Company to
pay its debts as they become due.
An Event of Default shall also include any occurrence which
would with the passage of time or giving of notice become an
Event of Default as defined hereinabove.
Section 4.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of
Default occurs, in addition to all other remedies available to
the City at law or in equity, the City (1) may without notice
suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives
assurances from the Company, deemed adequate by the City, that
the Company has cured its default and will continue its
performance under this Agreement, and (2) may, after provision
of 60 days written notice to the Company of the Event of
Default, but only if the Event of Default has not been cured
within said 60 days, or if the Event of Default cannot be cured
within 60 days, the Company does not provide assurances to the
19
1241625.2
City reasonably satisfactory to the City that the Event of
➢efault will be cured as soon as reasonably possible, terminate
this Agreement and the TIF Bond, without further obligation
whatsoever hereunder of thereunder, and in addition require the
Company to repay to the City all of the Assistance theretofore
provided to the Company (including the $150,000 write -down of
the value of the Land; provided that the City shall have no
reversionary or security interest in the Land, and the Company
shall not be required to reconvey the Land to the City).
Section 4.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein
conferred upon or reserved to the either Party is intended to be
exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each
and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in
addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now
or hereafter existing at law or in equity. No delay or omission
to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall
impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a
waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised
from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient.
Section 4.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver.
If any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached
by either Party and thereafter waived by the other Party, such
waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and
shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or
subsequent breach hereunder.
20
1241625.2
ARTICLE V
Additional Provisions
Section 5.1. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles
of the several parts, Articles and Sections of this Agreement
are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be
disregarded in construing or interpreting any of the provisions
hereof.
Section 5.2. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise
expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand or other
communication under the Agreement by either Party to the other
shall be sufficiently given or delivered if sent by first class
mail, postage prepaid, or delivered personally or telecopied;
and,
(a) in the case of the Company, to PEMSTAR, INC.,
3535 Technology Drive NW, Minnesota 55901, Attention:
President; and
(b) in the case of the City, to the City of
Rochester, Minnesota, at the Rochester City Hall, 201 Ott
Street SE, Rochester, Minnesota 55904-3742, Attention:
Administration.
or at such other address with respect to either such Party as
that Party may, from time to time, designate in writing and
forward to the other as provided in this Section.
Section 5.3. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed
in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute an
original hereof.
Section 5.4. Law Governing. The Parties agree that this
Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
21
1241625.2
ARTICLE VI
Termination of Agreement; Expiration; Limitati
on Assignments.
Section 6.1. The City's Option to Terminate. As provided
and under the conditions specified in Section 4.2, the City may
terminate this Agreement if an Event of Default shall have
occurred hereunder and be continuing.
Section 6.2. Expiration. This Agreement shall expire at
the end of the Term.
Section 6.3. Effect of Termination or Expiration. No
termination or expiration of this Agreement pursuant to the
terms hereof shall terminate (i) any rights or remedies of the
City arising hereunder due to an Event of Default occurring
prior to such termination or expiration or (ii) the provisions
of Section 3.3 hereof.
Section 6.4. No Third Party Beneficiaries. There shall,
as against the City, be no third party beneficiaries to this
Agreement. More specifically, the City enters into this
Agreement, and intends that the consummation of the City
obligations contemplated hereby shall be, for the sole and
exclusive benefit of the Company, and notwithstanding the fact
that any other "persons" may ultimately participate in or have
an interest in the Improvements, the City does not intend that
any party other than the Company shall have, as alleged third
party beneficiary or otherwise, any rights or interests
hereunder as against the City, and no such other party shall
have standing to complain of the City's exercise of, or alleged
failure to exercise, its rights and obligations, or of the
City's performance or alleged lack thereof, under this
Agreement.
Section 6.5. Limitations on Transfer of Property and
Assignment of Agreement. The Company covenants and agrees that
prior to the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement, except only by way of security for the purpose of
obtaining financing necessary to enable the Company to complete
the Improvements (and any future expansion of the Company's
operations on the Development Property), the Company (except as
so authorized) has not made or created and will not make or
create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial
22
1241625.2
sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power,
or any transfer in any other mode or form, of or with respect to
this Agreement or the Development Property or any part thereof
or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any
of the same, without the prior written approval of the City
(which approval the City may not unreasonably withhold).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company may make such a
transfer to an entity which it owns and controls, provided that
the Company covenants to continue such ownership and control
throughout the Term and that conditions (a), (b) and (c) in this
Section 6.5 below are complied with.
The City shall be entitled to require, except as otherwise
provided in the Agreement, as conditions to any such approval
that:
(a) Any proposed transferee shall have the
qualifications and financial responsibility, in the
reasonable judgment of the City, necessary and adequate to
fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the
Company;
(b) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing
satisfactory to the City, shall, for itself and its
successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of
the City, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of
the Company under this Agreement and agreed to be subject
to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Company
is subject unless the Company agrees to continue to fulfill
those obligations, in which case the preceding provisions
of this Section 6.5(b)(ii) shall not apply; and
(c) There shall be submitted to the City for review
and prior written approval all instruments and other legal
documents involved in effecting the transfer of any such
interest in this Agreement or the Development Property.
23
1241625.2
IN WITNESS
this Agreement
representatives.
(SEAL)
WHEREOF, the City and the Company have caused
to be executed by their duly authorized
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
By
Its Mayor
By
Its City Clerk
[Execution of this Development Assistance Agreement by PEMSTAR,
INC., appears on the following page.]
24
1241625.2
PEMSTAR, INC.
By
Its
By
Its
[Execution Page to Development Assistance Agreement between the
City of Rochester, Minnesota, and the above -named Party.]
25
1241625.2
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
The Development Property consists of the following property
located in the City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota:
Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Rochester Technology Park Subdivision
A-1
1241625.2
EXHIBIT B
DESCRIPTION OF LAND
The Land consists of the following property located in the
City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota:
Lot 1, Block 1, Rochester Technology Park Second Subdivision
B-1
1241625.2
No. R-1
EXHIBIT C
FORM OF TIF BOND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF OLMSTED
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
TAXABLE TAX INCREMENT REVENUE
BOND OF 2001
(PEMSTAR EXPANSION PROJECT)
[1] The City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), hereby
acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received,
hereby promises to pay to PEMSTAR, INC., a Minnesota
corporation, or its registered assigns (the "Registered Owner"),
but only in the manner, at the times, from the sources of
revenue, and to the extent hereinafter provided, the Principal
Amount of this Bond (as defined in paragraph (2] hereof). This
Bond is the "TIF Bond" described and defined in that certain
Development Assistance Agreement, dated as of April 16, 2001 (as
the same may be amended from time to time, the "Development
Agreement"), between the City and PEMSTAR, INC., a Minnesota
corporation, as the initial Company under the Development
Agreement. Each capitalized term which is used but not
otherwise defined in this Bond shall have the meaning given to
that term in the Development Agreement.
[2] The Principal Amount of this Bond shall be the lesser
of $400,000 and the sum of the amounts certified to the City by
the Company and acceptable to the City pursuant to Section
3.2(b) of the Development Agreement, as said Principal Amount
may be reduced or eliminated, or become subject to repayment to
the City, pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement,
including without limitation Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 4.2 thereof.
[3] Subject to the terms hereof, amounts due on this Bond
shall be payable on August 1, 2003, and on each February 1 and
ME
1241625.2
August 1 thereafter throughout the Term (the "Payment Dates"),
unless earlier paid.
