Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/21/2001_Regular
CITY OF ROCHESTER CO UNCIL AGENDA COUIL/BOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER W 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 10 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS (3-6) 1) Request for Reconstruction of SO Street SE MAY 21, 2001 7:00 P.M. (7-8) D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (9-18) 2) Resolution in Support of High Speed Rail (19-20) 3) Bid Award for General Aviation Ramp Expansion & New Ramp Lighting & Acceptance of State Aid Agreement for 60% Funding (21-24) 4) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (25-26) 5) Approval of Accounts Payable (27-30) 6) Appointment to Zoning Board of Appeals (31-32) 7) Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board (33-34) 8) Animal Shelter Fee Increase (35-36) 9) State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Grant (37-38) 10) 37t' Street Theaters Traffic Impact Report (39-40) 11) Annexation/Connection Agreement/Light Evangelistic Association (41-42) 12) Development Agreement/Rochester Pentecostal Church (43-44) 13) Development Agreement/Thompson Property and East Ridge Corp. (45-46) 14) Owner ContractlWatermain to Serve Carpet One (47-48) 15) Owner Contract/Watermain & Public Storm Sewer Relocation Serving the Addition to Apache Mall (49-50) 16) Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Super "C", LLC (Lot 9, Block 1, Airport Industrial Park Property) (51-52) 17) Stormwater Management Agreement (53-60) 18) Request for Public Hearing/Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2, Sunnydale Sub. (61-64) 19) Request to Advertise for Bids/Two Water Quality Protection Program Projects Council Agenda May 21, 2001 Page 2 (65-66) 20) (67-68) 21) (69-70) 22) (71-72) 23) (73-74) 24) (75-76) 25) (77-78) 26) (79-80) 27) 14. E) HEARINGS a5. (81-112) 1) (113-120) 2) (121-134) 3) (135-142) 4) (143-144) 5) (145-184) (185-202) (203-222) (223-232) Award of Contract/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 4t' Avenue NW from Zumbro Drive to 31st Street NW Deletion of Three Unused Passenger Loading Zones Parking Restriction Correction UCR Drive SE and 8-1/2 Street SE Permit Parking Petition from 80" Avenue SW/500 Block Speed Zone Study 55t' Street NW/500 Avenue to 60t' Avenue Advertise for Bids/Biosolids Injector Rochesterfest Activities Street Closings, Meters Bagged/Roosterfest 2001 Make T< �. d v 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 Street SW, West of T.H. 63 & East of 11 t, Avenue SW Continued Hearing/Zoning District Amendment by R.L. Hexum & Associates/Rezone Approx. 46 Acres from R-1 District to M-1 District and Rezone Approx. 36 Acres from R-1 to R-2 Continued Hearing/General Development Plan/48 h Street GDP By R. L. Hexum & Associates Project Hearing/Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9t' Avenue NW to 18t' Avenue NW Assessment Hearing/Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9'h Avenue NW to 18w Avenue NW 6) Zoning District Amendment Initiated by Rochester Common Council to Establish Zoning Districts for Lands within Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 & 23 Rochester Township Recently Annexed to City of Rochester 7) Preliminary Plat by B & H Development to be Known as Circle 19 Plaza Second 8) Type III, Phase 11, Zoning District Amendment by B & H Development to Amend Floodway Overlay & Flood Fringe Overlay District on Property Along North Side of 19"' Street NW and West Side of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) 9) Final Plat to be Known as Meadow Lakes Golfview Townhomes CIC No. 177 (233-244) 10) Vacation Petition by Christian Science Society, Scott Sheller and Fred Birch, to Vacate Undeveloped Right -of -Way of Alley Adjacent to Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11, Block 3, West Zumbro Addition Council Agenda May 12, 2001 Page 3 (245-252) 11) Utility Easement Vacation Petition by Bryan Sieve & Clay Hartman/Vacate Drainage Easement which is 100 Ft in Width & Runs East/West through Proposed Circle 19 Plaza Second Preliminary Plat F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (253-254) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A �.d 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. . JUNCIL ACTION: Wton by: second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3 DATE: 5/21/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: . LETTERS AND PETITIONS CITY ADMINISTRATOR TS.KVENVO I DESCRIPTION: REQUEST FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 3RD STREET SE ED Y. L- LD A petition has been received by the property owners requesting the City to reconstruct 3.d Street SE from 11`h Avenue to 13-1/2 Avenue SE. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to adopt the prepared resolution instructing the Public Works Department to prepare a feasibility report on the reconstruction of 3 d Street SE from 11th Avenue to 13-1/2 Avenue SE. UNCI LACTION: Mobonby: Second by: to: 1. The undersigned petitioners are requesting that the City of Rochester specifically the street department to completely repave 3d Street Southeast from 111h avenue to 13-V2 avenue. This is appox: J.g homes. It encompasses a large area of St. Francis Church. In regard to the repaving and resurfacing of the eleven hundred block of Third Street, Southeast new curbing will be needed at most of the homes. We fully realize as petitioners that there will be an assessment towards these improvements. The latest cost for curb replacement is Appox: $15.46 per foot. We also would ask the city council to make these assessments over a ten-year period, instead of a five-year period. This will help to lessen the cost to the homeowner. Name tPrinted address-- - Signature 1 I i aM F Fafoh /19t 3hSST .2Z 4 5 /_�6 q- ?,4 Sf- sc 15-1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ,11 , ;iS�,, I•i�;l:��' Tom'-,n,� ),2.�.[� �n�"( �•; <f. E, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/21/01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-27 �dl DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G. NEUMANN4 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. Resolution in Support of High Speed Rail D-3. Bid Award for General Aviation Ramp Expansion & New Ramp Lighting & Acceptance of State Aid Agreement for 60% Funding D-4. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-5. Approval of Accounts Payable D-6. Appointment to Zoning Board of Appeals D-7. Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board D-8. Animal Shelter Fee Increase D-9. State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Grant D-10. 376 Street Theaters Traffic Impact Report D-11. Annexation/Connection Agreement/Light Evangelistic Association D-12. Development Agreement/Rochester Pentecostal Church D-13. Development AgreementrMompson Property and East Ridge Corp. D-14. Owner Contract/Watermain to Serve Carpet One D-15. Owner Contract/Watermain & Public Storm Sewer Relocation Serving the Addition to Apache Mall D-16. Pedestrian Facility Agreement/Super "C", LLC (Lot 9, Block 1, Airport Industrial Park Property) D-17. Stormwater Management Agreement D-18. Request for Public Hearing/Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2, Sunnydale Sub. D-19. Request to Advertise for Bids/Two Water Quality Protection Program Projects D-20. Award of Contract/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on O' Avenue NW from Zumbro Drive to 31 Street NW D-21. Deletion of Three Unused Passenger Loading Zones D-22. Parking Restriction Correction UCR Drive SE and 8-1/2 Street SE D-23. Permit Parking Petition from 8 s Avenue SW/500 Block D-24. Speed Zone Study 55" Street NW/50'" Avenue to 60" Avenue D-25. Advertise for BidsBiosolids Injector D-26. Rochesterfest Activities D-27. Street Closings, Meters Bagged/Rochesterfest 2001 COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. wUNCILACTION: Motion by. Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/21/D1 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT CITY ADMINISTRATOR _ a2. I DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF HIGH SPEED RAIL G. NEUMANN The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is an organization that is promoting the development of High Speed Rail connections between the Twin Cities and Chicago. The Midwest Rail Initiative has representatives from several states including Wisconsin and Minnesota. An initial high-speed route for this connection is between Winona and Hastings to St. Paul. Eventually for higher speeds a route from Winona to Rochester to St. Paul is envisioned. The City has been requested to adopt a resolution to support the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative and high-speed rail routes from the Twin Cities to Chicago. Approval of the resolution is recommended. Council Action Requested Approval to adopt the prepared resolution in support of the planning and development of High Speed Rail routes between Chicago and the Twin Cities and the efforts of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. ,.,.UNCILACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Resolution WHEREAS the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is an organization promoting development of a High Speed Passenger Rail system with a hub -at Chicago and service throughout the Midwest, and WHEREAS one of the proposed routes is service to St. Paul alone the existing rail corridor between Winona, Red Wing, and Hastings, and WHERL-AS such improved passenger rail service would provide economic benefit to all of southeastern Minnesota, and WHEREAS the Minnesota Department of Transportation is in support of this effort. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Rochester City Council supports and endorses the continuing efforts of the Midwest Regional Rail initiative to improve High Speed Passenger Rail service between the Twin Cities metropolitan area and Chicago. THE MIDWEST REGIONAL RAIL INITIATIVE Meeting regional travel needs in the Midwest through a visionary transportation plan PASSENGERS ATTOP 12 MIDWESTARPORTS, 1990-1997.... ' ?- 120,000000 100,000000 4 -= eo.o00 000 60.000 000.= x pwy 40.000000 =+ �o.0ao.0o0 [ k, — i 1990 1997 r The Midwest needs better transportation choices to serve a growing economy The nine states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Nebraska and Wisconsin are home to 58 million people, 28 million jobs and a growing economy. This vitality creates an attendant demand for transportation services, but the capacity of the transportation system has not matched the growth in demand: Since 1990, highway traffic in the Midwest has increased by 20%, but highway lane miles have increased by only 1%. Highway congestion is growing not only in large urban areas like Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee and St. Louis, but also in smaller cities. Passenger enplanements at the Midwests 12 busiest airports is up by 37% since 1990, with no major increases in infrastructure capacity._ ` Current Amtrak passenger.rail service does not offer the frequencies or amenities needed to. develop a strong ridership base. = ` Today in the Midwest, a traveler faces poor: . options for regional (100-400 mile) trips. a long! drive through heavy congestion, a commercial air fare of several hundred dollars, or rail service that offers too few arrival and departure limes 3 But a new and better option is being planned.. _ LE A new transportation. option: The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative THE MIDWEST REGIONAL RAIL SYSTEM: A 3,000 mile proposed system of enhanced passenger rail service hubbed around Chicago. A cooperative effort involving Amtrak and nine states -- Illinois, Indlana,iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. - Features a speed level'objective of 110 m.p.h., allowing travel time savings of 20-30% over existing passenger rail service. Will provide fast and easy access to downtown city centers, with service to other medium and small urban areas. Will utilize new train equipment offering first- class amenities and services. ; Will provide the synergy of a true regional. rail system by offering fast and easy train connections at the Chicago Union Station hub,' A a Forecast to carry 8 million passengers under,. full system implementation, and earn enough operating revenue to cover operating costs. Will create 1,500 rail service operations joh�"`' and 4,000 temporary construction jobs: . Costs for the system The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative requires $3.5 billion in capital costs over nine years. The nine states are pursuing a federal partnership to implement this system that will also strengthen Amtrak's national passenger rail system. Capital costs include about $10 billion for infrastructure improvements: track and signal upgrades, additional rail capacity, stations, and grade crossing improvements. About $0.5 billion is needed to purchase new train equipment. Once fully operational, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is forecast to be operationally self- sufficient, meaning that operating revenues will equal or exceed operating costs. . How can Midwest Rail become a reality? There are four major elements in,seeing the plan become a reality: development; acquisition of funds, construction,. aria operation; -rp 1 Development In August of 1998, the nine states and Amtrak released an initial feasibility plan assisted by a consultant team led by Transportation Economics & Management Systems,. Incorporated. The initiative is currently in the middle of a $1.35 million study funded by the Federal Rail- road Administration, Amtrak, and the nine states., The current planning effort is consultant - led study to develop a complete operational plan for the initiative. This plan will be completed in the fall, and the states will determine future actions based on the findings of the report. The states have already developed a Phase-1 proposal that calls for incremental improvements to corridors extending from Chicago to Detroit, St. Louis, and Minneapolis/St. Paul. The states are seeking $7.5 million of federal funds in fiscal ; year 2000 to support engineering and design work for 110 m.p.h. rail service on these Phase 1 corridors. These funds would be matched by $7.5 million in state funds. 7 of funds �ASQi�tcit':on The most significant action for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative will be acquiring approzi?';; mately $2.8 billion in federal funds, matched tiy'z> $700 million of state, local and private funds t z; Already, many of the nine states are working improve rail service, following the basic structure:;>" of the Midwest Rail system outline. These.;; efforts include operational support for Amtrak services, feasibility studies for new lines; and , engineering and design work for Midwest Rail corridors. This year, Amtrak is investing $25.._�;. � _ , million in capital projects that support the goals... _, of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.: (V' But a solid, long-term federal partnership is needed to make the plan a reality. Right now, the federal TEA 21 legislation authorizes only $55 million per year for high speed rail, and the actual annual appropriations are much less. The Midwestern states are ready to work with Amtrak and states throughout the country to develop structured, long-term federal funding source. This initiative is worthy of a federal financial partnership for several reasons: An improved regional passenger rail system can help provide transportation options to serve the Midwest economy when other modes are The Midwest states are ready to proceed with the initiative, and have plans and proc s in place to implement the system if funds a available. 3. Construction With a federal funding stream available, construction on corridor improvements can begin. The initiative has estimated a phased, nine-year construction period during which some services will come on-line incrementally. The phasing includes construction of the new train equipment that will be evaluated, selected and purchased for the system. showing capacity constraints. 4• Rneration The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative will phase in Amtrak's national passenger rail network and operations over a nine-year period, beginning financial future will be best built through about two years after construction commences. corridor -based services that benefit from the Certain corridors with existing service may see synergy of regional connections, like the an incremental increase in frequencies before Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. speeds are increased to 110 m.p.h. For more information... To learn more about the Midwest Regional Rail Nebraska Department of Roads Initiative, please contact the appropriate state Dan Rosenthal, (402) 479-4438 or Amtrak contact listed here: Illinois Department of Transportation Merrill Travis, (217) 782-2835 Indiana Department of Transportation Tom Beck, (317) 232-1478 . Iowa Department of Transportation John Hey, (515) 239-1653. Michigan Department of Transportation Tim Hoeffner, (517) 373-2835 Minnesota Department of Transportation Dan Krom, (651) 296-1611 Missouri Department of Transportation Customer' service, (573) 751-2551 Ohio Rail Development Commission Tom O'Leary, (614) 644-0306 Wisconsin Department of Transportation ..;, Randall Wade, (608) 266-9498 Amtrak Intercity Business Unit James Wolfe, (312) 655-1333 } 777is document was produced in June of 1999 hj.&e .