[4] On each Payment Date (or, if not a business day of the
City, the first business day thereafter) the City shall pay by
check or draft mailed to the person that was the Registered
Owner of this Bond at the close of the last business day of the
City preceding such Payment Date an amount equal to (1) $40,000,
(2) an amount equal to 30% of the Available Tax Increments
received by the City within the 6-month period preceding said
Payment Date and (3) the unpaid amount of this Bond, whichever
shall be the smallest (the "Payment Amount").
(5] This Bond shall terminate and be of no further force
and effect on any date upon which the City shall have terminated
the Development Agreement, on the last Payment Date following
payment thereon of the Payment Amount then due, or on the date
that all amounts payable hereunder shall have been paid in full,
whichever occurs earliest. The City may but shall have no
obligation to prepay on any date amounts of this Bond, in whole
or in part.
[6] The City makes no representation or covenant, express
or implied, that the Payment Amounts described herein will be
sufficient to pay, in whole or in part, the amounts which are or
may otherwise become due and payable hereunder. Any amounts
which have not become due and payable on this Bond on or before
the final Payment Date shall no longer be a debt or obligation
of the City whatsoever.
[7] The City's payment obligations hereunder shall be
further conditioned on the Company's compliance with the terms
and conditions of the Development Agreement and on the fact that
there shall not at the time have occurred and be continuing an
Event of Default under the Development Agreement, and, further,
if pursuant to the occurrence of an Event of Default under the
Development Agreement the City elects to terminate the
Development Agreement, the City shall have no further debt or
obligation under this Bond whatsoever. Reference is hereby made
to the provisions of the Development Agreement for a complete
statement of the obligations of the Company and of the rights of
the City thereunder, and said provisions are hereby incorporated
by reference into this Bond to the same extent as though set out
in full herein. The execution and delivery of this Bond by the
City, and the acceptance thereof by the Company, as the initial
C-3
1241625.2
Registered Owner hereof, shall conclusively establish this Bond
as the "TIF Bond" (and shall conclusivelv constitute discharge
of the City's obligation to issue and deliver the same) under
the Development Agreement.
[8j This Bond is not any obligation of any kind whatsoever
of any public body, except that this Bond is a special and
limited revenue obligation but not a general or moral obligation
of the City and is payable by the City only from the sources and
subject to the qualifications and limitations stated or
referenced herein. Neither the full faith and credit nor the
taxing powers of the City are pledged to or available for the
payment of this Bond, and no property or other asset of the
City, save and except Available Tax Increments, as limited by
the Payment Amounts defined above, is or shall constitute a
source of payment of the City's obligations hereunder. The City
may in its discretion (or as the City may determine to be
necessary) combine other of its available funds with the
necessary Available Tax Increments in making payment of the
Payment Amount due on this Bond as of one or more Payment
Date(s), but that shall not in any way diminish or otherwise
alter the amount which is or may become payable on this Bond.
[91 This Bond is issued by the City to aid in financing a
project pursuant to and in full conformity with the City's Home
Rule Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of
Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174
through 469.179, and including specifically but without
limitation Section 469.178, Subdivision 4, thereof.
[101 This Bond may be assigned but upon such assignment the
assignor shall promptly notify the City thereof in writing, and
the assignee shall surrender this Bond to the City either in
exchange for a new fully registered Bond or for transfer of this
Bond on the registration records for the Bond maintained by the
City. Each Registered owner of this Bond which assigns,
transfers or otherwise grants any interest herein agrees to
comply with all applicable laws in so doing, including without
limitation all applicable state and federal registration and
securities laws and regulations. Each such assignee shall take
this Bond subject to the foregoing conditions and subject to all
provisions stated or referenced herein.
[111 This Bond has been issued as a taxable and not as a
tax-exempt obligation, and the City makes no representation,
C-4
1241625.2
express or implied, that any payment on this Bond is or may be
excludable from gross or taxable net income of the Registered
Owner for income tax purposes.
[121 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Rochester, Minnesota,
has caused this Bond to be executed by the manual signatures of
its Mayor and City Clerk, has caused the official seal of the
City to be omitted herefrom, as permitted by law, and has caused
this Bond to be issued and dated as of , 2001.
Mayor
C-5
1241625.2
City Clerk
CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRATION
It is hereby certified that the foregoing Bond was as of
the latest date listed below registered in the name of the last
Registered Owner noted below, and that, at the request of said
Registered Owner of this Bond, the undersigned has as of said
applicable date registered this Bond as to principal and
interest on the Bond in the name of such Registered Owner, as
indicated in the registration blank below, on the books kept by
the undersigned for such purposes.
NAME OF DATE OF
REGISTERED OWNER REGISTRATION
PEMSTAR, INC.
2001
EXHIBIT D
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
SIGNATURE
OF CITY CLERK
WHEREAS, the City of Rochester, Minnesota (the "City"), and
PEMSTAR, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "Company"), have
executed a Development Assistance Agreement, dated as of April
16, 2001 (the "Development Agreement"), with respect to the
completion by the Company of certain improvements (the
"Improvements"), more specifically, an approximately 100,000
square foot addition to the Company's existing facilities on
certain land (the "Development Property") described in the
Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Company has performed its obligation under the
Development Agreement to substantially complete the Improvements
in a manner deemed sufficient by the City to permit the
execution of this certificate pursuant to Section 3.4 of the
Development Agreement:
NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that the Improvements
have been completed on the Development Property in substantial
conformance with the terms of the Development Agreement.
C-6
1241625.2
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA
m
Dated: , 200
Its
E-7
1241625.2
EXHIBIT E
BUSINESS SUBSIDY REPORT
Report by PEMSTAR, INC., as Recipient of Business Subsidy
This report is required by Section 3.6 of that certain
Development Assistance Agreement, dated as of April 16, 2001
(the "Agreement"), between the City of Rochester, Minnesota
(the "City"), and PEMSTAR, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the
"Company"), and as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section
116J.994, Subdivision 7, as amended. Capitalized terms which
are used but not otherwise defined in this report have the
meanings given to those terms under the Agreement.
The City has under the Agreement granted a certain business
subsidy to the Company, consisting of the sale of certain land
to the Company for $250,000, which is estimated to be $150,000
less than its market value, and paying for up to $400,000 of
certain Development Costs to be incurred by the Company in
completing an approximately 100,000 square foot addition to its
existing facilities in the City.
Under the Agreement, the Company is required to file
reports with the City's Assistant Administrator on March 1 of
each of the years 2002 and 2003, or until the job goals stated
hereinbelow have been met, whichever is later. Each report is
required to report on the prior calendar year, and each other
report shall report on the period since the last reporting
period.
The Company's Jobs Goals under Section 3.6 of the Agreement
are to create at the Project at least 40 additional permanent
full-time equivalent jobs in the City on or before February 1,
2003. These jobs are required to have an annual salary of at
least $40,000, or approximately $20.00 per hour, exclusive of
benefits.
The Company hereby certifies to the City the following:
(1) As provided in the Agreement, the fair market
value of the subsidy is estimated to be $550,000, the type
of subsidy is a forgivable loan for development costs and
land write -down and the public purposes of the subsidy are
to further development of the City's commercial and tax
base and to create jobs.
E-8
1241625.2
(2) The hourly wage of each permanent full-time
equivalent job which has been created by the Company at the
Project since the Benefit Date, with separate bands of
wages, are as follows:
Number of Jobs Wage Levels per Hour
(3) The cost of health insurance provided by the
Company for the above -referenced jobs, separated by bands
of wages, is as follows:
Wage Level per Hour Cost of Health Insurance
(4) If the Company has not already met the Job Goals,
it reasonably expects that it will meet those goals on or
before 1 200 1 and is taking the
following steps to meet the Job Goals:
(5) The Company's completion of the Improvements did
not involve the relocation by the Company of any of its
facilities located elsewhere.
(6) The Company has no parent corporations.
(7) Other than the Assistance subsidy provided by the
City under the Agreement, there are no other State of
E-9
1241625.2
Minnesota or "local government agency" grants of business
subsidy to the Company for the Improvements, except for:
Grantor
Value ($)
Grantor Value ($)
(8) The Company hereby agrees to provide upon request
such other information as the Commissioner of the
Department of Trade and Economic Development of the State
of Minnesota may request the City or the Company to provide
or as may be required by the Subsidy Law.
(9) The Company represents that it has continuously
operated the Project since its completion, that the Company
has continuously used and occupied the Project, and the
Company expects said use and occupancy to continue for the
foreseeable future.
(10) The Company is not in default on the date hereof
of its obligations under any subsidy agreement under the
Subsidy Law.
PEMSTAR, INC.
By
Its
This report is to be filed with:
City Rochester
Rochester City Hall
210 4th Street SE
Rochester, Minnesota 55904-3708
Attn: Assistant Administrator
E-10
1241625.2
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
I DATE:
AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Works
4G -/ t{
M ROCHESTER CITY LINES/ ROUTE 6 CHANGES
PREPARED BY:
A KNAUER
This is a public hearing to consider a change to bus Route 6 as operated by Rochester
City Lines. If approved the changes would go into effect on Monday, April 23, 2001.
EXISTING ROUTE
Exhibit "A' provides a map and timetable for existing Route 6. The existing route operates between
downtown and Shopko South along South Broadway and 3rd Avenue SE serving the Bethel Park and
Ride, Kmart, Fairgrounds, Crossroads area and motels along South Broadway. Service operates on
30 minute frequency during peak hours and 60 minutes during midday.
PROPOSED ROUTE
The proposed route has three objectives;
(1) To continue service along 3"' Avenue and South Broadway and the Crossroads area.
(2) To provide expanded peak hour coverage to developments in Apple Ridge, Meadow Hills
and Shadow Run.
(3) To provide more frequent service to the existing Bethel Park and Ride lot and to a new
park and ride lot being established in cooperation with Shopko South.
In 1999 access to the west frontage roads south of 20' Street SE were closed off with the exception
of a signalized access at 25h Street SE. Due to this change bus service was rerouted onto South
Broadway with passengers having to cross Broadway to board at the Walmart/ Kohls area. Previous
to this service was provided along the frontage road. Also under either service design residents in
Apple Ridge and Meadow Hills were % to % of mile up hill from the nearest service.
In April 2000 over 500 households in the Apple Ridge, Meadow Hills and Shadow Run areas were
surveyed with over 38% responding. Basic trip information was gathered as well as opinions about a
proposed service design through the neighborhood. Ninety-one comments were received regarding
the proposed route through the Meadow Hills area of which 51 were in favor, 6 opposed and 34 with
general comments about service design. A neighborhood meeting was held on March 22, with 9
residents in attendance. Other public comments included 16 emails (13 for and 3 against), 2 letters
in favor and 3 telephone calls (2 for and 1 concerned). Exhibit "C" includes copies of the neighborhood
meeting minutes and all other neighborhood correspondence.
Exhibit "B" provides maps and timetables for new proposed Route 6. The route is divided into a 6A
and 68 during peak hours. The 6A serves the Apple Ridge/Meadow Hills area and a park and ride at
Shopko South. The 68 serves the existing Route 6 area including 3rd Ave SE, the Fairgrounds and
Crossroads. During midday the bus serves South Broadway, V Avenue and park and rides at Bethel
and Shopko South. The new design requires 4.5 additional service hours.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Adopt the prepared resolution approving the proposed changes Route 6 as
described per Exhibit B.
UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
ROUTE
6
So. Broadway,
3rd Avenue SE, Crossroads, Shopko So.
�W
N
Oe
<
E f
J❑
hV)
UU
Cl�
mJ
< t
6:13
6:22
6:27
6:32
6:34
6:40 E
6:43
6:52
6:57
7:02
7:04
7:10
7:13
7:22
7:27
7:32
7:34
7:40
7:43
7:52
7:57
8:02
8:04
8:10 s
8:13
8:22
8:27
8:32
8:34
8:40 i
8:43
8:52
8:57
9:02
9:04
9:10 z}
9:13
9:22
9:27
9:32
9:34
9:40
10:13
10:22
10:27
10:32
10:34
10:40
11:13
11:22
11:27
11:32
11:34
11:40
3
0W
'cv
N
m
1
0
ipo
E
v�
od
to
t o
JO
Y
n`a0
UU
NN
<❑
12:13
12:16
12:18
12:22
12:28
12:40
1:13
1:16
1:18
1:22
1:28
1:40
t 2:13
2:16
2:18
2:22
2:28
2:40
2:43
2:46
2:48
2:52
2:58
3:10
6. 3:13
3:16
3:18
3:22
3:28
3:40
3:43
3:46
3:48
3:52
3:58 .4:10
'413
4:16
4:18
4:22
4:28
4:40
4:43
4:46
4:48
4:52 see Note
":5:10
5:13
5:16
5:18
5:22
5:28
5:40
6. 5:43
5:46
5:48
5:52
5:58
610
6.6:15
6:18
6:20
6:22
6:28 Request
2nd St SW
e� e�CIM
AM
9th
St SE
PM
Hwy 14 E
Shopping gy
m
W Llaaysdt
Center.
y
m (�+
>
Q
14th
St
<
t
APocbe Matt Qt
AM
oimsred
Gounry
a
PM
F"rgmund'
l6th St SE
16th St SE
�Wal Mart
25th St
2ethSt R—ShopKo
NOTE: The 4:45 PM trip south of Crossroads follows Broadway to 20th
St. to 3rd Ave. to Broadway and back downtown. Bus does not go south
of Golden Hill Amoco. Does not go to ShopKo South. The 6:15 #6 is
a request route for Route #14 passengers to go to the Willow Heights
area. We cannot guarantee the bus will return downtown in time for a
6:45 PM transfer.
See Route #23 for Saturday Service
10
ROUTE 6 A- Peak Hour
7F
AIR.- RINQ
, TITIEN Ew , �L
I !,FTC
Y
-j-
it
I J"
LEGEND
Bus Route Path
T-,
I
WSI;,rt
T—F
N mom;
E;
Route Reverses AM (counter)/ PM
Route Length= 7.83 miles
Asa 0 0.8 Miles
N
A
(I(p
ROUTE 6A
South Broadway, Meadow Hills,
Shopko South,
Peak Hours Only
C
N
'03
06
06
_
W
U)
06
v�
..
�(A
m
..
>c
�`Nno
m
0=
U1
Qa
aw
0 7
EU)
i3
N O
J D
O
U a
co N
in Cl)
to U)
�L
N
.L
Q 0
AM 5:53
5:56
5:58
6:00
6:08
6:10
6:20
6:13
6:16
6:18
6:20
6:28
6:30
6:40
6:43
6:46
6:48
6:50
6:58
7:00
7:10
7:13
7:16
7:18
7:20
7:28
7:30
7:40
7:43
7:46
7:48
7:50
7:58
8:00
8:10
10:13
10:16
10:18
10:20
10:28
10:30
10:40
C
'NO m
>1
w
C
0
0� -
o
�v)
��
O
YL
r d
3
> 3
N
a..