- r/%5 Wisconsin Department of Transportation s Office of Public Affairs " PO Box 7910 Madison, WI 53707-7910 (608) 266-3581 www.dot.state.wi.us IG • Commuter Rail • High Speed Rail • Future LRT Planning • Future BRT Planning • Clearinghouse for Proposed Dedicated Transit Investments VMn'DOT'S Office of Passenger Rail nd • MukhtarThakur,Director • Gabe Guevara, Commuter Rail • Sam Khan, High Speed and Commuter Rail • Ann -Therese Schmidt, Railroad Negotiations • Lynn Clarkowski, Commuter Rail • Unnesota System: - UsJV a.WV ROW, Camden Pwfc Ra" aWQ to river - SWouki SL Paur, Red wsq and Whmna - Eslbtal•d s•gm•rd impnralnant W4W mat SIDS MOM ($Igoe) - 6lnina a day Foe Chicago in addition to to oar•nl Empre Buid•Beniw - Dedinbd Gus service to& m Dulu l and Rorfi~ - Sam• =dda m Uu RM Rock oemmtdm mil route • St PN Union Depet)o davbp M •l bM1 .I Wa(y ands l(-o in Minnesota Preliminary Engineering AMivitie-s: - Candn mndNon assssamera(t and ngtsel ay assessmank rehabittalion d axis" and corwbuCion of new track and sidings) - Station dvelnpmant and sib reports (mnaWgion d raw and rehrbfslm ad of axWkv passenger rail radWnea) - andp• arid'VWur* evakation - Cananrnicatbra and signals system valuation - SaWy Mancemnt Idadalylien (tpMreyha•o•d o-ade vosa ngs) - Tra?c a a• as araydarespadly analysis Drainage and hyhadics anaysu Oue'na d brat, state and federal permi V.pporea I Study • Builds off ofMWRRI • To make significant improvements in travel times end w - service Rochester. Minnesota, I Somph technology on a new route is necessary. • Frequency of service should be expanded torn six to I g trains per day between Chicago and the Twin Cities • A new righter -way and service to Rochester would eliminate serious train conflicts associated with the CP right or -way. in Minnesota Envinurnental Analysis Activities - Lard use and d•valopnnt nriew - Dispkmern d and rawAson arudr w - Vaual and aaalMdc mien - Noue, w quardy, water and • ysbm anefysb - H-W* wdl^•logicel and oukund asa•samed - Pwk*W knpags Public Involvement and information Station "a dar•bpmad - Ecaamk developnad Here? • Legislative Session: Funding Package • Move Forward with MWRRI Work Plan • High Speed Rail Compact • Continue Commuter Rail Efforts 2 • Sam Khan, 651-2964M • MrvDOT Web Site: - h1 'ff.weddslatemn eslo{rwlnaaseneeMtml • Midwest Rail Executive Report: . httn:// r .doLstate.M.uslooalmaarstm mitsum odf • California High Speed Rail Effort htto:/Avww.cahiahsoeedrail orv7 • Lautenberg Bill: htta:/AoLdenbm senatesenateaovAi�Ks� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/21/01 .onsent ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester International Airport EM DESCRIPTION: Bid award for General Aviation ramp expansion and new ramp and acceptance of State Aid Agreement for 60% funding. 'he Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: D-3 PREPARED BY: Steven W. Legve 1. Award the bid to Rochester Sand & Gravel to expand the General Aviation ramp and add new ramp lighting. (J6937) Rochester Sand & Gravel $717,476.40 Road Constructors $882,625.00 Copy of the bid tabs is attached. This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 60% State 40% Local 2. Accept the State Aid Agreement for 60% funding for this project. (J6937) OUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 2esolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Rochester Sand & Gravel and a 'esolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the State Aid Agreement with MN/DOT - Office of Aeronautics. CUUNCILACTION: Motion by second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING A DATE: 5/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D -q t i rai DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNAJSCHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. DANCE —TEMPORARY Chieng Mai Thailand 5/19/01 1123 Civic Center Dr NW Rochester, Mn 55901 (Prior Approvals: M Marcoux, D Hanson, J McConnell, & M Evans) FIREWORKS Rochester Post Bulletin Annual 4th of July Celebration 7/4/01 Silver Lake Rochester, Mn 55904 GAMBLING — RENEWAL PREMISE Eagles Auxiliary 409 1st Ave SW Rochester, Mn 55902 SIDEWALK — CEMENT Roger D. Peterson 112 E Eyota St. Dover, Mn. 55929 SIGNS RLO Sign, Inc. 1030 Ontario Ave Shebaygan, Wi 53081 L,uUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ��ICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PAGE 2 MAY 21, 2001 SOUND AMPLIFICATION Gregory Gilman 1832 28"' St NW Rochester, Mn 55901 Moving Away Party 6/2/01 Noon to 5:00 PM So. Mn. Mothers of Multiples Family Picnic 7/21/01 Cook Park 10:30 AM to 11:30 PM Rochester, Mn 55901 Internal Medicine Residency Program Mayo Graduate of Medicine Springtime Barbecue 6/16/01 11:00 AM to 10:00 PM Kutzky Park (Please Waive %00 Time Period) Rochester Area Family Y 709 1" Ave SW Rochester, Mn 55901 Parking Lot Dance For Middle School Students 6/8/01 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM (Please Waive 8:00 Time Period) The Salvation Army 115 1 s` Ave NE Rochester, Mn 55906 Outdoor Concerts 6/24/01 and 7/29/01 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM Mayo Medical Laboratories 30 Year Anniversary Party 7/10/01 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM Mayo Civic Center Park (Please Waive 8:00 Time Period) 2001 World Police & Fire Games Torch Relay Celebration at Peace Plaza 5/29/01 - 12:00 PM Torch Relay thru Rochester after Ceremony MISCELLANEOUS Making Memories Carriage Service N4746 Co Rd J Rockland, Wi. 54653 Wedding Party 6/2/01 55s' St NW to Fairgrounds Beth Wood 855 6d Ave SW Rochester, Mn 55902 Wedding Carnage - By Making Miracles Carriage Service 5/12/01 (Prior Approvals: M Marcoux, D Hanson, J McConnell, & M Evans 93 LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PAGE MAY 21, 2001 MISCELLANEOUS - CONTINUED Kevin Lake 829 14' St NW Rochester, Mn 55901 Horse drawn Carriage for Wedding I" Baptist Church to Eagles Club 7/7/01 Greg Neumann/John Horntvendt Block Party 6/9/01 4469 Savannah Dr NW Rochester, Mn 55901 Rochester area CROP walk committee Walk to Raise Dollars for Hunger 10/14/01 Bike Paths from Peace United Church of Christ 2001 World Police & Fire Games Torch Relay Celebration at Peace Plaza 5/29/01 - 12:00 PM Torch Relay thru Rochester after Ceremony Star of the North Games 5K Road Running Race 6/23/01 Silver Lake Area Rochester Area Special Olympics Centurion Bike Ride 7/14/01 Graham Arena N — Olmsted Co. Fairgrounds Med-City Marathon — Conoco Kids Classic Road Race 5/27/01 Soldiers Field — Bike Path COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �S DATE: 5/21/01 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. [)—S ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Approval of Accounts Payable Dale Martinson Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $1,135,471.04. Less: Any exceptions • COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING o? / DATE: 5-Z of AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. D^ Or anizational Business M DESCRIPTION: PREPARED S' Appointment to Zoning I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Zoning Board of Appeals: Debra Christenson 1307 Second Avenue NW Ms. Christenson will fill the vacancy created by the resignation of H. Gordon Bluhm. The unexpired term runs to 12/31/01 OUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by. second by: to: '07/:h Nlavor Chuck Canfield 201 4th Street SE - Room 281 Rochester, NIN 55904-3782 C'T'TY7120P.0 FfOCTVT8Tt R VOLUNTEER APPLICATION NAME: ADORES bad .ALL-A.NERICA CITY �111k -PHONE: BUS. HOME DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMIT'S? YES X NO_ LACE OF EMPLOYMENT:�o I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON O! �\'�QEd-� �G•���'��`'"�'�• BECAUSE: 1) V (N—XN O,v.X!_S� O% `(L iic�-5\<`f� QCc % �.'c.a.�\c.�� �ti1;m �• Cu\ \�s��2.d o`�C\ �_(`c�a>,S.rF� \a.�.n\'e Otr`c�+'�?`� o.rc\ `�'-� v"w"�.� .Li. YRUYl UL DHl AURUU"U InZUMe1 IIUN tLVUIJ'111 JL I JSLl.1 1kiI GP"O1 J, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMEN.7i Attach additional information, if desired. 1� O 4 Fxwr o C\cc�v�\ v, DATE SUBMITTED Return to: SIGNED: �� xtz- Office of the Mayor 201 4th Street SE Rochester, till 55904-3782 DATE OF APPOINTMENT: TERM EXPIRATION: _ OTHER DATA: r .... l �V 7; r �' :p..' r - •t �+ S.+ F A`-e ,.`;'�!' 'x �+^S4'r a ..; ed{. 7 � � ��� a ��\ ��a�-� �`s�'���5��� ti���,� ro �.ro '� terns \.�,� s.--M�a�S-�, �a�c-ca S. `5 ��n9 � ` V`S *i.�R� � � Xs'C� ` �� fax �� Sa"..�y� ���tq 1�'� �"�`�"n \� h��.7v'H 1�`�� � � �S .ram J �� �� \\ �CZ��cn0 \ "� ��' (�CC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Organizational Business Mayor's Office 'EM DESCRIPTION: Appointment to Rochester Civic Music Board MEETING / DATE: -� - OI (TEU NO. "D—% PREPARED BY: vor Canfield I hereby submit for your approval the following appointment to the Rochester Civic Music Board: Vicki Snyder 4349 Cimarron Court NW Ms. Snyder will fill the vacancy of Michael Kelsey in the Third Ward. The three year term will run to December 2003. :OUNCIL ACTION: Mouon by. SOcmW by. to: *tn: Aucusi � ° NAME: ADORES PHONE blapor Chuck Canfield 201 4th Street SE - Room 281 Rochester, NIN 55904-3782 Phone:(507) 285-8080 Fax:(507) 287-7979 CITY OF ROCHESTER VOLUNTEER APPLICATION HOME asa - 91-7l? DO YOU RESIDE WITHIN ROCHESTER CITY LIMITS? YES NO eoeoa ALL-AMERICA Cal PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: 1:,01"nMUh C0L+1 0-v'� Cohnec-hm I AM SEEKING VOLUNTARY SERVICE ON g ie.5} r CVICG hksiC BECAUSE: MV inVolVeMeKi ih'i C Q.7M ni etrobles ",-_+D e11C(ltl Q� ci{I'yvns eAjoy-PI e PYV8MMS p� IaAj RcM. My excii ement PLEASE PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFOP.MATICN (EDUCATION, SPECIAL INTERESTS, ACHIEVEMENTS, PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT, COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTy Attach additional inforration, if desired. 0 C6*6er df Commerce 0%oomaCf.Active iKTogslrnaSle)s-_W1 fv Ib s+5. 13Yvs. DATE. SUBMITTED: 14-,Qy� SIGNED: Return to: Office of the Mayor - 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904-3782 aaaa waaaaa aa:aawaaaawaa aaaa a:ww as wwwawaa:a ta:aaaa aaaa aaaawaawaaaa DATE OF APPOINTMENT: TERM EXPIRATION: OTHER DATA: Al REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 33 / DATE: 5/: Consent Agenda t i cnl DESCRIPTION: Animal Shelter Fee Increase ORIGINATING DEPT: Police Recommendation is made for the following increase for services provided at the Rochester Animal Control: CURRENT SUGGESTED Unaltered cat, dog, or ferret $12.00 $12.00 per yr license fee Altered cat, dog, or ferret $8.00 $8.00 per yr license fee Breeders permit $12.00 $20.00 per yr Dangerous Dog $50.00 $50.00 per yr Adoption $5.00 $5.00 Impound $25.00 $25.00 Impounded animalroom/board $5.00 $5.00 per day Room and board for quarantine animals New $10.00 per day Owner release/disposallicensed $15.00 $35.00 Owner releaseidisposal unlicensed $30.00 $60.00 Carcass disposal New $.30 per lb Senior citizens (65 or older) will receive a $2 discount for any licensing fee. ITEM NO. D-S PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson Breeders Permit: It is anticipated that Animal Control employees will become more actively involved in monitoring and inspecting those person's who are involved in breeding animals for sale. The increased fee will offset part of the cost of inspection by Animal Control employees. Room and Board for Quarantine Animals: We have experienced an increase over the past couple of years in requests for the Animal Control to board animals while they are under quarantine due to animal bites. We have also seen an increase in the number of people who do not obey or follow the quarantine requiring that their animal be impounded. These animals must be kept separate from the other animals at the shelter and for the most part should be considered dangerous. There has not been a fee set for this service in the past. Animal Control employees need to spend additional time and care in dealing with these dangerous animals with possible health problems. Setting this fee at $10.00 per day or twice that of a normal animal's room and board will again help offset costs to deal with these animals. Owner Release Licensed and Unlicensed Animals: We have been charging separate owner release and disposal fees over the past couple of years. These two services go hand in hand and are actually one service. In the past we charged $15.00 for an owner released licensed animal and $5.00 for disposal. The requested change would increase the current fee by $15.00 to cover our cost of disposal. We are currently charging a $20.00 owner release fee and a $10.00 disposal fee on unlicensed animals. An increase of $30.00 will cover the five days of room and board that is required for an animal we cannot prove ownership. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve resolution increasing the fee schedule increase for services provided at the Rochester Animal Control. %,vUNCILACTION: Mellon by: Second by: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 3� DATE: 5/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police D _ 9 �1d DESCRIPTION: State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Grant PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act provided $799,000 in funding to the State of Minnesota to ensure that local and state agency first responders are properly equipped to respond to incidents of domestic terrorism involving chemical and biological agents, as well as radiological and explosive devices. The finance assistance is being provided directly to the State of Minnesota through the DOJ State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program. Governor Ventura has designated the Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management (DEM), as the administrator for this program. Funds from this program are intended to enhance the capabilities of local and state first responders through the acquisition of personal protective clothing (PPE), chemical, biological, and radiological detection, communications, and decontamination equipment. DEM will distribute these funds through grants to reimburse local units of government and state agencies for equipment purchases under this program. This is a 100% funded federal program; there is no local match required. Grants will be limtied to $50,000 per applying jurisdiction. Grant recipients are responsible for all OSHA required training requirements and all sustainment costs associated with maintaining the equipment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Rochester Police Department requests permission to apply for funding to purchase equipment which will enable the Department to respond to incidents of domestic terrorism. The Police Department further requests that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor, City Clerk, ' to vvUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING :3� / DATE: 5121 /01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. �— �(� CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: 37 Street Theaters Traffic Impact Report PREPARED BY: R. Freese r The City Council approved a Development Agreement with Walnut Consulting Company, Inc_ on April 5, 2001 covering the development of the property located southeasterly of the Shopko North store in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of TH 63 North (North Broadway) and East Circle Drive (37'h Street NE). One of the conditions of the Development Agreement required the Owner to update the February 1998 Traffic Impact Report prepared for the Owner's property lying in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of TH 63 North (North Broadway) and East Circle Drive (37'h Street NE). Owner's consultant, Benshoof and Associates, has completed the required update to the Februan 1998 Traffic Impact Report. The TIR was filed with the City on May 8, 2001 and has been reviewed by the Rochester Olmsted Senior Transportation Planner, Charlie Reiter and the City Engineer, Richard Freese. The TIR indicates that the construction of a 14-screen stadium seating cinema on the property located southeasterly of the Shopko North store in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of TH 63 North (North Broadway) and East Circle Drive (37d' Street NE) will not, in and of itself, result in the reduction of the level of service (LOS) at the 37'h Street NE / 6'h Avenue intersection to LOS below acceptable standards established in the Land Development Manual. The critical movements are the southbound to eastbound left turns and the northbound to westbound left turns. The future reduction in LOS to undesirable standards at this intersection will be primarily the result of the continued increase of the traffic on East Circle Drive (37'h Street NE). These outbound turns will become increasing more difficult to accomplish with increasingly longer delays for motorists. The Development Agreement requires that the Owner's development of the Property follow a three (3) phase Access Phasing Plan. Phase I of the Access Phasing Plan reflects the current two accesses to the site; one unsignalized full access to TH 63 North and the other unsignalized full access at 37'h Street and 6'h Avenue NE. The TIR indicates that the Phase I Access Phasing Plan meets the City's required LOS at the 37`h Street / 6'h Avenue intersection in 2002. Therefore, staff would not recommend any modifications to the existing 37'h Street / 6'hAvenue NE intersection prior to the construction and opening of the proposed cinemas at this site. The intersection will be monitored periodically to determine if the LOS of the intersection deteriorates to an unacceptable level. If the LOS does decline to an unacceptable level, then Phase II of the Access Phasing Plan will be implemented by the City. Phase II of the Access Phasing Plan will require that the existing intersection of 37'h Street / 6'h Avenue NE be modified to a % access intersection. Owner will be responsible for implementing Phase II of the Access Phasing Plan upon notice provided to Owner by the City. The cost of the Phase 11 improvements is the obligation of the Owner under the terms of the Development Agreement. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the findings of the 37'h Street Theaters Traffic Impact Report COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution adopting the findings of the 37`h Street Theaters Traffic Impact Report. COUNCIL ACTION: rotation by: Second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5121 /01 AGENCA SECTION_ AGENDA ORIGINATING CEPT: Public Works—(+ ITFM NO. CONSENT 1 DESCRIPTION: Annexation/Connection Agreement — Light Evangelistic PREPARED BY: Association M. Nigbur The Light Evangelistic Association and the City Staff have had discussions relating to annexation and connection of the property to City Services as required by the Conditional Use Permit granted by Olmsted County. Pursuant to these discussions the City and Owner have established the terms of the Agreement which include: • Annexation of the property after 1/1/2008 • Connection of the property to the public utilities within 5 years of availability • Payment of connection and development charges upon connection to the City of Rochester. Staff recommends the Council approve the Annexation Connection Agreement. The Owners executed the agreement. j ---------- - 25 ST SE • _ UN GS 5E Property COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Annexation Connection Agreement with Light Evangelistic Association, Inc. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING ❑EPT! ITEM NO. Public Works D-(O�L ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement - Rochester Pentecostal Church PREPARED BY: 4 M. Nigbur jS The Owner of land, which is proposed for development of a church located East of County Road 109 and North of Sheffield Lane SE, and City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts of the project on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Pedestrian facilities within and abutting the development. • Dedication of right of way. • Commencement of a City Project to extend Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to serve the Sunnydale Area by the City of Rochester • Levying of Assessments for the City's infrastructure improvements • Owners payment of the assessments, development/connection related charges including SAC, WAC, Storm Water Management, and Area Street Improvements. Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The Owner has executed the agreement. SHURELD UJ SE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for Rochester Pentecostal Church. t,OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING l� DATE: 5/21 /D1 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public V I D—t3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Thompson Property and East Ridge PREPARED BY: Corp Y M. Nigbur The Owner of land, which is proposed for Development located South of Sheffield Lane and West of Strathmore Lane SE, and City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts of the project on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on the discussions, the content for a development agreement has been decided and a document has been created. The major items covered in the agreement include the following: • Pedestrian facilities within and abutting the development. • Dedication of right of way. • Commencement of a City Project to extend Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to serve the Sunnydale Area by the City of Rochester • Levying of Assessments for the City's infrastructure improvements • Owners payment of the assessments, development/connection related charges including SAC, WAG, Storm Water Management, and Area Street Improvements. Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The Owner has executed the agreement. $MEii6➢LNSE COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for Thompson Property and Eastridge Corp. %.,JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ll� / DATE: 5121 /00 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO, CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D- tq civil DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain to Serve Carpet One (J9803) PREPARED BY: -'r-M. A'3 Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: DMG, LLC (Owner) & A.B. Systems, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9803 consisting of "Watermain to Serve Carpet One". r E err :Carpu one Site 4 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9803 "Watermain to Serve Carpet One" .,JUNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Y1 / DATE: 5/21101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p — (r EM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Watermain & Public Storm Sewer Relocation PREPARED BY: T - Serving the Addition to Apache Mall (J9773) M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Rochester Mall LLC (Owner) & Fraser Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City ! Owner Contract J9773 consisting of "Watermain & Public Storm Sewer Relocation Serving the Addition to Apache Mall". Apache. Mall Watermain a SCo'rm Sewer Relocaiidn 5-01 OCJ9773 o �a COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9773 "Watermain & Public Storm Sewer Relocation Serving the Addition to Apache Mall" OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: `f9 , 5/21101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT, ITEM NO, CONSENTAGENDA Public Works (D—(( ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facility Agreement — Super "C", LLC (Lot 9, Block 1, PREPARED BY: Airport Industrial Park Property) �i+A. Baker Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council: Super "C", LLC, is the Owner of land platted as Lot 9, Block 1, Airport Industrial Park. The Owner has requested that a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement be approved to address the Owner's obligation for providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Property abutting 10th Ave SW, and a ten (10) foot wide bituminous path along the entire frontage of the property abutting T.H. 63. I' y.._..hlbnle d CID li Z COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Super "C", LLC, for Lot 9, Block 1, Airport Industrial Park. 4FOUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING Tt % DATE: 5/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.n CONSENT AGENDA Public Works () —t 7 �M DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT PREPARED BY:1 iy l; i M. Baker Ik 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: Professional Skater's Association (Country Club Estates Property) $ 4,088.41 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. .JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by. Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING bO / DATE: 5/21/01 AGENDA SECTION' ORIGINATING DEPT- ITEM NO. CONSENTAGENDA Public Works D-/13 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for Public Hearing: Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision, J9760 PREPARED BY: i J. Loehr A Feasibility Report was presented for City Council consideration on December 12, 2000 for the following local improvement project: Project No. M097, J9760 "Basic Construction to Serve Lots 23 through 32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision". The estimated construction costs and expense of this project are as follows: Sanitary Sewer $154,600 Watermain 129,300 Service Connections 13,800 Sub -drain 23,400 Curb & Gutter/Street 41,750 Concrete Sidewalk 7,940 Bituminous Path 11,042 Sub -total $381,832 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 114,550 Estimated Project Cost and Expense $496,392 The project will be funded consistent with the funding sources outlined in the Feasibility Report. At the December 12, 2001 City Council meeting the Council adopted a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report and another resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications. A resolution establishing a Public Hearing was not made, as the Feasibility Report requires that the petitioners for the project enter into Development Agreements with the City prior to the Public Hearing. The petitioners for the project First Pentecostal Church and representatives of the Thompson Estate have signed Development Agreements for their respective property. Therefore, the Department of Public Works desires to proceed with a Public Hearing at this time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution establishing a Public Hearing for June 18, 2001. Attachment: Feasibility Report COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ,HWY 14 -- ems, Spaeth, Terry )m: Loehr, Jim nt: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:59 AM To: Spaeth, Terry Subject: ProjectJ9760 Feasibility Report Terry, The Feasibility Report for the Sunndydale (Phase 1) project includes an amount of $250,000 in WQPP sales tax funds. This $250,000 is a cost that is incurred by the WQPP to not only serve the Phase I area, but also the Phase II area that is scheduled for construction in 2002. The entire Sunnydale area consists of approximately 150 lots. A portion of the $250,000 is for trunk sewer and watermain extensions to serve Sunnydale. These extension are funded from sales tax supported SAC & WAC charges of approximately $100.000. The balance of $150,000 is rate caps and per lot caps provided under the WQPP. This $150,000 is assigned to the entire 150 lots in Sunnydale (approximately $1,000 per lot). 0 REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE WATER MAIN & SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION TO SERVE VACANT LAND IN SUNNYDALE. December 7. 2000 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing the following project: Extension of Water Main and Sanitary Sewer to serve vacant land currently inside the City's Corporate Urban Service Area in Sunnydale Subdivision owned by First Pentecostal Church of Rochester and by Robert Thompson Estate and vacant land abutting the Sunnydale Subdivision owned by Louise Thompson. The residences of the Sunnydale Subdivision have petitioned for sewer and water service as part of the Water Quality Protection Program, which is scheduled for construction in 2003. This project will provide sewer and water links between the existing sewer and water systems and the future systems the serve the Water Quality Program participants The land owned by the Thompson Estate and the parcels on which the First Pentecostal Church of Rochester will build are platted. The Louise Thompson parcel will be platted for residential construction. Petitions have been received for each of the three parcels. A petition was filed by the Pentecostal Church with the City and referred to the Department of Public Works by the Council on September 18, 2000. A petition was filed by representatives of the Thompson Estate with the City and referred to the Department of Public Works by the Council on November 6, 2000. Representatives for the Louise Thompson parcel made verbal petition to Public Works on November 21, 2000 for additional area to be served. This is a report to the City Council on the feasibility of the requested sanitary sewer, subdrain and water main extension. Feasibility Report We report that this project is feasible. The location of this project is within the City's Urban Service Area. The Pentecostal Church petitioner proposes to construct a church on their site early in 2001 (April). The Thompson parcels petitions proposed to begin construction of homes in early 2001. The proposed utility extension project would allow the properties to develop with public sewer and water main. This project has not been budgeted for in the City's 2000 or 2001 Capital Improvement Program. The costs of this project should be paid from special assessments/connection charges collected from the benefiting properties and city share totaling $28,662.80. Currently, sanitary sewer and water main are located within County Road 109 SE approximately 400 feet south of Sheffield Lane SE and also at the intersection of Strathmore Lane SE and the eastern segment of Sheffield Lane SE. The proposed sanitary sewer for this project consists of the installation of an 8-inch sanitary sewer line within the County Road 109 SE right of way from the existing sewer !� - 2- DECEMBER 7, 2000 northerly approximately 700 feet to the northerly line of the Pentecostal Church parcel. Sanitary sewer is also proposed both northerly and easterly of the Strathmore Lane SE and Sheffield Lane SE intersection. The northerly sanitary sewer extension will be approximately 600 feet along Strathmore Lane. The easterly extension will be approximately 500 feet to Sunnydale Lane SE. In addition, a 100-foot long extension will be constructed near the northeast corner of the Pentecostal Church parcel. This 100-foot segment will be connected to the Water Quality Protection Program work when constructed. In the interim, the street construction in this area can be completed and minimum future disturbance of the street will be required for the Water Quality Protection Program work. The proposed water main for this project consists of the installation of 8-inch water main from the existing 12-inch water main northerly along County Road 109 SE to the northern property line of the Pentecostal Church parcel. An 8-inch water main along Sheffield Lane SE is required from County Road 109 to Strathmore Lane SE and a 12- inch water main from Strathmore Lane SE to Sunnydale Lane SE for fire protection and service for the remaining portions of the Sunnydale Subdivision and the Thompson parcel Louise Thompson parcel. In addition, an 8-inch water main is required along Strathmore Lane SE from the existing water main at Sheffield Lane SE to the northerly line on the Pentecostal Church parcel. The total length of the water main extension project is approximately 570 feet of 12-inch and 2,200 feet of 8-inch water main. A subdrain will be constructed parallel to the proposed sanitary sewer in Strathmore Lane SE. Subdrain is not proposed in the other segments of the project. Concrete curb and gutter will be constructed in Sheffield Lane SE and Strathmore Lane SE abutting the Pentecostal Church, Victory Baptist Church and the Thompson parcels. No concrete curb will be installed along the easterly side of Strathmore Lane SE or along the segment of Sheffield Lane SE east of Strathmore Lane SE. This is consistent with the Water Quality Protection Program allowing the rural roadway characteristics to continue in areas adjoining the project. Because the utility construction will necessitate the excavation of the street pavement, the street aggregate base and bituminous surfacing will be restored using the current street construction standards of 8 inches of aggregate base with 4 inches of bituminous pavement. This segment of Strathmore Lane SE drains southerly toward the segment reconstructed approximately 5 years ago. This recent construction included the construction of curb and gutter and storm sewer along the southerly and westerly sides of Strathmore Lane SE. Therefore, no storm sewer is required for the proposed segment of Strathmore Lane SE. The segment of Sheffield Lane SE included in this project is at the top of the slope. Therefore no storm sewer is needed for this segment of roadway. A portion of Sunnydale Lane SE drains westerly along the segment of Strathmore Lane SE in which this project is proposed. Curb and gutter will be installed by the developer of the Louise Thompson parcel along the easterly side of Sunnydale Lane SE. One -3- DECEMBER 7, 2000 alternative to outlet the surface water collected in this curb is to construct storm sewer from Sunnydale Lane SE westerly along Sheffield Lane SE to Strathmore Lane SE. However, it appears to be more cost effective for the developer to route the storm sewer easterly from the intersection of Sunnydale Lane and Sheffield lane SE. Therefore, storm sewer is not proposed in this project. Additionally, pedestrian facilities are proposed along County Road 109 and those segments of Sheffield Lane and Strathmore Lane SE abutting the Pentecostal Church, Victory Baptist Church and the Thompson parcels. The pedestrian facility along County Road 109 will be 10-foot wide bituminous path and the pedestrian facilities along Sheffield Lane and Strathmore Lane will be 5-foot concrete sidewalk. The bituminous path along County Road 109 and the sidewalk along the Victory Baptist Church parcel and included in the proposed project. The sidewalk along Pentecostal Church and Thompson parcels will be constructed as part of the building construction projects. The estimated costs of the project, made without completed plans or survey are as follows: Sanitary Sewer $200,980 Water Main $168.090 Service Connections $17,940 Subdrain $30,420 Curb & Gutter/Street $54,275 Concrete Sidewalk $10,322 Bituminous Path 1$ 4,365 Total Project Cost $496,392 The costs of this project will be paid with the following charges and revenue sources: 1. The Water Quality Protection Program will pay $257,262 for water and sewer and 6 service connections and trunk mains to serve the existing residents in Sunnydale Subdivision. 2. The Pentecostal Church will pay $64,605.61 based on $73.13/foot for sewer and water along County Road 109 and Strathmore Lane, plus $37.13/foot for water main along Sheffield Lane SE, plus 1 service connection, plus $15.45/foot for curb & gutter Sheffield Lane SE, plus $30.90/foot for curb & gutter and street reconstruction along Strathmore Lane, plus $22.62/foot for bituminous path along County Road 109. Victory Baptist Church will pay $53,825.42 based on $73.13/foot for sewer and water along County Road 109, plus $37.13/foot for water main along Sheffield Lane SE, plus $15.45/foot for curb & gutter along Sheffield Lane, plus $33.30/foot for concrete sidewalk along Sheffield Lane, plus $22.62/foot for bituminous path along County Road 109. The Thompson parcel will pay $92,035.80 based on $73.13/foot for sewer and sewer along Strathmore Lane, plus $37.13/foot for water main along Sheffield -4- DECEMBER 7, 2000 Lane SE, plus 5 service connections, plus S 15.45/foot for curb & gutter along Sheffield Lane, plus $30.90/foot for curb & gutter and street reconstruction along Strathmore Lane, plus the full cost of the subdrain work. 5. The city share will be $3,990 for trunk water main oversizing costs plus $24,672.90 for comer lot credits and intersection costs. The petitioners will pay $156,641.41 or 32% of the total project cost. Approximately 1% will be paid by water main oversizing contributions plus 5% for comer lot credits and intersection costs. The Water Quality Program will pay an additional 51%. Victory Baptist will pay I I% of the project costs. At the time Victory Baptist Church was built, they were permitted to delay these construction items with the understanding that the construction would occur in the future and that their obligation to pay for the construction would be required at that time. Staff would recommend that this project is feasible if petitioners, First Pentecostal Church of Rochester and Thompson Estate plus the Victory Baptist Church enter into Contribution Agreements to pay the frontage charges and the availability charges consistent with City policy and as outline in this report. Water Quality Protection Program $257,262.37 Pentecostal Church $64,605.61 Victory Baptist Church $53,825.42 Thompson Property $92,035.80 City Share for Trunk Line Oversize $3,990,00 City Share for Corner Lot Credit & Intersections $24.672.80 TOTAL $496,392.00 Submitted for your consideration: John H. Wellner, PE Infrastructure Manager Richard W. Freese, PE City Engineer r6jo - 5 - Di=,MBEx 7, 2000 BUDGET AND ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Project No: Date December 7, 2000 J No: 9760 Description: Extension of Sanitary Sewer to serve vacant lands inside the Citv's Urban Service Area in Sunnydale Subdivision and northeast of Sunnvdale Subdivision. Project Cost Summary Sanitary Sewer $200,980.00 Water Main $168,090.00 Service Connections $17,940.00 Subdrain $30,420.00 Curb & Gutter/Street $54,275.00 Concrete Sidewalk $10,322.00 Bituminous Path $14,365.00 Total Project Cost $496,392.00 Revenue Sources Water Quality Protection Program $257,262.37 Pentecostal Church $64,605.61 Victory Baptist Church $53,825.42 Thompson Property $92,035.80 City Share for Trunk Line Oversize $3,990.00 City Share for Comer Lot Credit & Intersections $24,672.80 The assessment rates are consistent with current City policy. Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING lP ( / DATE: 5121 /01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works C)-( 4 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Advertise for Bids: Two Water Quality Protection PREPARED BY: Program Projects, J9738 and J9749 Aar J. Loehr V This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids. The bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk and considered by the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting for the following projects: Project No. MO-88. J9738 "Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Crocus Hills Area." The bids for project J9738 will be received until 11:00 AM at the office of the City Clerk on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 and considered by the City Council on July 2, 2001. Proiect No. M1.05, J9749 "Sanitary Sewer Extension to Serve the Rose Harbor Subdivision Area and Public Improvements to Serve Undeveloped Property Located in the Rose Harbor Subdivision Area." The bids for project J9749 will be received until 11:00 AM at the office of the City Clerk on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 and considered by the City Council on July 2, 2001. These Water Quality Protection Program projects will be funded consistent with the funding sources outlined in the respective Feasibility Reports prepared for each project. These Feasibility Reports and funding sources were previously approved by the City Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. Aft: Location Maps Note to City Clerk: Advertise three (3) times in the Post Bulletin and Construction Bulletin beginning June 1, 2001. t,JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: � 40ez _.� 0 Watermain `Adamson Sewer Project M088, J9738 Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Crocus Hills Area N 3 MMY SUMMIT OR SW Western Walls Petition I [.Western Walls Petition lestern Walls Petition WQPP Proiect nl►[OI 11 O REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENUA 5tG I IUN: CONSENT AGENDA DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS MEETING Y� DATE: 05/21 /01 ITEM NO. � / D �Ow .. ,M DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J9734) PREPARED BY: Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31st St NW R Kelm Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., May 16, 2001 for the following local improvement project: Project Number 6304-4-00 (J9725) Project Name Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31st St NW The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Rochester Sand & Gravel $ 117,288.84 2. Road Constructors $ 136,347.50 Engineers Estimate $ 142,823.00 Project Background The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in 1972. A Project and Assessment Hearing for this Project was conducted by the City Council on December 11. 2000. The City Council approved the Project and directed Public Works staff to proceed with the Project. Project Recommendation: The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopted a resolution awarding the contract, " Curb, Gutter, & Overlay on 4th Ave NW from Zumbro Dr to 31 st St NW " (J9734) to Rochester Sand & Gravel. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ( / DATE: 5121 /01 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. L) _04 M DESCRIPTION: Deletion of three unused Passenger Loading Zones PREPARED BY: &L_D. Rossma This is a recommendation to delete the zones listed below, from Section E "Passenger Loading Zones" and from Section J " Passenger -Commodity Loading Zones", of the Comprehensive Traffic And Parking Resolution Book. These zones are no longer inplace due to the particular business closing or moving, or the loading activity has been relocated to a different location. The signs were removed at that time, but the resolutions have remained. Staff has reviewed each zone and recommends that the following zones be deleted: Section E Passenger Loading Zones (90) This was a loading zone for the Northrop Community Service Center at 201 8'h Street NW. The loading has been moved to the west parking lot. . (90.5) This was a daycare at 14 9'h Street NW. Section J Passenger -Commodity Loading Zones (17) This was for a home occupation business at 603 61h Avenue NW that has moved. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution deleting paragraphs (90) and (90.5) from Section E "Passenger Loading Zones" and paragraph (17) of Section j " Passenger and Commodity Loading Zones" of the Comprehensive Traffic And Parking Resolution Book OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: (P9 5-21-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT.: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D —,v a i i rM DESCRIPTION: Parking Restriction Correction UCR Drive SE and 8 & 1/2 St SE PREPARED BY: «�ML D. Rossman This is a request for the Council to amend an existing restriction to reflect the fact that 23rd Avenue SE is now named UCR Drive SE. There has been some confusion caused by the name change and the City Police are requesting that a new resolution be drawn up. Staff requests approval of the resolution listed below. 2ND Sf _ __Jg _ COLLEGE MEW 2ND s < W S 3N0 ST UCR Drive SE from TH14 ^ to CSAH 9 SE 3 1 x' a 5TN € D'4W ST.N10 6N SE t ml F ;E ST a 1/2 ST SE O ry `i_ < a YS a 1/2 Sf � 0 � MIVLE S rn I/2 5T '+ MD MLLA DR 5E IN Sau/f Wz cmty y r, 1 101H ST )ft[E P 'd y COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution adding, amending or deleting paragraphs ( 229.1), (321) and (169.5) to section B "No Parking Zones" of the comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution book to read; Delete (229.1) 23rd Avenue SE on both sides of the street from 8 1/2 Street SE to CSAH 9, at all times. Amend (169.5) 8th & 1/2 Street SE on both sides of the street from 21 st Avenue SE to TH 14, at all times. Add (321) UCR Drive SE from College View Drive SE (CSAH 9) to TH 14, at all times. ..JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: "?I / 5-21-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D-a3 i i cM DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from 8" Avenue SW / 500 block PREPARED BY: ,eft D. Rossman The City has received a petition from the residents of 8'" Avenue SW / 500 block requesting the City to establish Permit Parking on their street, to control all day parking during weekdays. The area is shown on the attached map. This petition is from within the Edison Neighborhood where Permit Parking has already been established on seven blocks. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. # 138 and staff finds that all conditions are met. The petition is to add a street to an existing zone. The street requested is impacted heavily by all day parking Monday thru Friday from a source outside the neighborhood. There is a "No Parking At All Times" Restriction inplace on the east side due to width. This is to remain. The petition has signed by the following percentage of abutting property owners or residents: Block street/row width # of signers # of owners % signing Notes 8" Avenue SW / 500 block 24/75 6 7 86 % (1) Staff would recommend in favor of the petition and would request a Public Hearing to be scheduled for June 18'", 2001. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution calling for a public hearing on June 18, 2001 to consider establishing Residential Permit Parking Zone #6 (Edison Neighborhood) on 8" Avenue SW / 500 block. JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: O O O� N CD! OO W V SAYE SW co 4 V Q s O N 03 W 1 W b tocn w W qp J W W_yVJ b G b J W W N 0 W j j Y J yJ� yY Y Y pV J W W W R O O V Y fJ W N b+ Y Y ei N W N s yW J i a F... Y w j z 1'e CI O P O N N P > W V W P N i 0 � F.- Lps T-, m r y b W 1JJ V y N a N ymy W i 2 N W m � W II I SAVESW u a N P + b I V WC yN V (J W b m ' AVE SW �(y SAVE" NW + N b p P W N W P N � W W I O N W j j P W W W V O b V + � N N qp a Gg N W W V y Y b :o P Id P W GW W m 4 AVE SW v(DX. T V BCD v —i G 1 1 I m o Z ��� ��C 64 0000 aK W aE^ •m Z m S R. S =E: Z O a REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1,3 / DATE: 5-21-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -g� add DESCRIPTION: Speed Zone Study 55 Street NW: 50' Avenue to 60" Avenue PREPARED By:J ,�`' be D. Rossmar�` The City has received a request to reduce the current speed zone on 55'" Street NW: 50'h Avenue to 60'h Avenue from its present limit of 55 mph to a lower speed based upon roadway conditions. The requests come from motorists who use this road daily and are concerned with the amount of turning traffic, the pedestrians walking along the edge of the road and the visibility at the crest of the hills. Additional intersections have recently been constructed in this section of 55" Street NW for the Wedgewood Hills Subdivisions and the Kingsbury Subdivisions. There are visibility restrictions on the crest of vertical curves and roadway widths concerns that need to be addressed in a long range reconstruction program. Until that is possible, a reduced speed zone is recommended. Staff recommends that an official request be sent thru Mn/Dot to have this speed zone reduced. The roadway in question is shown on the attached map. The road is designated as an collector on the ROCOG Thoroughfare plan. It has one traffic lanes in each direction along with a narrow shoulder. • Traffic Volumes: 2,400 vehicles per day • Police Review: Sgt. Bob Schei of the City Police has reviewed the request and agrees with the reduction in the speed limit. Township Review: The issue has been discussed with Mr. Joe Vroman, Secretary of the Cascade Town Board. He agrees with the recommendation to reduce the speed and recommends a 40MPH limit. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution requesting Mn/Dot to conduct a review of the existing speed zone on 55'h Street NW: 50" Avenue to 60" Avenue. �jUNCIL ACTION: "notion by: Second by: sToed "a ss.lt NUJ o 1-1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ?� / DATE : 05/21/2001 I GENDA SECTION: nsent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Water Reclamation Plant ITEM NO: D �as EM DESCRIPTION: Advertise for Bids Biosolids Injector PREPARED BY: Lyle J. Zimmermann The Water Reclamation Plant has a 1981 model biosolids injector vehicle which needs to be replaced. This was included in the 2001 Equipment Revolving Fund budget on page 232. Council Action Requested: Approval to advertise for bids for a biosolids injector vehicle for the Water Reclamation Plant. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 79 DATE: 5/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK (p ..611 DESCRIPTION: ROCHESTERFEST ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNAJSCHO The following licenses, permits and miscellaneous activities are needed for the Rochesterfest 2001 events during the week of June 16t'thru June 24h. It is also requested that sound amplification permits be given a blanket approval for waiver of the time requirements for those events that exceed 8:00 PM. DATE OF EVENT LICENSESNERMITS SATURDAY, JUNE 16 Lumberjack Championships Sound Amplification Permit, 33% Beer, Miscellaneous American Heart Ass'n Walk Miscellaneous, Sound Amplification Teddy Bear Picnic Sound Amplification Cemetery Walk Miscellaneous Kite Festival Miscellaneous SUNDAY, JUNE 17 Lumberjack Championships Sound Amplification Permit, 3.2% Beer, Miscellaneous Prayer & Praise March Miscellaneous, Sound Amplification MONDAY, JUNE 19 Downtown Noon Entertainment Sound Amplification Permit Christian Children's Activities Sound Amplification Permit Ice Cream Social Sound Amplification Permit, Miscellaneous Karoke/Comedy Night Sound Amplification Permit TUESDAY, JUNE 19 Downtown Noon Entertainment Sound Amplification Permit Christian Children's Activities sound Amplification Teen Dance Dance, Sound Amplification Permit WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20 Downtown Noon Entertainment Sound Amplification Permit Christian Children's Activities Sound Amplification Permit Kiwanis Parent/Child Fair Miscellaneous Family Fun Night Sound Amplification Permit t,OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to: �SROCHESTERFEST ACTIVITIES PAGE2 May 21, 2001 THURSDAY, NNE 21 Downtown Noon Entertainment Rockin Recess Country Night FRIDAY, NNE 22 Downtown Noon Entertainment Fabulous Friday Night Dance Grand Parade Senior Citizen Center Pre -Parade Party SATURDAY, JUNE 23 Lourdes Alumni & Friends Street Dance Bicycle Race SUNDAY, JUNE 24 Alternate Street Dance Date 1860's Baseball Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit. Dance, 3.2% Beer Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit. Dance. 3.2% Beer Sound Amplification Permit, Parade Miscellaneous Sound Amplification Permit Sound Amplification Permit. Dance, 3.2% Beer Miscellaneous Sound Amplification Permit. Dance, 3.2% Beer Sound Amplification 4 FREE ROCHESTERFEST BUTTON WILL BE GIVEN WITH NEW OR RENEWAL PARKING KEYS COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the above Rochesterfest Activities. I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING %� DATE: 5/21/OI AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D -Z07 I I ESCRIPTION: STREET CLOSINGS, METERS BAGGED PREPARED BY: j ROCHESTERFEST 2001 DONNA 1 SCHOTT The following street closings are needed for the Rochesterfest Celebration for 2001 running June 16'h thru June 24d'. Street closing have been cleared through the Public Works and Police Departments. Saturday, June 16th & Sunday, June 17tn Streets Closed: East Silver Lake Drive from 7 h to 14d' Street from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Barricades to be manned for Handicapped Access Saturday, June 161h 8:00 AM through Sunday, June 24th Streets Closed and all Meters Bagged Civic Center Dr from Center Street to 2"d Street S.E. — All meters bagged — No Parking 1st Street S.E. from Civic Center Dr to I" Avenue S.E. — All meters bagged — No Parking Meters Bagged: . West Side of In Avenue S.E. Between 2"d Street and I" Street S.E. — Bagged for Reserved Parking 8 Meters in S.E. Corner in Library Lot — Bagged for Reserved Parking Monday, June 18, 2000 — No Parking after 3:00 PM Meters Bagged — Johnson Printing Corner (31 1 2nd Ave NW) 3`d St NW — South Side 2"d Ave NW — East Side Friday, June 22"d Street Closings — Grand Parade 1. Civic Center Dr at Broadway East to 2"d Ave NE 2 2"d Ave NE from 7d' St NE, South to Civic Center Dr (South Bound Lanes Only). 3. 2"d Ave from Civic Center Dr South to East Center St. (All Lanes). Will be closed at 1:00 PM to allow for parade line-up. Local traffic will be Allowed until 5:00 PM. C NCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to: e"TREET CLOSINGS — ROCHESTERFEST 2001 r-APAGE JUNE 5, 2000 FRIDAY, JUNE 22 - CONTINUED 1. Civic Center Dr from East Center St South to 4 h St SE 2.4d' St SE from 3rd Ave SE East to I ld' Ave SE 3. 111h Ave from 41h St SE North to East Center St. 4. East Center St from 11 `h Ave SE West to Civic Center Dr Will be Closed at 5:00 PM During the parade, 9'h Ave and East Center along with 10`h Ave and 41h St SE will be Manned by Police Officer and used as emergency/escape routes for local residents. Meters Bagged and Parking Lots Closed: 1. Meters will be bagged in Mayo Field Parking Lot, Civic Center North Parking Lot. No parking after 4:00 PM. Vehicles to be towed after 5:00 PM 2. Posted NO PARKING signs after 4:00 PM on the parade route (including any metered areas). Vehicles will be towed after 5:00 PM SATURDAY, JUNE 23 Street Closings — Street Dance 1 s` St SE Closed at East End to Accommodate Stage I" Ave SE Closed From I" St to Center St (by Post Bulletin) Will Be Closed at I:00 PM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the Rochesterfest 2001 street closing and bagging of meters. IF THE SATURDAY DANCE IS RAINED OUT IT WILL BE HELD ON SUNDAY, JUNE 24H FROM 3:00 P.M. TO 10:00 P.M. I 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5-21-01 4 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works ITEM NO. D - 28 i EM DESCRIPTION: Traffic Signal Installation Bid Award PREPARED BY: D. Rossman Bids were received on Wednesday May 9.2001 for Project No. M1-51 (J6325) Traffic Signals at Intersection of CSAH 1 (111h avenue SE) & 24i6 Street SE The bids received were: Vendor Bid Amount Winkels Electric Inc $138,396 Nietz Electric Inc. $145,800 Accurate Electric Inc $177,490 Engineers Estimate $136,300 This signal project is included in the 2(XI1-2006 Capital Improvement Program budget (item 8, page 40). The project will be funded with 50% Municipal State Aid funds and 50% County State Aid Funds. Staff recommends to proceed with the bid of Winkels Electric Inc. The bid has been reviewed with the County Engineer, and he concurs with this recommendation. The anticipated completion date is Aug, -a 15, 2001. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution awarding the contract to Winkels Electric of 111 21' Street SE, Rochester, MN. 55904, and authorize The Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contract. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION* ORIGINATING DEPT- ITEM NO - CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ,D -oaq 'ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate —City Land Sale —Lot 1, Block 2 Technology Park 2" PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur The City has discussed, over the past two years, a conveyance of a portion of City Property located in Technology Park to the Mayo Foundation. As part of the proposed sale the Staff negotiated, an easement for sanitary sewer and bikepath are to be provided in the Cascade Lake area across the Mayo Foundation Property. This issue was brought to the Council in late 1999 to allow Staff to negotiate the transaction. The terms of the conveyance have been worked out and include: • Purchase price of $376,375 • Dedication of sanitary sewer and bike path easement in the Cascade Lake Area • Allowance to have Mayo use this site for some of the staging area of for the Gonda Construction. • Restrictions on the placement of Billboards on the Technology Park Property. • Closing on the Technology Park Property must occur prior to 8/1/2003 j MM y951 Y &Istin Ma o Pr Property to Purchase By Mayo Foundation r±"' COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of a resolution authorizing the sale of Lot 1 Block 2, Technology Park 2nd to the Mayo Alk Foundation. 'qFCOUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5-21-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS PLA NIING ia _' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Land Use Plan Amendment #00.08. The applicant is proposing to PREPARED 13 amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 46 Mitzi A. Baker, acres of land for "commercial" land uses, the property is currently designated for "low Senior Planner density residential" and "medium density residential" types of uses. The�roperty is located along the north side of 48`h St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11 Ave. SW. May 16, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 27, 2000. Staver moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08, with staff suggested findings. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-3, with Werven, Schultze and Petersson voting nay. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council shall hold a public hearing. The Council may approve or deny this petition. The Council's decision must be supported by findings based on the criteria listed in the Land Use Plan (as included in the staff report). 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the land use plan amendment as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated December 22, 2000 2. Minutes of December 27, 2000 CPZC Meetings Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Kane & Johnson 6. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday May 21, 2001 in the Council ! Board Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building COUNCIL ACTION: Lion By: Seconded By: Action: F -�.90 A a � g� � g a AMOL TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: December 22, 2000 W p■11 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 5071285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 507/285-6224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08. The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 46 acres of land for "commercial" land uses, the property is currently designated for "low density residential" and "medium density residential" types of uses. The property is located along the north side of 48`h St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11 h Ave. SW. Planning Department Review: Petitioner: R.L. Hexum & Associates 2640 North Highway 63 Rochester, MN 55906 Property Owner: Graham Properties Limited Partnership 20 2 Avenue SW, Room 219 Rochester, MN 55902 Consultant: Kane & Johnson Architects, Inc. 2460 Highway 63 North Suite 100 Rochester. MN 55906 Location of Property: The property is located north of 48" St. SW between T.H. 63 and 11"' Ave. SW. Requested Action: The petitioner is requesting to amend the land use plan designation from "low density residential" and .'medium density residential" to the "Commercial" designation on 45.66 acres of land. Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped agricultural land that includes pasture, crop land and a farmstead. ,gym AN EOUALOPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER It Page 2 • V LUP 00-08 December 22, 2000 The property is designated for "low density residential' and "medium density residential' types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Proposed Land Use: A petition to amend the zoning district for this property is being reviewed concurrently with this application. The applicant is proposing M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) zoning for this property, which would allow for mixed commercial and industrial development. Adjacent Land Use and North: Undeveloped land zoned M-1 (Mixed Zoning: Commercial -Industrial), in the City. Conditional Use Permits have been approved for a portion of this property to be utilized for mining/extraction activities. This property was re -zoned in 1998 from R-1. South: Across 48th St. SW is property zoned B-4 (General Commercial) at the intersection with T.H. 63 S. The rest of the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). A public park is located adjacent to 11'" Ave. SW. East: The east boundary of this site is adjacent to T.H. 63. The property lying east of T.N. 63 is currently zoned R-1. West: Property located west of 11'" Ave. SW is currently outside of the City. There area several residential lots in the RA Rural Residential) District along the west side of 11' Ave. SW. Transportation Access A portion of this property is included in Official Map #12, which identifies right-of-way limits for a future interchange at 48" St. Access to this property will be limited to one access along 481" St. SW, as shown on the General Development Plan for this property. Access is also proposed along 111" Ave. SW. Thoroughfare Plan: ROCOG completed a Corridor Study of the TH 63 corridor from TH 52 to Interstate 90 in 1995. The purpose of the study was to identify the preferred long-term facility design for the corridor. The adopted plan suggests that the long-term goal should be to move towards eventual development of a freeway, with access to TH 63 provided via interchanges. Locations that were identified for future interchange development include 40'" and 48v' Streets South. In addition, the Currently Valid Thoroughfare plan identifies a future north -south collector street between 40t' Street SW and 48"Street SW. rI �`0 Page 3 • • / `LUP 00-08 December 22, 2000 Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Criteria & Suggested Findings: 1. Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division 2. See comments attached to GDP #159 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of Land Use Plan Map The petitioner is proposing a Land Use Plan Amendment from the "low density residential" and ,'medium density residential" designations to the "commercial" designation on 45.66 acres of land located north of 48th Street SW and west of T.H. 63 S. There are several different "commercial" land use categories within the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. They include: :• Neighborhood Shopping centers (4-8 acres) • Community Shopping centers (15-25 acres) Regional Shopping centers (40+ acres) Highway Commercial (on major highway approach) In evaluating this application, it appears as though the property falls within two of these categories, Regional Shopping Centers and Highway Commercial. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan identifies location criteria for "Regional Shopping Centers", defined as including one or more major department stores, or several specialty stores, best suited in areas with the following characteristics: a) Located at the intersection of a major arterial or higher level street with similar or higher level streets. Finding: T.H. 63 is designated as a Freeway on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, 48'" Street is designated as an Upgrade Arterial. This property is located at the intersection of a planned Arterial and a higher order roadway. An interchange is planned for this intersection, which is slated for construction in 2003, The Thoroughfare Plan also identifies a future Collector roadway to be located between 48" St. SW and 40t' St. SW. b) Having level terrain. Finding: The easterly portion of this site, adjacent to TH 63 is relatively level to gently rolling. Moving westerly, the property ascends to the top of a hill. Elevations range from 1070 adjacent to TH 63 to 1178 at the top of the hill. The criteria requiring level terrain is not met for over half of this site. Other factors that will change the character of this area, and the topography of this site, should be given consideration. Access to this propertyfrom 4? St. SW will be limited to one location that is fixed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 48" St.. The fixed location ofaccess to 48" St. is located at the southern base of a hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 40`" St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 48` St. SW and TH 63 and upgrading 4? St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the north was designatedfor "industrial" uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain of less than 6%slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. it C Page 4 • • �� LUP 00-08 December 22, 2000 c) Having good pedestrian, vehicular, and transit access. Finding: Planned improvements for this area include an interchange at 48" St. and TH 63, upgrading 48" St. to an arterial road with pedestrian facilities along both sides of the road, and a future collector road between 48" St. SW and 40" St. SW. In addition, II" Ave. is designated a collector on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan. Upon completion of the planned improvements, this property will have good vehicular and pedestrian access. d) Having at least 40 acres of land suitable for commercial development. Finding: The portion of the property included in this petition includes 45.66 acres of land. Access to this propertyfrom 48" St. SW will be limited to one location that is fixed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 48" St.. The fixed location of access to 48" St. is located a1 the southern base of a hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 40" St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 48" St. SW and TH 63 and upgrading 48" St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the north was designated for "industrial" uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that properly did not meet the requirementfor level terrain of less than 6% slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan also includes criteria for Highway Commercial uses. Highway commercial uses, which include uses oriented primarily to serving the traveling public, such as gas stations, drive-in restaurants, truck stops, motels, hotels, and so on, as well as uses requiring large areas of highway frontage, such as automobile dealerships, are most suitable in areas with the following characteristics: a) On major highway approaches with access to a frontage road (or in the case of lodging establishments, in close proximity to major visitor attractions such as the medical complex). Finding: This property is located at the intersection of 48" St. SW and T.H.63. The ROGOC Thoroughfare Plan identifies a future interchange at this intersection with a future collector road providing access between 48" St. SW and 40" St. SW. This collector road would function as a frontage road between the two roadways. 1n addition, 48" St. SW is designated as a future upgrade arterial road. Since the improvements are not in place at this time, it may be necessary to phase development of this property. b) Having relatively level terrain. Finding: The easterly portion of this site, adjacent to TH 63 is relatively level to gently rolling. Moving westerly, the property ascends to the top of a hill. Elevations range from 1070 adjacent to TH 63 to 1178 at the top of the hill. The criteria requiring level terrain is not met for over half of this site. Otherfactors that will change the character of this area, and the topography of this site, should be given consideration. Access to this property from 48" St. SW will be limited to one location that is fxed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 48" St. SW. The fixed location of access to 48" St. SW is located at the southern base of a hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 4e St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 48" St. SW Page 5 • LUP 00-08 December 22, 2000 and TH 63 and upgrading 48rd St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the north was designated for "industrial "uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain of less than 6% slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. c) Providing for a concentration of similar uses. Finding: In 1998 the abutting property owner to the north petitioned the City to amend the Land Use Plan designation for that property from the "low density residential " designation to the "industrial" designation and also petitioned to re -zone the property from R-I (Mixed Single Family) to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). Those petitions were approved in June 1998, resulting in approximately 54.66 acres of land located east of Willow Creek, north of this property, being desigruued for "industrial" uses and being zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). Property included in this petition is proposed to be designated "commercial". A petition to re -zone this property to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district is being considered concurrent with this petition. Amending the land use plan designation for this property from "low density residential " to "commercial" could provide for a concentration of similar uses. d) Not detrimental to the safety or appearance of the surrounding area. Finding: Amending the land use plan designation for this property will likely affect the general appearance of this area and the natural topography. There are, however, other factors that will contribute to changing the appearance of this area. The fixed location of access to this property from 48ff' St. SW, to some degree, dictates a need to alter the landscape to provide access to and through this site. This access location is at the southern toe of the hill on this property. Future construction of an interchange at 48ih St. SW and TH 63, a collector road between 40' St. SW and 40' St. SW and upgrades to 48ih St. SW will also change the character of this area. Additionally, approval to amend the land use plan designation and zoning for the abutting property to the north to an " industrial " land use designation and M-1 zoning district in 1998 will contribute to a change in the appearance of the surrounding area. The hill located on the property included in this petition extends north onto the abutting property. With the infrastructure improvements planned for this area, approval of this land use plan amendment is not expected to be detrimental to the safety of the surrounding area. Since the roadway improvements are not currently in -place, this development may need to be phased. Staff Recommendation: It appears as though this development meets most of the criteria for a "commercial" land use plan designation under the "regional shopping center" and/or "highway commercial" categories. Since infrastructure improvements are not currently in -place, it may be necessary to phase development of this property to coincide with the improvements. The criteria requiring level terrain is not met for over half of this site. Other factors that will change the character of this area, and the topography of this site, should be given consideration. Access to this property from 481h St. SW will be limited to one location that is fixed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 481h St. SW. The fixed location of access to 48th St. SW is located at the southern base of a hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 401h St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography of this property, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 48 St. SW and TH 63 and upgrading 48th St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the 41 Page 6 • • u� LUP 00-08 V December 22, 2000 north was designated for "industrial' uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain of less than 6% slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. Based on the recommended findings and with consideration for outside factors that will impact the natural topography of this site, staff suggest that the request to amend the land use plan to designate 45.66 acres for "commercial" uses, as petitioned for, is reasonable. nn Is 1 �flc0'►��L�ar�+� fosse\f.-mc!�•f a ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING DATE: December 20, 2000 HOUSINGIHRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 FROM: Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation DivisiaMSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: LUP 0-08, Rezone 0-16, RL Hexum & Associates The proposed site is bordered on three sides by roadway corridors designated as higher level streets on the ROCOG Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. These include: — TH 63 on the east, a corridor designated for long term upgrading to a freeway on the Thoroughfare Plan; — 48th St, on the south, a corridor designated as a future arterial street on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. 481h St. will be the primary east -west street in the north Willow Creek area, planned to extend from the TH 52/Marion Rd interchange on the east to CSAH 8 and possibly CR 104 on the west — 111h Ave. SW on the west, designated as a collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan The development of a highway improvement project to upgrade TH 63 to a freeway facility from TH 52 south past 48`h St. has been in the planning and design stages since 1994, in 1995 the TH 63 South Corridor Study was completed which reaffirmed the historic Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway, and identified the need for two interchanges at 40'h and 48th Streets in order to provide adequate capacity to provide for local access to/from TH 63 from what was expected to be a significant area of commercial/industrial zoning. In fact much of the area has now been zoned for these uses, including the lands to the north of the site as well as the area east between TH 63 and St. Bridget's Road. In 1998 MnDOT, the City of Rochester and Olmsted County agreed to begin the next phase of project development activities that would lead to the eventual construction of the planned interchanges by undertaking the TH 63 Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project. In 1999 funding for the first interchange was secured through MNDOT's annual project selection process, and this year the remaining funding for construction of the second interchange and reconstruction of connecting roads was secured through supplemental funds appropriated by the Legislature for upgrading of High Priority Interregional Corridors. The Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project has evaluated capacity needs, interchange and roadway design options, and a range of social, environmental and economic impacts. A preferred design has been identified which includes a diamond interchange at the intersection of 48'h St. and TH 63. As part of the design process the following access and cross section design features affecting the property under consideration are included in the preferred design altemative: C AN EQUAL OPPORTUNrrY/APFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER — One access along the 481" St. frontage which is intended to serve as the location for a public collector street that will extend between 401" and 481" St. cn the west side of TH 63. No individual lot access will be accommodated off of 48`" St. The access location will jointly serve the property on the south side of 48'h St. as well as serve as the intersection for the planned collector street. The spacing of the intersection from the interchange ramps is dictated by the needs for queue storage at both the ramp and the frontage road intersections. With the expected high intensity of development, a distance of approximately 650 feet was identified as the recommended spacing. This is approximately double the distance found between the ramp and frontage roads at locations such as the 41°t St. and 55'" St. NW interchanges. Those interchanges provide good examples of inadequate spacing between ramps and frontage roads, particularly during peak hour conditions. — The plan indicates the necessary right of way for the off -ramp as well as right of way needs along 48'" St. SW. Based on long term traffic capacity needs, 48`s St. will be constructed as a four lane divided roadway with right and left turn bays provided at all intersections. Additionally, sidewalk will be provided along the north side of the corridor and a trail facility along the south side of the corridor. Staff would note that in terms of the proposed collector street (Commercial Drive) the element that has been fixed as part of the TH 63 design process is the location of the intersection with 4e St. The actual alignment of the road north of 48u' St, could be varied if there was agreement between the abutting owners for an alternative location for the road. In reviewing the proposed plan, staff would note that additional right of way above that shown on the GDP will be needed for 11 Ave. SW, consistent with its designation as a collector street corridor. Consistent with city policy, substandard street and capacity charges will apply to the property, and in lieu of preparing a Traffic Impact Study (which essentially has been completed as part of the TH 63 Preliminary Design study) a prorated contribution towards completion of that work by the consultant for MNDOT will be expected. i WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number: WP-400-Ob -�- -;-2C'I'l 00-Ib LL. �+v� No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. it No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. Other or Explanation From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative ROCHESTER q3 Minnesota 12/12/00 TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur REVISED APPLICATION 12/12/00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4° Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the REVISED application for General Development Plan #159, LUPA#00-08, & ZONE#00-16 on the R.L. Hexum & Associates (48ih St S property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Note: New comments are indicated in BOLD. 1. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, substandard street reconstruction charges & Traffic Improvement District charges, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, and contributions for public infrastructure. 2. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. The use of on -site detention is discussed in the narrative for the GDP plan. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance & ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of development. 3. Controlled access is required along the T.H. 63 ROW, along 48lb St SW, 11t, Ave SW, & Frontage Road, except for street / driveway openings approved on the plat(s). The Frontage Road access spacing / openings shall line up across the street from other access openings. 4. A Traffic Impact Report is required, or the Owner may amend the current Traffic Analysis in the T.H. 63 Environmental Assessment documents.. 5. Traffic Improvement District contribution, and/or Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge will be applicable for Southwest Traffic Improvements, including 11'" Ave SW&48'"StSW. i C:ITEMPIGDP159 REVISED 12-7-OO.doc t ROCHESTER Minnesota t 12/12/00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 O' Street SE Room 108 TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740 2122 Campus Drive SE 507-287-7800 Rochester, MN 55904 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur 6. Developer agrees to dedicate their proportional amount of right of way for the 48`" St SW / T.H. 63 interchange. Any ROW needed in addition to the area dedicated shall be platted and reserved with the first phase of this development. Terms of the conveyance shall be outlined in the Development Agreement. 7. The Owner needs to address long term maintenance and ownership of the floodway. 8. Pedestrian facilities will be required along all new public roads within this property, and along the north side of 48 St SW. 9. Specific routing of sanitary sewer lines will be reviewed further during the platting stages. 10. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure. 11. A substantial Land Alteration Permit will be required for the grading of this property. 12. It appears that the proposed R-1 development west of Willow Creek may have an impact on the floodway and wetlands. Shoreland Zoning requirements may limit development along 11'b Ave. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of the property (rates are subject to annual review and change): -o Sanitary Sewer Availability (SAC) and Connection Charges for J8989. Water Availability Charge (WAC) for J8868 A proportional share contribution to the SW TID. C:VTEMP=P159 REVISED 12-7-OO.doc • • qs ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPAR MENT / MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2000 TO: Jennifer Gamess Planning SUBJECT: General Development Plan #159 R L Hexum & Associates The commercial / industrial zoned property is not subject to parkland dedication requirements. The R2 zoned property will be subject to parkland dedication requirements. The dedication should be in the form of cash in lieu of land. The internal trail system should connect to pedestrian facilities along 48`h Street and 11 Avenue. \\CITY OF ROCHESTER\CITYHALL\PARM DSTOTZ\2000\DEDICATION\SW 2897\GDP 159 HEXUM.DOC ��(J � � ,�pCHCSTEX•11 /.1'1. / AL..1 &MU CRY ROCHESTER�`:p�= '. RATE •� D.A L'LUST'�* DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief Rochester Fire Department 201 4th Street SE, Room 10 Rochester, MN 55904-3726 (507)265-8072 FAX #(507) 285-8256 DATE: November 30, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief SUBJECT: 1. Land Use Plan Amend.#00-08 and Zoning District Amend.#00-16, by R.L. Hexum & Assoc. 2. General Development Plan #159 by R.L Hexum & Assoc., located north of 48th St SW, west of TH 63 and east of 11th Ave SW. This project is presently beyond the 4 minute fire response standard of the Rochester Fire Department and is adding 82 acres of commercial lots, to the city's fire protection area. With that regard the fire code has the following requirements: 1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. 2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. All fire department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy. 4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division R.L. Hexum & Assoc., 2460 Hwy 63 North, Rochester, Mn. 55906 Yaggy Colby Assoc., 717 3rd Ave. SE, Rochester, Mn. 55904 q 7 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 507.285-8231 December 18, 2000 Jennifer Garness Planning Department Dear Jennifer: The Public Works Department has reviewed Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08 and Zoning District Amendment #00-16 by R.L. Hexum & Associates and has the following comments: South access onto Ill Ave. S.W. appears very close to the 48d' St. intersection. Sincerely, Michael Sheehan County Engineer MTS: bw t1engindocVlarzone.doc mow+. Administration Building Maintenance AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste OLMSTED SOIL AND ATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT/ 1485 Industrial Drive NW Room 102 Rochester, Minnesc—01 (507)280-2850 Fax (507) 280-2858 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Date: December 1, 2000 To: Jennifer Garness From: Tony Hill RE: General Development Plan #159— R.L. Hexum & Associates General Development Plan Review Decorah Edge Groundwater Recharge Area: Is present within the GDP. It appears that the Decorah Edge Recharge Area underlies commercial lot areas 1,2, and 4. This assessment is based on the Olmsted County Geological Atlas and bedrock mapping using ArcView coverages of the two -foot contour lines. More accurate geologic information regarding the elevation of the Decorah edge contact may be available from borings completed near the site. General development recommendations for the Decorah Edge setting should be considered for this site. Decorah Edge Recommendations 1. Delinatation of the high water table conditions be completed. 2. Limit the extent of grading that can occur where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. 3. Develop vertical and lateral setbacks to minimize the disruption of groundwater recharge where the Decorah shale is the first encountered bedrock. 4. In areas where the Decorah shale does become disturb, require that intercepted recharge water be reinfiltrated to minimize disruption of recharge processes. 5. Clay plugs be installed in utility trenches as means of maintaining dispersed groundwater recharge flows. 6. Preserve the unique hydric features of the site. If some areas of the site become altered due to regrading we recommend preserving the lower Glenwood shale formation. The Glenwood formation is a low conductivity unit that is well known to function as a confining bed for the St. Peter sandstone formation. Preserving the Glenwood shale formation will allow for some natural protection of the groundwater system. AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Soils Information: Erodible Soils: There appears to be highly erodible soils (Lindstrom silt loam-401 B, Channahon loam-472C, Brodale flaggy loam-488F, and Brodale-Sogan complex-973D) within the proposed plat. Erosion control and runoff measures must be installed and maintained during all phases of construction. Hydric Soils: Review of the Olmsted County Soil Survey indicated that hydric soils (Maxfield silt loam-378, and Littleton silt loam-47713) are present within the plat. Wetlands: National Wetland Inventory Maps indicated that wetlands are present within the plat. Further delineation is required. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 280-2850. a y w Q o, L VV / c''na ocDcc T� r_ m LO r G. G N O 0 N C That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter lying westerly of the westerly right of way line of State Trunk Highway No.63, all in Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, Except the west 1200.00 feet thereof. Said tract contains 45.66 acres, more or less. Land Use Density Area 1 24.55 acres Gross acreage 492,080 sq. ft. Net commercial lots (Highway Commercial) 246,040 sq. ft. Max. building area (0.5 FAR) Area 2 21.45 acrest Gross acreage 934,362 sq. ft. Net commercial lots (Highway Commercial) 467,181 sq. ft. Max. building area (0.5 FAR) R-2 DESCRIPTION The west 1200.00 feet of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted Count}, Minnesota. Said tract contains 36.32 acres, more or less. Land Use Densitv Area 3 36.00 acres' Gross acreage 19.27 acres` Open space/floodway 13.09 acres' Net residential/ town home lots 91 units. Max. numbers of units (7/acres) 'X C L [7Ur #7101 Mfriu 11/O1/00 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SOUTH BROADWAY PARTNERS The proposed development is an approximate 82-acre parcel located at the northwest comer of State Highway 63 and 48`s Street SW. The existing site topography ranges from relatively flat floodplain along the western portion of the site, to a rolling hilltop with steep side slopes along the middle to northern portion of the site. Storm water management for this area could be self- contained within the site by construction of on -site retention facilities, or could be handled by participation in the storm water management plan. Existing City sanitary sewer is located along TH 63 at the east side of the property. Existing City water main is located approximately 700' south of 48's Street at the center of the property. The national wetland inventory maps show several possible wetland areas in the west central portion of the site. A branch of Willow Creek crosses the western portion of the site, and adjoining this creek are areas in Flood Zone A.E. The lower portions of the site along Willow Creek and along the easterly edge are generally silt loam soils with a high water table. The upper portion through the central part of the site is generally silt loam soils with shallow limestone bedrock. The developer is requesting that the west 1,200 sq. ft. of the site be zoned for low -density residential and the balance of the site be zoned for mixed commercial/industrial use. The eventual use for the property may be either industrial or business related. The floodplain area along Willow Creek would be developed as a site amenity such as wetland restoration, storm water ponds, pedestrian walkways, recreation, etc. It is also possible that this floodplain area could be somewhat minimized by modifications within the floodplain or by constructions within the floodplain or by construction of retention facilities. Modifications to the floodplain and any related development would require separate approvals. The phasing of the development would generally proceed from east to west, with the more visible and accessible areas along Highway 63 being developed first. The existing topography will be significantly altered to by the proposed north -south service road, which is part of the current official street map for this area. As a result of this alteration, the adjacent land will required re -shaping in order to provide erosion control, access and economic use. 4 Page 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 t! CONTINUED ITEMS: Eastwood Bank Building. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff repo ed ber 22, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Roche- Imsted Planning artment. Mr. Brede move a le Arboretum Special District Amendment Ite_Plan #00-02 to Janu . 2001 Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried S�1 Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08 and Zoning District Amendment #00-16 by R.L. Hexum & Associates. The applicant is proposing to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan to designate approximately 46 acres of land for "commercial" land uses, the property is currently designated for "low density residential" and "medium density residential" types of uses. The applicant is also proposing to re -zone approximately 46 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district and to rezone approximately 36 acres of land from R-1 to R-2 (Low Density Residential). The property is located along the north side of 48 St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11 Ave. SW. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated December 22, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained that staff struggled with the finding regarding level terrain, as it is not level. She described the terrain on the property. Ms. Baker showed several maps of the proposed diamond interchange. She also directed the Commission's attention to Charlie Reiter's memo, in the staff report, regarding the Thoroughfare Plan, Mr. Staver asked when the roadway improvement would begin. Ms. Baker responded that the construction would begin within the next three years. Mr. Slaver asked if the funding is presently available. Ms. Baker responded yes. Mr. Burke asked if the applicant intended on removing the hill. Ms. Baker deferred the question to the applicant's representative, Tom Hexum. Discussion ensued regarding the frontage road. Ms. Baker explained that the alignment of roadways is generally discussed when referring to the general development plan. Mr. Werven asked if certain criteria weighed heavier on staff than others. He questioned if having level terrain would be more important than having an access to the highway. I Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Ms. Baker responded that staff did not discuss whether or not certain criteria were more important than the others were. She explained that the traffic considerations were significant in the analysis. Mr. Werven questioned if there was anything in the Ordinance stating that a certain percentage of terrain could or could not be considered. Ms. Baker responded no. Mr. Werven expressed concern regarding staffs recommendation, as he did not believe it was a strong recommendation. He questioned if having level terrain wasn't more important than indicated in the staff report. Ms. Baker responded that there were significant discussions among staff regarding the application. She indicated that they did struggle with the terrain, as there is a definite hill on the property. She explained that they came up with their recommendation by looking at outside factors and the Thoroughfare Plan. She explained that any development of the property would have a significant impact on the hill. Ms. Schultze asked if Commercial Drive was a collector road. Ms. Baker responded yes. Mr. Burke asked if, in order to get a collector road in place, would there need to be major grading on the property. Ms. Baker responded yes. She indicated that gaining access to the property, in general, would have a significant impact on the hill. Ms. Schultze asked if access could go farther east. Ms. Baker responded no. Ms. Schultze stated that, when the Council rezoned the parcels to the north a couple years ago and with consideration of the current accesses, they predetermined that the hill would be changed. Mr. Quinn stated that the applicant would need to do a lot of grading on the property, due to elevation. Mr. Brede asked if the people who plot the roads have criteria as to how much grading can occur. Ms. Baker responded that the alignment was not fixed. She explained that the Thoroughfare Plan indicates that the roadway must go through the property to 40th Street. Ms. Baker stated that the applicant would need to come back to the Commission with an application for an excavation or substantial land alteration permit in the future. T Page 4 ' City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 J Mr. Tom Hexum, representative of R. L. Hexum and Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the access to 48" Street and the frontage road have been predetermined by lawsuits. He explained the different disputes between himself and neighboring property owners. He indicated that there are certain expectations that they need to meet, as the property is located at the south entrance to the City of Rochester. He also explained how they needed to match grades at access points. Mr. Hexum stated that the City Council officiated Official Street Map #12, which indicates where the frontage road will be located, what the width would be, and where the specific access points should go. Mr. Hexum explained the process he would need to go through before construction would commence in the spring of 2003. Mr. Hexum stated that they did not have any users identified for the parcel. They are only reacting to circumstances evolving around them. He explained that the use of the property should be used commercially, due to nature of the area. He discussed a possible plan for the property. Discussion ensued regarding the elevation needed for the road to reach the overpass. Mr. Hexum stated that the next application he would be submitting to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department would be a substantial land alteration application to go through the mining process. Mr. Quinn asked if there was a big grade difference between the proposed M-1 zoning district and R-2 zoning district. Mr. Hexum replied yes. He explained that the original application was for the entire property to be zoned M-1. However, staff pointed out that they could still create ponds along the river in the R-2 zoning district. He explained that the change reflected what they intended to accomplish in the end. Therefore, they revised their original application as indicated. Mr. Hexum explained how they came up with the cut off between the M-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Mr. Werven asked if a neighborhood meeting was held. Mr. Hexum replied yes. He indicated that Mr. Gary Swanson, Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Nestler, and Mr. Kellner attended. He stated that they did not have any specific concerns about the project. He indicated that they were just curious about what was happening. Mr. Harvey Ratzloff, who owns property to the west of the property, addressed the Commission. He stated that the hill is solid rock and, if Mr. Hexum's zoning request was not approved, the State could possibly condemn it. He stated that he believes Mr. Hexum has provided a good plan. He explained what the surrounding properties look like around Mr. Hexum's property. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Werven moved to recommend denial of Land Use Plan Amendmentt#00-08--V _R L-, I Page 5 • f1l n City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes VVV��� Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Hexum & Associates based on the finding that it does not meet the criteria of level terrain. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Mr. Slaver moved to recommend approval of Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08 by R.L. Hexum & Associates with staff -suggested criteria and findings, particularly with the idea that the character the area is changing and the potential future -use seems -more in concert with what is being planned for that area. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. Mr. Werven expressed concern regarding ground water and natural resources. Mr. Staver stated that he agreed with Mr. Werven, to a point. He stated that he did not like seeing hillsides leveled. However, the Council set the tone for the area, in terms of how they intend on using the land. Also, Mr. Ratzloff commented that the State could potentially condemn the property and he would like to keep control. Ms. Schultze asked, if the property was not in the M-1 zoning district and the property to the north was in the M-1 zoning district, would a collector road be needed from 48th Street to 401h Street. Ms. Baker responded that it was on the Thoroughfare Plan before either of the properties were designated for industrial uses. I The motion carried 5-3, with Mr. Werven, Ms. Schultze, and Ms. Petersson voting nay. it Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of Zoning pistnct E►menament imu-io oy K.L. Hexum & Associates based on staffs recommendation:and findings Mr. Staver. seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Mn Werven and Ms. Schultze voting Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report is on file at the Roc Ms. Baker explained what a site dated ber 22, 2000, to the Commission. The Department. was. Ms. Baker stated that she woul , e to add the follows ndition as number 9: "Parkland dedication requirements for development shall t me cash in lieu of land. The internal trail systemXstatedthere with public trails along 11a Avenu W to 48" Street SW." Ms. Baker are internal trails shown within the reside area and flood plain area that sd to future trails on 48th Street and into 11'h A e. She stated that the accesset, in which the collector roadway will intersect, is d. She F9 h-A Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 kxum & Associates based on the finding tePt m. The moan failed due to lack of a second. r. Staver moNed to • /0 does not meet Use Plan Hexum & Assoc es with staff -suggested criteria and findings articularly with the idea that the character BCthe area is changing and the potential ure use seems more in concert with what is inq planned for that area. Mr. Quinfi seconded the motion. Mr. Werven expressed conNrn regarding ground waterand natural resources. Mr. Slaver stated that he agree ith Mr. Werven;Ito a point. He stated that he did not like seeing hillsides leveled. However, a Council set the tone for the area, in terms of how they intend on using the land. Also, Mr. R loeccommented that the State could potentially condemn the property and he would li, keep control. Ms. Schultze asked, if the propepwas not in a M-1 zoning district and the property to the north was in the M-1 zoning district, would a colle r road be needed from 48th Street to 40'h Street. Ms. Baker responde that it was on the Thoroughfare Pla efore either of the properties were designated for indystrial uses. with Mr. Werven. Ms. Mr. Quo moved to recommend approval of Zoning District Amend t #00-15 by R.L. Hexo & Associates based on staffs recommendation and findings. Nrvtkgtaver seg6nded the motion. The motion carried 6-2, with Mr. Werven and Ms. ScRbke voting General Development Plan #159 bV R.L. Hexum & Associates. The applicant is proposing to develop approximately 62 acres of land located along the north side of 48 St. SW. west of T H 63 and east of 11 Ave SW The Plan identifies a future off ramp, frontage road, and lots for commercial -industrial development within the eastern 46 acres and future ponds, open space and residential development in the western 36 acres. A Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning District Amendment are being considered concurrent with this application. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated December 22, 2000, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker explained what a site capacity calculation was. Ms. Baker stated that she would like to add the following condition as number 9: "Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be met via cash in lieu of land. The internal trail system should connect with public trails along 11th Avenue SW to 48th Street SW." Ms. Baker stated that there are internal trails shown within the residential area and flood plain area that could be connected to future trails on 48th Street and into 11th Avenue. She stated that the access point at 48th Street, in which the collector roadway will intersect, is fixed. She f \DPage I•_ City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 explained that this was the first time she had heard that the northern point of the collector road is fixed. She indicated that she would need to check into the issue before it goes to Council. She indicated that, if it is fixed, the realignment of the roadway might not be an option. However, she pointed out the benefits of realigning the roadway. Ms. Baker stated that there would be substantial investments in the infrastructure adjacent to the property. Therefore, it makes sense to allow development on both sides of the roadway to be more efficient. Discussion ensued regarding access to certain parcels. Mr. Tom Hexum, representative of R. L. Hexum and Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Council adopted Official Street Map #12 on August 1, 2000, which outlined the legal description of the frontage road. He explained that he received that legal description from the consultant of MnDOT. He indicated that they could not receive any mining permits or zoning permits, until the frontage road issue was resolved. Mr. Hexum stated that MnDOT and the City have already completed three or four wetland studies. Therefore, he would like Condition Number 4 revised to include "If the MnDOT, City, and Olmsted County studies of record are not sufficient, they would provide one." Mr. Hexum stated that he did not like the vagueness of Condition Number 5. He would like the improvements defined and have a timeline associated with it. Mr. Hexum asked that the word "shall", in Condition Number 7, be changed to "may". He stated ' that he would like the choice to dispute the US 63 Corridor Traffic Study that was publicly funded. Ms. Dorothy Groth, of 107 48t' Street SW, addressed the Commission. She indicated that the hill had been tested and it is not solid rock. She informed the Commission that there are springs on the side of the hill. Mr. Gary Kellner, of 4440 Highway 63 South, addressed the Commission. He asked Mr. Hexum if the north and south accesses for the frontage road have been predetermined. Mr. Hexum responded that the adopted Official Street Map #12 made it predetermined. He indicated that the City Council adopted the map on August 1, 2000. Mr. Kellner asked if Mr. Hexum was going to pay for the road connecting from 40'h Street to 48th Street. Mr. Hexum replied that he was unsure who was going to pay for the frontage road. Mr. Kellner stated that the State does not have any intentions on purchasing the right-of-way and that the frontage road is no longer in existence. He stated that Frank Kottschade told him that the road did not exist. Ms. Baker stated that she did not understand the Official Street Map #12 to include the frontage road. She indicated that she would find out whether or not the frontage road was a part of it before the Council meeting. She indicated that she did not believe MnDOT planned on participating with regard to the frontage road. Page 7 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes r Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 I Mr. Hexum stated that he did not want it to be part of the official street map. However, the City adopted it and Richard Freese gave him the legal description for it. Ms. Schultze asked staff to respond to Mr. Hexum's request that the word "shall" be changed to "may", on Condition Number 7. Ms. Baker suggested leaving Condition Number 4 as is. She indicated that, if staff found that sufficient information was submitted, staff would not need it. Ms. Baker stated that "prior to completion of planned roadway improvements to 48a' Street SW and the interchange at 48th Street and Highway 63" could be added to Condition Number 5. Mr. Ardell asked if there would be associated timelines. Ms. Baker responded that they are presently working with conceptional timelines. Mr. Quinn stated that he believes there is a legislative mandate that the money must be used by 2003. Ms. Schultze commented that the improvements to the road is what gives the property value. She explained that Mr. Hexum couldn't ask the Commission to give him an exact timeframe of when he can improve his property. Ms. Petersson stated that the vagueness that Mr. Hexum referred to was with regard to roads. Ms. Baker stated that, if the Commission were to change the wording from "shall" to "may", in Condition Number 7, they should just leave the condition out. She explained that it would leave it up to the discretion of the applicant. She indicated that she received comments from Charlie Reiter, from the Transportation Division, and the Rochester Public Works Department regarding the need for a traffic study for that property. If a traffic study is not completed, the applicant could pay a contribution to studies that have already been done or are being done. Ms. Petersson stated that the condition, as presently written, states that he has to contribute to previous or current studies, instead of doing his own traffic impact study. Discussion ensued regarding possibly rewording of Condition Number 7. Mr. Quinn questioned if the Commission had the ability to require that the applicant contribute to previous or current studies. Ms. Baker stated that the policy makers would need to decide whether or not the City had the ability. She stated that, if there hadn't been other road projects planned there, he would have to do a traffic impact study. Mr. Staver suggested leaving the condition in place and ask the City Attorney for guidance, prior to the Council meeting. Ms. Baker stated that the condition could be reworded to require a traffic impact study, but at the choice of the applicant, in lieu of doing one, they could contribute. Page 8 • 0 '(OCity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 Ms. Schultze stated that, if Mr. Hexum wishes to disagree with a previous study, he should have the ability to do his own study. She expressed the need to stand behind staff, with the knowledge that the studies that have already been done and have been generally approved by staff. Therefore, she suggested leaving the condition as worded by staff. Mr. Burke suggested the following wording of Condition Number 7 "If a traffic impact study is required, the applicant shall provide at their own expense or prorated contribution towards the completed study." With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the north and south access points are fixed and if the realignment of the roadway would be an option. for 0 ❖ The north/south colh both sides of the roa 2. At the time of 1 tmg, co, St. SW and 11'Ave SW 11"' Avenue and 480 StyS1W consistent with the requtremen Any right-of-way in excess of dedication regwrernents shall way. 3. At the time of platting, the developer shall dedicate thetr phi of way for the 48`" St SW/TH 631nterch"e Wrldht-oif-v submit it to the WILI for review" and app,ro`al: SW eonsistentwith the acihhesi (rive SW' shall be' •rq for fit-0f- �f-right- ion to C,?c t1� 3 It Page 9 • • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: December 27, 2000 5. Development of this property shall be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of planned roadway improvements to 48'h Street SW and the intersection of 48n' Street and Highway 63. 6. Storm Water Management must be provided. for this development. ;Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance and ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of the development. 7. In lieu of preparing a Traffic Impact Study, the applicant shall provide a prorated contribution towards completion of that by the consultant for MNDOT. 8. Prior to Final Plaf submittal, the applicant shall enter Into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to; but notiimited to, phasing this; development, substandard street reconstruction charges and(or,,: _ traffic improvement district charges including 11'" Ave SW and 48 ,. St SW, " stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, peilestnan facilities, right-of-way dedication, extension_ of utilities and contributions for public infrastructure. 9. Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be met via cash in lieu of land. The Internal trail system should connect with public trails along 11"' Avenue SW to 48t° Street SW.op Ms. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay. Ms. Petersson explained that she w open continued to January 10, 2001. Ms. Baker stated that she uld give a staff pi application had been r sed. She stated that and that staff was sting their response. the public hearing, but that the item would be on January 10, 2001, as the referrals have been sent to agencies Ms. Petersso sked if anyone wished to speak with regard he request. No one came forward. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS I PLANNING MEETING 113 DATE: 5-21-01 ITEM NO. eG _C;1- ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #00-16 by R.L. Hexum & Associates. The PREPARED BY: applicant is proposing to re -zone approximately 46 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Mitzi A. Baker, Single Family) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district and to rezone Senior Planner approximately 36 acres of land from R-1 to R-2 (Low Density Residential). The property is located along the north side of 481h St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 111h Ave. SW. A Land Use Plan amendment and General Development Plan are being considered concurrent with this application. May 16, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 27, 2000, to consider this petition. Motion by Quinn, seconded by Staver to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #00-16, with the finding suggested by Staff. Motion carried 6-2 with Werven and Schultze voting nay. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated December 22, 2000. Council Action Needed: 1 ne Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision on this zone change. If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the Zoning for the property. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Kane & Johnson 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday May 21, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. jt- raw GwPA ,haul - UNCIL ACTION: motion By: Seconded By: Action: II 0 • TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: December 22, 2000 •s,I.r.••�.urt /poii`Jo.