E�
ain
°' 3
c0 O
J 0
O m
U
OS
CO N
O O
to U)
yam«
> N
v
o N
•`
Q O
PM 3:13
3:17
3:19
3:21
3:23
3:30
3:40
3:43
3:47
3:49
3:51
3:53
4:00
4:10
4:13
4:17
4:19
4:21
4:23
4:30
4:40
4:43
4:47
4:49
4:51
4:53
5:00
5:10
5:13
5:17
5:19
5:21
5:23
5:30
5:40
5:43
5:47
5:49
5:51
5:53
6:00
6:10
6:13
6:17
6:19
6:21
6:23
6:30
6:40
3/22/2001
Iq
r.
ROUTE 6B
Crossroads, Kmart,
3rd Avenue SE, Fairgrounds
PEAK HOURS ONLY
W
Mtn
�
c
O
c
O` L
N
>
O
c
>
L
C(n
O
m> c3
m
¢
¢co
w
U
-r
1)U9-jm
U)
cnad
m
Q0
6:00
6:05
6:07
6:12
6:17
6:20
6:25
6:30
6:35
6:37
6:42
6:47
6:50
6:55
7:00
7:05
7:07
7:12
7:17
7:20
7:25
7:30
7:35
7:37
7:42
7:47
7:50
7:55
c
d
')o
v
c
w
O
O
c
COo=
a =
(n (D
c
N CO
>3
m
E¢
UM
�Oo
J
Y.O>cn
coca
fn)
UU
Qm
3:05
3:08
3:11
3:16
3:21
3:23
3:30
3:35
3:38
3:41
3:46
3:51
3:53
4:00
4:05
4:08
4:11
4:16
4:21
4:23
4:30
4:35
4:38
4:41
4:46
4:51
4:53
5:00
5:05
5:08
5:11
5:16
5:21
5:23
5:30
5:35
5:38
5:41
5:46
5:51
5:53
6:00
6:05
6:08
6:11
6:16
6:21
6:23
6:30
3/22/2001
ROUTE 6- MIDDAY
Ma j:D�wntwn
-Z
IZ-1
I-T
® "Y!
R-
7-ED-i I
U) R,
tr,
MEMMEMEMENW—" — 1R]
qpffl"111
3 Z� 1
i i
LE
.,
�7 4Z74Z 7111.
4
'PI lttt
1 Miles
fICKIn
Bus Route Path N
A
i Route Length= 6.74 miles
I
ROUTE 6
South Broadway, 3rd Avenue SE,
Kmart, Shopko South, Super Wal Mart
Mid -day Only
W
3
w
�S W
a3
�(
3
c'
>
ca
0
�
a
E �
c��
a)
m
E
.L
�3
M
mN
A U)
>>
N_j
QO
8:13
8:16
8:19
8:23
8:28
8:30
8:40
9:13
9:16
9:19
9:23
9:28
9:30
9:40
10:13
10:16
10:19
10:23
10:28
10:30
10:40
11:13
11:16
11:19
11:23
11:28
11:30
11:40
12:13
12:16
12:19
12:23
12:28
12:30
12:40
1:13
1:16
1:19
1:23
1:28
1:30
1:40
2:13
2:16
2:19
2:23
2:28
2:30
2:40
3/22/2001
Knauer, Tony
om: Bryan Busse [bkb02@hotmail.corn]
:nt: Saturday, March 17, 2001 3:14 PM
u: tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
Subject: Proposed Route 6
I would be very interested in the proposed changes for route six during peak
times. Currently I ride two -three times a week and face a great amount of
walking to/from the Kohl's Parking Lot If the route changes, I see myself
taking the bus as much or more than I do now.
Bryan Busse
2509 Parkhill Lane SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Get your FREE download of M N Explorer at http:/)explorer.msn.com
Knauer, Tony
From: B&C Knudsen [bcknud@mindspring.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 10:36 AM
To: tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
Subject: proposed route 6
Tony Knauer,
The proposed bus route "Route 6" will run through our neighborhood (2318 3rd Ave SW),
and sounds good to us ... I work downtown and weather permitting prefer to bicycle to work,
but would use the bus service in the winter and/or rainy weather... my wife also works downtown
and sometimes needs to drive but would also use the service when driving wasn't necessary.
We will not be able to attend the meeting at Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 22MAR01 but
are in favor of the proposed route.
Sincerely,
Bruce Knudsen
2318 3rd Ave SW
Rochster, MN 55902
Knauer, Tony
From:
Bruce and Shari (sutorandsutor@sprynet.com]
Sent:
Sunday, March 18, 2001 2:22 PM
To:
tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
Subject:
route 6
In regard to the proposed bus route #6 serving the Meadow Hills area, I think this is a great idea. Currently, in order for my
wife or me to ride the bus, we would have to walk a mile each way to the nearest bus stop. Thus, we never ride the bus.
The new route would be welcomed. I estimate that between my wife and I, we would likely ride the bus 3-5 one-way trips
in a typical week, if the route were to go in as planned.
Thanks for your consideration.
ce Sutor
2432 Highview Ave SW
Rochester
292-9847
Knauer, Tony
From: Scott Jorgenson [sljorgy@juno.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:29 AM
To: tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
Subject: Proposed SW Bus Route
I was very excited to hear about the possibility of the new bus route in SW
Rochester. I live at 241 B Meadow Hills Drive SW, which is about three houses
away from the proposed route. With this new route, I would expect to be a
regular passenger to and from work at Mayo.
I would like to go on record as a proponent of such a route and give my
whole -hearted endorsement of such an effort
If I can be of any support in making this new route a reality, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Scott Jorgenson
2418 Meadow Hills Drive SW
Rochester, MN 55902
507-281-4429
Knauer, Tony
From: LIZSOLSETH@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:07 AM
To: tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
Subject: Proposed Bus Service
Mr. Knauer,
I will be unable to attend the meeting on Thursday regarding the Meadow Run
Dr. proposed bus service. I would like to state that I am opposed to this
proposed service. I have a child who will be entering kindergarten in the
fall and he will be riding a school bus. The proposed times for the bus
service fails during the times when he would be walking to and from the bus
stop. I have serious concerns for his safety during this time. I chose the
Meadow Run area to live in because of its wooded residential housing and
hopes of having a more "country" type setting for my son to grow up in. The
bus service that has been proposed conflicts with this idea and makes my
residential home part of a noisy city block. I ask you to please reconsider
this proposal for the my neighborhood and our children.
Also, would you please email me with the results of the survey that was sent
out regarding this matter and with any final decisions that have been made.
Thank you.
Liz Solseth
725 Meadow Run Dr SW
Rochester MN 55902
(507)292-0494
(6 51-
Knauer, Tony
0--)m: Hanson, Susan A. (hanson.susan@mayo.edu]
nt: Monday, March 19, 2001 5:00 PM
'tknauer@ci. rochester. mn. us'
Subject: proposed route to meadow hills area
I am very much in favor of this however I will not be at the meeting on
March 22 due to other commitments. I live on Meadow Run Dr. and was a past
rider. I no longer rode when I had daycare commitments and also the
inconvenience of the bus not coming down the frontage road like it used to.
Any chance that you could extent the morning hours from 6:30 to 8:30. 1
usually work 9 to 6 and get the kids on the bus first
I am very excited about this proposed bus route and I strongly support this
servicel I Ill
Thank youl
Susan A. Hanson
Billing and Insurance Collections
Mezz East
538-0900
"nauer, Tony
riom: Davidson, Carol A. [davidson.carol@mayo.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 1:09 PM
To: 'tknauer@ci. rochester. mn. us'
Subject: Proposed Bus Service
Mr. Knauer. This note is to let you know that I am in favor of your
proposed bus route. I ride the bus every day, and look forward to the fact
that I will not need'to be crossing the highway to get to the bus stop as
well as not crossing the busy highway in the evening when I go home.
This has been a dangerous situation all winter getting to and from work)
Since I cannot attend the meeting, I just wanted you to know that I am so in
favor of the new proposed route.
A question that comes to mind with the new service during "peak hours."
Would this bus still do all the looping around Crossroads, etc., as the
route does now, or would it be a straight shot out and back?
Thanks for working on this change.
Carol Davidson
Nurse Manager Secretary
mail: Generose 3-110A
office: Generose 2-410
(507) 255-8885
gay
Page 1 of 1
Knauer, Tony
From: Crajod@acl.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 7:45 PM
To: Tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
Subject: New Bus route
My family thinks the new bus route would be very nice to have. We vote for it.
Knauer, Tony
From: Davidson, Carol A. [davidson.carol@mayo.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 1:09 PM
To: 'tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us'
Subject: Proposed Bus Service
Mr. Knauer. This note is to let you know that I am in favor of your
proposed bus route. I ride the bus every day, and look forward to the fact
that I will not need to be crossing the highway to get to the bus stop as
well as not crossing the busy highway in the evening when I go home.
This has been a dangerous situation all winter getting to and from work)
Since I cannot attend the meeting, I just wanted you to know that I am so in
favor of the new proposed route.
A question that comes to mind with the new service during "peak hours."
Would this bus still do all the looping around Crossroads, etc., as the
route does now, or would it be a straight shot out and back?
Thanks for working on this change.
Carol Davidson
Nurse Manager Secretary
mail: Generose 3-110A
office: Generose 2-410
(507)255-8885
Knauer, Tony
From: DonMorrisn@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:36 PM
To: tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
Subject: Proposed Route 6
I very much support this new route to the Meadow Hills area. Please proceed
with it Thanks.
Don Morrison
602 Cortland Lane SW
I t+
Knauer, Tony
-rom: Willett, Carol L. [willett.carol@mayo.edu]
ent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 8:45 AM
o: 'tknauer@ci.rcchester.mn.us'
Subject: Bus Schedule
Dear Mr. Knauer.
I ride route Number 6 bus 3-5 days of the week, and as with all of the other
passengers I get on with, live on the west side of Highway 63, and need to
cross this very busy highway at peak hours, in rain, in snow, in fog (as
today). Each time we do this we place our lives on the line, and it is sheer
luck that so far no one has been injured.
The place we need to cross the street is an extremely dangerous
intersection. Yes, there is a walk light, but in order to use the walk
light and cross the street you are either in a position where cars turning
to the left either do not see you, or are not looking for a pedestrian.
Many times, we have had to jump back, even though when we started to cross
the crossing was clear. In addition, in the winter time, you have to jump
over a pile of snow which this winter was about 3 feet tall. If you choose
not to jump over the snow you are left standing right in the streetthighway
and in the path of cars. The walk light is very short, and cars driving in
from the south are going full speed, and with the icy conditions this
winter, it was definately scary to cross the highway.
For those people who are on the north side of 26th street, and who need to
cross over to the light, this is an additional danger. Cars coming down
26th to the intersection DO NOT stop at the posted stop sign but continue
through to highway 63. Last week, while waiting five minutes for the bus,
we counted 12 cars who did not stop at the stop sign, but continued through.
its is only a short list of concerns regarding the safety of bus riders who
need to cross over the street to catch a city bus. If the new bus route is
put into effect your will be insuring the safety of many of your city
residents, and will probably pick up additional numbers of riders. I
certainly hope you will be able to begin this new route as planned.
Carol L Willett
2536 Oat Hills Drive
Rochester Min. 55902
Knauer, Tony
From: marilyngrace@qwest.net
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 7:13 AM
To: tknauer@ci, rochester.mn.us
Subject: Proposed bus service
I will not be able to attend the meeting this evening but
did want to pass along my
support of the proposed bus service. I think it would be a
great service to the area.
Thank you.
arilyn Campbell
[' I _ Page 1 of 1
Knauer, Tony
From: Elisha Anderson [elishaandrick@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:43 AM
To: tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
Subject: Route 6
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband and I were not able to attend last week's meeting on the proposed bus service in the
Apple Ridge, Meadow Hills and Shadow Run areas.
We live at 421 20th St. SW and we are opposed to the new expanded bus route running anywhere
near our home and I would like to explain why.
My husband and I have already lived on a bus route and it was awful. The worst problems are the
noise and the exhaust. These city buses are of a certain age and are all very noisy. When a bus has to
stop, the brakes are terribly squeaky and noisy. It's the kind of grating, high pitched squeal that is
impossible to ignore. And the large motors that are necessary to power a large bus, especially one that
has to climb these hills in our neighborhood, are also very noisy so that you are always aware that
one is close by. Whether you want to be or not. Then when the bus accelerates from a stop or turn,
the exhaust from these older buses leaves a cloud of black smoke for a hundred feet that covers
everything with a thick soot. Not only will the snow be a dark black, but in the surmner time that
smoke finds it's way into your home and covers everything.
20th St in particular is not regarded as a residential street now, even though it clearly has become
one. We have constant problems with cars speeding past our house now. Do we now have to add
another commercial vehicle to the mix? Personally, we would rather see the bus stay on Broadway
and pay for sidewalks on 20th St that we could use to walk the three blocks to the bus.
Thank you for listening to our concerns. If you have any comments, please feel free to email me at
the address listed below.
Sincerely,
Elisha Anderson
421 20th St. SW
Email: elishaandrick(@home.com
Knauer, Tony
From:
Berglund, Lawrence J. [berglund.lawrence@mayo.edu]
Sent:
Wednesday, March 28, 2001 9:15 PM
To:
'tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us'
Subject:
approve of new bus route
Dear Tony t
in regards to the bus route (#6), wanted to add my vote for the new route.
I ride everyday in the winter (bike in the warm weather), and would
appreciate the
changes that include the added service to the residential neighborhoods.
sincerely,
larry berglund 2589 oak hills dr. sw
L
3/28/01
��
Knauer, Tony
From: LIZSOLSETH@aol.com
lent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 8:59 PM
'o: tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us
.subject: Re: Proposed Bus Service
I recieved the packet you sent to me and I really appreciate your responding
in such a professional and timely manner. I still have concerns regarding
this proposed route, but again, I do appreciate the information you have
provided.
Liz Solseth
Knauer, Tony
From:
Bute, Kelly L. [bute.kelly@mayo.edu]
Sent:
Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:34 PM
To:
'tknauer@ci.rochester.mn.us'
Subject:
Bus
I wasn't able to make the meeting, but I would be interested in riding the
bus, (Apple Ridge service). I think it would be a nice addition and save on
the cars downtown. I live on Meadowview Lane, so the route that picks up at
Kwik Trip south is not close enough. I hope it works out to have the route.
Kelly Bute
r'harlton Laboratory Services
ger127-04539/ audix 4-9672
te.kelly@mayo.edu
M
RE: TELEPHONE CALLS / ROUTE 6 MEADOWS HILLS/ PRIOR TO
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Virginia Walker- 281-2270 lives at Tamarisk- Is in favor of route and getting service into
the neighborhood. Requests we consider a mid- morning eg. 10:00 a.m.
John Sethre - 402 Meadow Run Drive SW- work 261-3266, home 289-5209. Concerned
with the visibility of vehicles coming down Meadow Run and residents backing out onto
the street. Staff responded that this would be kept in mind when we look at the location of
bus stops — also the bus driver has good visibility —better than most cars.
One message regarding a bus to get downtown for a 9:00 a.m. start time.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
lit
04/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
M DESCRIPTION:
11
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
HEARING: (J9777)
Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
Proiect Number
M1-18 (J9777)
Proiect Name
Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd
ITEM NO.
a/,P"
RED BY:
F R. Kelm
jifC
Project Background
The existing 44' wide urban state aid street was constructed with sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer,
subdrain, and concrete curbing in 1991.
At the request of the property owners an informational meeting was held on February 22, 2000. Their support for a
Traffic Calming project resulted in this request for project.
Estimated Project Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Traffic Calming
$63 700.00
Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer RepairsNpnrades
Watermain Re lacement
Watemtain Service Replacement
Sanita Sewer
Sub Tatal
$63 700.00
lEngineering, Interest Contin envies 30%
319110.00
TOTAL
I $B2.610.00
Project Cost Distribution
Distribution:_
$ ecial Assessments - Parcel
41400.00
$ ecial Assessments - Sidewalk
____
Special Assessments Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
ON Street Share
$41,41000
TOTAL
$82,810.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of five years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map
SYNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
to:
REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR:
PROJECT NO. MI-18 J 9 7 7 7
TRAFFIC CALMING ONF OX VALLEY DRIVE FROM
23RD AVE SW TO SALEM RD
March 1, 2001
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City of Rochester, Minnesota
A resolution proposing certain petition requesting the following project:
Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd, was referred to the Public
Works Department on July 10, 2000 for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report.
Feasibility Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based on the
current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The residents of Fox Valley Drive SW between 23rd Ave SW and Salem Rd have requested that
several traffic calming alternatives be evaluated by Public Works staff for possible construction
along this corridor.
The existing 44' wide urban state aid street was constructed with sanitary sewer, watermain,.-
storm sewer, subdrain, and concrete curbing in 1991.
Work typically will include the following
1. Removal of existing bituminous pavement at traffic calming locations.
2. Construction of traffic calming devices including; pedestrian crossings, speed tables, and
median islands.
3. Storm sewer.design considerations will be included.
4. Signing and striping of traffic calming measures including stop signs land parking
restrictions.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are prepared without the benefit of field
surveys, soils boring or completed plans and specifications:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Tragic Calming
$63,700.00
Sidewalk Replacement
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
Watermain Replacement
Watenmain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
Sub Total
$63,700.00
,Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$19,110.00
TOTAL
$82,810.00
93 ,
-2-
K%RCH 1, 2001
Assessment Distribution:
Assessments for traffic calming measures will be charged against the sixty-nine (69) Fox Valley
Drive property owners that have driveway access onto Fox Valley Drive. Total assessments are
based on 50% of the total cost of construction of the traffic calming measures selected and would
be on a per lot basis
Traffic Calming Rates
Year
2001
Number
Parcels
Total
I Cost
Residential Zone
$600.00
69.00
$41,400.00
Subtotal
$41,400.00
Proiect Distribution:
Distribution:
Special Assessments . Parcel
$41 400.00
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water UtRV Funds
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
Ci Street Share 1
$41,410.00
TOTAL 1
$82,810.00
Submitted for your consideration:
Iw✓"+^+ i��
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
Douglas Nelson, PE
Engineering Manager
V:'',pgUp1(.'1'S'.�LPRUI`�jq'"11Jc.i�,r.''..11us'�.t'rcibi:ire llcport.hl,)C
f4�
-3- KL RCH 1, 2001
TRAFFIC CALMING ON FOX VALLEY DRIVE FROM ZRD AVE SW TO SALEM RD
PROJECT NO. M 1-18 J9777
1':1PROf L4'15\J-PRf if \19T•,Ui>g"t`;U�xa\.Le.udlNlq' Rcpo2U(.)(;
1K l
February 26, 2001
City of Rochester
Attention: Mr. Russ Kelm, Design Engineer
201411 Street SE
Rochester, MN 55904
RE: Fox Valley Drive Traffic Calming Project
Dear W. Kelm;
We reside at 2109 Fox Valley Drive Southwest and have been involved in discussing the Traffic Calming
Project. To our knowledge, this project is going to be formally proposed to the City Council for support
mid -April, 2001, even though there has been a lack of consensus by all residents along this street and a lack
of fair representation for parties who are impacted by this project.
At this time, we would like to formally note our opposition to this project. We have grave concerns related
to the proposed activities and solutions for the identified vehicle speed issue. We do not deny there are
safety -issues related to vehicles speeding, but we do feel that the proposed efforts will not meet the
objectives of reducing speed without causing undesirable side -effects which could result in greater
problems than the issue of speed for the residents of Fox Valley Drive, for residents in proximity to Fox
Valley Drive, and eventually for the City of Rochester as a whole.
Our concerns are outlined in the following bullet statements:
• Medians
Prior to the informational/consensus meeting we attended on February 22, 2001, we had openly shared
with residents proposing the project that we were in opposition to having any element placed in front
or near our home that would prohibit on -street parking and/or which had the potential to increase the
noise level. We were told earlier by residents that we must agree in writing that we would support to
have a median in front of our home and without our signature the median could not be placed in front
of our home nor could we be denied on -street parking. Yet at the meeting a median was being
proposed directly in front of our home.
It has also been brought to our attention that by placing medians throughout Fox Valley Drive these
elements may prohibit the access of service vehicles in our neighborhood whether the median is
directly in front of your home or placed in other locations. Examples included moving vans, garbage
removal trucks, RPU service trucks, department store delivery vans, and snowplows. Our street was
never constructed wide enough to implement medians and to provide off street parking.
The medians long-term upkeep is also a concern. We have no interest in contributing monetarily or
physically to repairs of the medians caused by accidents and weather. We are also not interested in
being accessed now or in the future for vegetation to be planted inside of the medians.
• "Rumhle itrina"
As a solution to our opposition of the median in front or close to our home it was then proposed to
place a "rumble strip" in the center of the street in front of our home. What we find most interesting is
that early on in the discussion process of the traffic calming project "rumble strips" were not selected
as a calming option due to the concern that proponents had for the potential noise that they can cause,
yet it was perfectly acceptable by those present at the meeting to place one in front of our home. We
openly object to a rumble strip being placed in front of our home.
ja �
• Painting a Centerline
Clearly knowing that we were not supportive of a median and/or a `rumble strip" the third option
proposed to be placed in front of our home was a brightly colored center line that would alert drivers
that they were not remaining in their lane. This suggestion was also made in the opening of the
meeting as a calming element that could be done on all sections of the street. It was felt that by
painting a centerline in the street it would aesthetically take away the "residential feel" of our street
and create more of a "highway" type of feel. Yet again it was acceptable to do this in front of our
home by proponents of this project. We again are opposed to a centerline being painted in front of our
home.
a Speed Tables
Although speed tables were not suggested to be placed in front of our home, we want to be assured that
one would not be placed in front of our home, Speed tables may prohibit proper water drainage, create
icy conditions and make it difficult for snow -plows to effectively maintain the road, particularly since
many will be placed on inclines. Failure to maintain the street during icy and snowy conditions may
result in an increase in accidents and hazardous conditions on our street. At the meeting it was not
confirmed that speed tables would even be able to be installed in an acceptable manner to prevent
water drainage issues nor was there clear evidence that speed tables would reduce speed. In fact we
raised the concern that some drivers may be encouraged to continue to drive in an unsafe manner and
may in fact increase their speed due to the "thrill" one would experience much like a wave motion on a
roller -coaster. The traffic engineer, present at the meeting did not refute this point.
• Re -salability and devaluation of homes
Overall concern of re -salability and de -valuation of the price of our home due to increase of traffic on
our street and aesthetic and hazardous conditions caused by speed tables, signage, painted center lines,
unsightly maintained medians, and the inability to park on the street due to medians. It was clearly
evident to all residents of this street at the time they chose to purchase or build a home on this street
that there were speed issues. One could not spend any time on the street without this factor being
evident. One also had clear knowledge that the street was wide and was constructed and engineered to
be able to handle an increase in traffic and that Fox Valley Drive SW was and is a major path to the
highway for this SW community. Our point is don't make issues worse. Everyone who resides on this
street had the freedom of choice and no one is mandated to live here. One does have the choice to take
personal responsibility to slow down when driving on Fox Valley Drive and maintain the speed limit
of 30 miles per hour.
• Reducing the speed to 20 miles per hour on Fox Valley Drive
We view this as not a solution but an irritant. If the City of Rochester does not enforce the existing 30
miles per hour speed limit as proven by the speed studies, then we have no confidence that a speed
limit of 20 miles an hour would be enforced. Thus for those in compliance of speed limits this
becomes a hassle and an irritant, not a solution. Recently in Chatfield a residential section lobbied to
reduce the speed limit to 20 miles per hour. After having to live with this constraint themselves they
now wish to return the speed limit to 30 miles per hour and the City is refusing.
• Lack of fair representation for the purpose of avoiding opposition to the proposal
Residents of Baihly Estates Lane have not been kept abreast of this proposal. Although these
residents will not be assessed dollars, (nor should they be), they have no choice but to drive on Fox
Valley Drive in order to travel to and from their properties. Other residents in the area do have other
travel options than to utilize Fox Valley Drive. Are the residents of Fox Valley Drive SW simply
shifting the issues of speed and an increase in traffic to other streets like Folwell Drive and Baihly
Hills?
(19
Overall these are our main concerns for not supporting the Fox Valley Drive Traffic Calming Project.
We feel that as a resident of this street our rights should be respected. We built our home three plus
years ago with full knowledge of the speed issues and the potential for an increase in traffic as a result
of our street connecting with Fox Croft. We built with the understanding that we could park on the
street and that our home would increase in value even with a potential for an increase in traffic. We
feel fortunate to reside in one of the more prestigious neighborhoods in one of the best cities in the
country. This is not a money issue and would be supportive of projects that would be proven to
enhance the safety and the value of our home and. the community as a whole.
As you receive the proposal for the Fox Valley Drive Traffic Calming Project we ask that you
seriously consider our concerns as an opposing resident of this street, the concerns of other residents
opposing this project on our street, and the impact this proposal has on the southwest community of
Foiwell Drive, Baihly Estates Lane, Bathly Hills, and Fox Croft. Although it was the intent of the
proponents to make these changes in isolation, this project has far-reaching repercussions and as
residents of the City of Rochester the good of the whole should be considered.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Peter James Kopischke
CC: Mr. Charles J. Canfield, Mayor, City of Rochester
Ms. Marcia Marcoux, 2°d Ward Councilmember
Mr. Richard Freese, Public Works Director
Mr. Doug Nelson, Director of Engineering
Mr. David Rossman, Traffic Engineer
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 0 /16/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works S - l3
M DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: (J9777) PREPARED BY:
Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd� R. Kelm
kx
This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement
project:
Project Number
M1-18 (J9777)
Project Name
Traffic Calming on Fox Valley Drive from 23rd Ave SW to Salem Rd
Estimated Project Costs
Project
cost
Constmcllon:
Trafft Calmono
$63,70a,O0
Sidewalk Re lacament
Stone Sewer Repatra/Uporaces
Watermain Re lacament
Waamislo Service Ra lacament
Sanitary Sewer
Sub Talel
$63 7c0.00
En ineedn Interest Cpntin enciea 30%
S18 110.00
TOTAL
S82,51000
Project Cost Distribution
Assessments for traffic calming measures will be charged against the sixty-nine (69) Fox Valley Drive property
owners that have driveway access onto Fox Valley Drive. Total assessments are based on 50% of the total cost
and would be on a per lot basis. The estimated total cost is $82,810 x 50% = $41,405 divided by 69 lots equals a
$600 lump sum assessment per lot. If the project costs awarded are lower than that estimated, the assessment
rate would be adjusted downward per this methodology.
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Parcel
$41,400,00
S eclal Assessments • Sidewalk
Special Assessments. Service Replace
Water 1.10ty Funds
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
ClStreet Share
$41 410.OD
TOTAL
$82,810.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of five years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. The project is scheduled for construction in 2001. No
payments of the assessments are required until the project is substantially completed. Assessment Notices
(invoices) will be sent to the owners of the property abutting the project at that time.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments. jjj���111"'VVV
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map, petition
NCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS I Public Works
iir.MDESCRIPTION: PROJECTHEARING: (J9217)
Pavement Resurfacing and Rehabilitation onTrunk Highway 63
(North Broadway) from 4th Street to Northern Heights Drive
This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project:
ITEM NO.
5-14
1912T i1
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 length of the state project on North Broadway (TH 63) from 4th Street to Northern Heights Drive is 1.49 miles.
Resurfacing with 3" grind and overlay will include adjusting casting on the entire length. New curb and gutter,
driveway aprons and sidewalk replacement is proposed for the entire length. The section from 4" to 6`r street, and
8°i to 12 street, will be widened to provide a continuous left turn lane.
Estimated Project Costs
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter
$1,150 000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$19,600.00
Sub Total
$1,169,600.00
lEngineedna, Interest Contingencies 30%
1 $350 880.00
TOTAL
1 $1,520,480.00
Proiect Cost Distribution
The estimated cost of the project was initially $1,000,000 in the 2001 State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) with 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.
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$19 544.12
City Road Share
$12.062.76
State/Federal Road Share
$1,488,873.12
Distribution:
$1,520,480.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution ordering the project to be made.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to:
aoa 11
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, 20M City
Council Meeting.
Feasibility Report
We report the project is feasible and recommend its construction in the year 2001 based on the
current condition of the street and participation by the abutting property owners.
The length of the state project on North Broadway (TH 63) from 4th Street to Northern Heights
Drive is 1.49 miles.
Roadway history
1941...... Concrete Pavement Construction ............................. 4 h Street to Zumbro River
1965...... Widen Bituminous Pavement to 4-Lanes................. Zumbro River to Elton Hills Dr.
1968...... Bituminous Overlay..................................................4th Street to Zumbro River
1974...... Bituminous Overlay .................................................. Zumbro River to Elton Hills Dr.
1979...... Bituminous Overlay .................................................. 12th Street to 16'h Street
1994...... Mill and Bituminous Overlay ................................... 4th Street to 1lth Street
Work 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.
3. Storm sewer design considerations
4. Sidewalk sections reviewed for replacement.
5. Boulevard areas disturbed are to be replaced.
This report and the estimated costs for the project are as follows:
Project
Cost
Construction:
Grading & Paving,Curb & Gutter
$1,130,400.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$19 600.00
Storm Sewer Pepairs(UpqEades
Watermain Replacement
Watermain service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
Sub Tolal
$1,150,000.00
Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 30%
$345,000.00
TOTAL 1
$1,495,000.00
aa3
— 2 — NL�LRCH 12, 2001
Assessment Distribution:
The cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2001 will be
used for this project as follows:
Curb Gutter Overlay Rates
Year
2001
feet
Total
Cost
Residential Zones
$15.45
Commercial Zones
$23.18
3.116.75
$83,836.27
Industrial Zones
$23.18
576.00
$13,351.68
Subtotal
$97,187.95
Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed
directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates:
Sidewalks
2001
sq. It
sq. ft
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
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.
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Fronta a
$97,187.95
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$19,544.12
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
ICI/State/Federal Share
$1,378,267.93
Distribution:
$1,495,000.00
Submitted for your consideration:
Russell Kelm, PE
Design Engineer
Douglas Nelson, PE
Engineering Manager
P:''..I'ROIISCCS`•.f -Ylif )f.,�94:?`.,Ursi�r.•tOac:`�, f_.uibil::r Rcl:o[t. PUC
m
- 3 - MARCH 12, 2001
PAVEMENT RESURFACING AND REHABU-TIATION 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
P:`%?R( )I PRUI'`,j7_7TtUc, i�,r:,L')u�s`•. tea<ii ilio: Rcpa mDOC'
M
— 4 — iVL\RCH 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
$1,130,400.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$19 600.00
Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades
Watermain Replacement
Watermain Service Replacement
Sanitary Sewer
Sub Total
$1,150,000.00
Engineering,Interest, Contin encies 30%
$345,000.00
TOTAL
$1,495,000.00
Distribution:
Special Assessments - Frontage
$97,187.95
Special Assessments - Sidewalk
$19,544.12
Special Assessments - Service Replace
Water Utility Funds
Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds
ICI/State/Federal Share
$1,378,267.93
Distribution:
1 $1,495,000.00
Note:
Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund
h'.'',Yn(.71LCt; IYtJ-PRUJ'`,1737 T\L'rxiS�n'.,lltus�,tcaiibilia' Rcpor:.l1UC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
ao1
04/16/01
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works
t t cM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: (J9217)
Pavement Resurfacing and Rehabilitation onTrunk Highway 63
(North Broadway) from 4th Street to Northern Heights Drive
ITEM NO.
9 -150
PREPARED BY:
R. Kelm
This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public 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 length of the state project on North Broadway (TH 63) from 41b Street to Northern Heights Drive is 1.49 miles.
Resurfacing with 3" grind and overlay will include adjusting casting on the entire length. New curb and gutter,
driveway, aprons and sidewalk replacement is proposed for the entire length. The section from 4 h to 6" street, and
Bin to 12 h street, will be widened to provide a continuous left turn lane.
Estimated Proiect Costs
Construction:
Gradino & PaAno. Curb &Gutter
$1150000.00
Sidewalk Replacement
$19,600.00
Sub Total
$1,169,600.00
En.lineering, Interest Contingencies 30%
$350880.00
TOTAL
$1,520,480.00
Prolect Cost Distribution
The City and MnDOT have entered into a Cost Share Agreement for the non -Federal share of the final project
costs.
Special Assessments - sidewalk
$19544.12
City Road Share
$12062.78
State/Federal Road Share
$1,488,873.12
Distribution:
$1,520,480.00
Assessment Period
All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7.5% annually on
the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. The project is scheduled for construction in 2001. No
payments of the assessments are required until the project is substantially completed. Assessment Notices
(invoices) will be sent to the owners of the property abutting the project at that time.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the resolution levying the proposed assessments.
Attach: Feasibility Report, Map, Budget & Assessment Schedule
GUUNCIL ACTION: Motion by
by: to:
# M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: April 16, 2001
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Michael Nigbur
RE: E-14lE-15 — Sidewalk assessment
CC:
It has been brought to our attention that the properties on the East side of North
Broadwav in the 1900 Block (the block containing Schmidt Goodman Office
Supply) do not have direct frontage abutting the existing sidewalk. Instead the
properties abut an alley, and the alley abuts the sidewalk.
Since these properties do not abut the sidewalk there should not be any
assessments for the sidewalk panel replacement. Staff proposes to amend the
assessments to remove these parcels from the project.
ROCHESTER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING0I a1
DATE: 04/16/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
G
'sM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TERRY ADDKINS
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. p
G. 3. SECOND READING OFORDINA (ES (foradoption).
M
/„uCNw.Aa) y�
t
An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Chapter 64E, and Amending and Reenacting Section
60.327 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the Establishment of the Fox Knob Special
District.
b) 4 Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately29:g7 Acres of Land Located in a
Part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5 and of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota.
The land is located on the North side of Country Club Road and West Circle Drive/County Road 22.
G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS
t
9
III III
JNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
aco
April 13, 2001
To City Council Members:
At the April 16, 2001, Council meeting, you have on your agenda a second reading for
the Fox Knob proposal. This required second reading should have presented the
opportunity for the Council to reconsider its previous action and deny the proposal.
Unfortunately, due to an oversight by the City Planning Department, the second reading
has become a moot point. The Planning Department did not send the necessary extension
request to the developer because the proposal came before both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council in the initial 60-day period. What the Planning
Department forgot to factor in was the time needed for the second reading.
According to Terry Atkin's interpretation of State Statute 15.99, if no extension has been
issued before the original 60 days, approval of the proposal is automatic. Consequently,
because of this apparent oversight, citizens in adjacent neighborhoods who continue to
have concerns about significant safety issues of Council members who might have
reconsidered their initial approval now have no opportunity to use the second reading as
it was intended —a time period for review and possible reconsideration.
Frankly it is very difficult for us as citizens to reconcile this oversight. Rezoning is one
of two categories applicable to Rochester requiring a second reading. In addition, the
excess of 200 signatures on a petition, a crowded chamber of concerned citizens, and
numerous speakers clearly indicated the importance of the second reading. To further
emphasize the research and reasoning of the concerned residents, we are attaching
documents previously submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the
Council.
In order to provide an opportunity for the Baihly and Fox Croft residents to work with the
developer about their concerns, we would now ask that the Council take the following
action:
1. Direct the Planning Department to request a 60 day extension to the
consideration of the preliminary plat. This document was filed March 28.
2. Direct the City Administrator to allow the Fire chief and the Police chief to
meet with concerned citizens as well as the developer.
Concerned Residents of Fox Croft and Baihly Neighborhoods
all
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, BaNy Woodlands,
BaiWy 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 c2-
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:
9 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
i Alleys in Fox Knob versus none in surrounding neighborhoods
i 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.
a(3
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 of protecting the existing or
proposed character... of the area. " (l. 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 of the 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 invitingpublic 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
lotsibuildable 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).
A
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 lotsibuildable 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.
9/9
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,
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,