�ll, �pv_rq�Avnpy, ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 507/285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: Zoning District Amendment #00-16 by R.L. Hexum & Associates. The applicant is proposing to re -zone approximately 46 acres of land from the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial - industrial) district and to rezone approximately 36 acres of land from R-1 to R-2 (Low Density Residential). The property is located along the north side of 48`h St. SW, west of T.H. 63 and east of 11th Ave. SW. A Land Use Plan amendment and General Development Plan are being considered concurrent with this application. Plannino Department Review: Petitioner: R.L. Hexum & Associates 2640 North Highway 63 Rochester, MN 55906 Property Owner: Graham Properties Limited Partnership 20 2 Avenue SW, Room 219 Rochester, MN 55902 Consultant: Kane & Johnson Architects, Inc. 2460 Highway 63 North Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55906 Location of Property: The property is located north of 48'h St. SW between T.H. 63 and 11" Ave. SW. Requested Action: The applicant requests 45.66 acres be re -zoned from R-1 (Mixed Single Family) to M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) and that 36.32 acres of land be re -zoned from R-1 to R-2 (Low Density Residential). Existing Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped agricultural land that includes pasture, crop land and a farmstead. The property is designated for "low density AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER • • Page 2 t December 22, 2000 residential" and "medium density residential" types of uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. Proposed Land Use: A petition to amend the Land Use Plan for 46 acres of this property is being reviewed concurrently with this application. The applicant is proposing "commercial" land use designation for this property, which would allow for mixed commercial and industrial development. Adjacent Land Use and North: Undeveloped land zoned M-1 (Mixed Zoning: Commercial -Industrial), in the City. Conditional Use Permits have been approved for a portion of this property to be utilized for mining/extraction activities. This property was re -zoned in 1998 from R-1. South: Across 481h St. SW is property zoned B-4 (General Commercial) at the intersection with T.H. 63 S. The rest of the property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). A public park is located adjacent to 11'h Ave. SW. East: The east boundary of this site is adjacent to T.H. 63. The property lying east of T.H. 63 is currently zoned R-1. West: Property located west of 111h Ave. SW is currently outside of the City. There area several residential lots in the RA Rural Residential District along the west side of 111h Ave. SW. Transportation Access: A portion of this property is included in Official Map #12, which identifies right-of-way limits for a future interchange at 481h Street and TH 63 and reconstruction of 481h Street. Access to this property will be limited to one location along 48 h St. SW, as shown on the General Development Plan for this property. Access is also proposed along 11'h Ave. SW to serve a portion of the property proposed for residential/townhome development. The development of a highway improvement project to upgrade TH 63 to a freeway facility from TH 52 south past 481h St. has been in the planning and design stages since 1994. In 1995 the TH 63 South Corridor Study was completed which reaffirmed the historic Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway, and identified the need for two interchanges at 401h and 48'h Streets in order to provide adequate capacity to provide for local access to/from TH 63 from what was expected to be a significant area of commercial/industrial zoning. In fact much of the area has now been zoned for these uses, including the lands to the north of the site as well as the area east between TH 63 and St. Bridget's Road. It 1 Page 3 • • ! / December 22, 2000 1 ` ►1 In addition, the Currently Valid Thoroughfare plan identifies a future north -south collector road between 401" Street SW and 481" Street SW. Wetlands: It appears as though Wetlands exist, or may exist on this property, particularly within the areas adjacent to Willow Creek. The owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information to the LGU. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was held on December 1, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. at the Gardens Clubhouse. Staff expects to receive a summary of the meeting prior to the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on this item. Referral Comments: 1. Charlie Reiter, Planning Department Transportation Division 2. See comments attached to GDP #159 Report Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Area Zoning Map Analysis for Zoning District Amendment: Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. Finding for Proposed R-2: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates this property as appropriate for "low density residential" types of uses. Uses within the R-2 zoning district would be consistent with the current land use designation. Rezoning this property would help further the policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, which encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. This will also help to furthergoals and policies found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan to increase the supply of housing. /) Page 4 • • �l[ December 22, 2000 Finding for Proposed hl-I: A Land Use Plan amendment is being considered concurrent with this application. If the request to designate 45.66 acres of this property for "commercial" uses is approved, re -zoning 45.66 acres of this property to the AI -I (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district would be consistent with the land use designation for this properly. Additionally, this area is changing. Future construction of an interchange at 48ff' St. and TH 63, a collector road between 48t° St. SW and 40" St. SW and upgrades to 48ff' St. SW will change the character of this area. Additionally, the City approved a land use plan amendment and zoning district amendment in 1998 for the abutting property to the north to designate that property as appropriate for " industrial" uses to rezone the property M-l. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and Finding for Proposed R-2: Uses within the R-2 Zoning District would be appropriate on the property and compatible with adjacent properties. Finding for Proposed M-1: In 1998 the abutting property owner to the north petitioned the City to amend the Land Use Plan designation for that properly from the `low density residential" and "medium density residential" designations to the `industrial" designation and also petitioned to re -zone the property from R-I (Mixed Single Family) to M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). Those petitions were approved in June 1998, resulting in approximately 54.66 acres of land located east of Willow Creek, north of this property, being designated far `industrial" uses and being zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial). The easterly portion of this site, adjacent to TH 63 is relatively level to gently rolling. Moving westerly, the property ascends to the top of a hill. Elevations range from 1070 adjacent to TH 63 to 1178 at the top of the hill. The criteria requiring level terrain is not met for over half of this site. Other factors that will change the character of this area, and the topography of this site, should be given consideration. Access to this propertyfrom 4P St. SW will be limited to one location that is fixed. No other access will be permitted from TH 63 or 48" St. The fixed location of access to 48'" St. is located at the southern base of a hill. Constructing a collector roadway from this point to 4e St. SW, as identified in the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, will undoubtedly impact this hill and the natural topography ofthisproperty, regardless of the alignment. Additionally, constructing an interchange at 4' St. SW and TH 63 and upgrading 48'" St. SW to a four -lane divided arterial will result in changes to the existing topography of this site and the area. Lastly, the abutting property to the north was designated for "industrial" uses and re -zoned M-1 in 1998. Although most of that property is relatively level to gently rolling, portions of that property did not meet the requirement for level terrain of less than 6% slopes. The hill located on this property extends north onto the abutting property. b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Proposed R-2: Uses within the R-2 district would be appropriate on the subject property and would be compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood. Compatibility between the R-2 and M-I land included in this petition could be improved through buffering and 4 • / Page 5 December 22, 2000 / screening. Topographic changes between the zoning districts will contribute to providing a buffer between the uses. The amendment to R-2 would be consistent with the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, and would not be considered spot zoning. Proposed M-1: A Land Use Plan amendment is being considered concurrent with this application. If the request to designate 45.66 acres of this propertyfor "commercial" uses is approved, re -zoning 45.66 acres of this property to the M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) district would be consistent with the land use designation for this property, and would not be considered spot zoning. Staff Recommendation: Proposed R-2: Based on the recommended findings, the petition to re -zone approximately 36.32 acres of land to the R-2 (Low Density Residential) district could be approved. Proposed M-1: Based on the recommended findings and with consideration for outside factors that will impact the natural topography of this site, the request to amend the land use plan to designate 45.66 acres for "commercial' uses, as petitioned for, could be approved if Land Use Plan Amendment #00-08 is approved. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS I PLANNING MEETING (a t r ` DATE: 5-21-01 ITEM NO. �-3 r t atvl DESCRIPTION: General Development Plan #159 , 481h Street GDP by R.L. Hexum PREPARED BY: Associates I Mitzi A. Baker, JW Gorws+�trt� f May 17, 2001 NOTE : After the Planting a9d Zoning Commission meeting, Planning and Public Works staff discussed recommended condition #7, related to contribution towards a traffic study and also discussed the alignment of the north/south collector road (4" bullet under condition 91). It appears as though condition #7 could be deleted, if condition #8 is re -worded to include preparation of a traffic study or contribution towards a study as part of the Development Agreement. Staff recommended modifications to these conditions are identified as strikethrough text for text to be deleted, and underlined text for text to be added. This application was continued for several months, at the request of the applicant, to provide the applicant with additional time to consider and submit modifications to the GDP. A revised GDP was recently submitted to the Planning Department, which identifies a modified alignment for the north/south collector road (frontage rd.) that provides buildable land between that road and T.H. 63. Staff recommends modifications to the conditions, based on the revised GDP and previous discussions as mentioned above. Staff recommended modifications to these conditions are identified as strikethrough text for text to be deleted, and underlined text for- text to be added. 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 GDP 159 with staff suggested findings conditions and modifications, with #7 to be clarified prior to the Council meeting and with #1 modified to require gnment of the north/south collector road. McGowan seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Mr. Werven voting nay. The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department: : Additional right-of-way shall be identified along the entire frontage of 11 th Ave. SW consistent with the requirements for a collector road, including pedestrian facilities. This shall be shown at 60 feet in width (50' road ROW. plus 10' pedestrian facility). + AGress openings Gn the r-eadiva), labeled "Commeroial GiFive SIV" shall be conFected to line "p-aGres's »—The ssatlaly aGsml to fit" A ve. S11414eliminated. + The no pf.h.knuth GGWGteF read shall be realigned to preWde for buildabie land on b nth -4des of the read Zoning districts identified on the revised GDP shall be corrected to reflect M-1 for the eastern portion of 2. At the time of platting, controlled access will need to be dedicated along TH 63, 48th St. SW and 11th Ave. SW and the frontage road, except fore the streetldriveway openings approved with the p/at(s). In addition, right-of-way shall be dedicated for 11m Avenue and 48th St. SW consistent with the requirements for those roadways. Any right-of-way in excess of dedication requirements shall be reserved as right-of-way. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: Page 2tLQ� RCA May 17, 2001 3. At the time of platting, the developer shall dedicate their proportional amount of right-of-way for the 48'" S' SW/TH 63 interchange. Any right-of-way needed in addition to the area dedicated shall be platted and reserved with the first phase of this development. Terms of the conveyance shall be outlined in the Development Agreement. 4. Prior to platting this property, the applicant shall complete a Wetiand Delineation and submit it to the LGU for review and approval. 5. Development of this property shall be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of planned roadway improvements. 6. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a long term maintenance and ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of the development. 7, in lieu g-a Traffic 1Fn9ast Study the ppliGantshallprovide a prorated Gontrlbution towards se . 8. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, phasing this development, substandard street reconstruction charges and/or traffic improvement district charges including 11'" Ave. SW and 48' St. SW, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, extension of utilities, contributions for public infrastructure and obligations for preparing a traffic study or providing contribution towards completion of a study. 9. Parkland dedication requirements for this development shall be met via cash in lieu of land. The internal ti system should connect with public trails along 11'" Avenue SW to 48' St. SW. Council Action Needed: 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. 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 May 21, 2001 in the Council i Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. ROCHESTER� P3 Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 5/14/01 REVISED APPLICATION 5/14/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281.6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the REVISED application for General Development Plan #159 on the R.L. Hexum & Associates (48' St S)Dproperty. The following are Public Works comments on the REVISED proposal: 1. Public Works is supportive of the proposed revision to shift Commercial Dr SW westerly, providing an area for buildable lots between Commercial Dr SW and T.H. 63. 2. Our previous comments inadvertently omitted the Owner's responsibility for providing pedestrian facilities along the entire frontage of 11'fi Ave SW. Public Works has no additional new comments as a result of the proposed revision. C:\WINNT\Profiles\plambake\Temporary Internet Files\OLQ3 GDP159 REVISED 5-14-01.doc qr _,- ae fledge, we deliver May 11, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: General Development Plan #159 by R.L. Hexum & Associates to be known as South Broadway Partners, LLC GDP. The property is located north of 48"' St. SW and west of Hwy 63 South. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. This area is serviceable from the Intermediate Level Water System that was developed from the Airport High Level Water System and is available for connection approximately 700' south of 48"' St SW (approximately 150' north of Southern Woods Circle SW). This water main must be extended through the developable portion of the commercial area designated on the approved Southern Woods General Development Plan. 2. Pressures will range from the mid 80's PSI to mid 90's PSI from this system depending on the final site elevations. 3. The water mains in the proposed R-2 area cul-de-sacs must be properly looped and stub -outs to adjacent properties must be made. 4. Due to the complexity of creating an adequate water system in this general area, information on the proposed use and finished grade for the adjacent property to the north must be taken into account in the final water system layout for this property. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop this layout. 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 youwvu� s,"OA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 SOUTH BROADWAY PARTNERS, LLC ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA € ' p GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN"•' �a� 4 rl F-= � 4c 1.4 x I A �-Vc .6 96'L 6 t S -nco 'Pi I \,- ) n: N . rpoc-45ot � 4c 1.4 x I A �-Vc .6 96'L 6 t S -nco 'Pi I \,- ) n: N . rpoc-45ot TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner DATE: December 22, 2000 �pCN ESTER-.1(/,�-.lF.I (n J oknD s' �A RgTED:AUGI'SK•- ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904-4744 ADMINISTRATION/ 507/285-8232 PLANNING GIS/ADDRESSING/ 5071285-8232 MAPPING HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 RE: General Development Plan #159 to be known as 48th Street GDP Pianninp Department Review: Petitioner: R.L. Hexum & Associates 2640 North Highway 63 Rochester, MN 55906 Property Owner: Graham Properties Limited Partnership 20 2 Avenue SW, Room 219 Rochester, MN 55902 Consultant: Kane & Johnson Architects, Inc. 2460 Highway 63 North Suite 100 Rochester, MN 55906 Location of Property: The property is located north of 481h St. SW between T.H. 63 and 111h Ave. SW. Proposed Use: The General Development Plan includes approximately 81.9 acres of land. The easterly 45.66 acres is shown as being developed with commercial - industrial uses, while the westerly 36.32 acres being developed with residential uses. Also included on the plan is a future off -ramp from Trunk Highway 63 and future right-of-way for 481h Street SW. Serving the commercial area, there is a north/south collector roadway that will continue to the north, eventually connecting with 401h Street SW. The westerly 36.32 acres is shown for residential development. Also included in this area is Willow Creek and possibly future wetland restoration areas. The applicant is also requesting approval to amend the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER R,a.el. r �Q Page 2 • t D General Development Plan December 22, 2000 • and Zoning Map. Those applications are being ' considered concurrent with this GDP. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan designates most of this property as suitable for "low density residential" types of development, with a portion adjacent to TH 63 shown for "medium density residential" types of uses. The applicant has filed a petition to amend the Land Use Plan to designate the eastern 45.66 acres of this property for "commercial" uses. The westerly 36.32 acres would remain designated for "low density residential" types of uses. That application is being considered concurrent with this GDP. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family). A petition to amend the zoning district for this property is being reviewed concurrently with this application. The applicant is proposing M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) zoning for the eastern 45.66 acres of this property, which would allow for a mixed commercial and industrial development. The applicant is proposing R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning for the westerly 36.32 acres of this property. Streets: The GDP proposes to take access from 48t' Street SW and 11" Avenue SW. A portion of this property is ' included in Official Map #12, which identifies right-of- way limits for a future interchange at 48"' St. Access to this property will be limited to one access along 48t° St. SW, as shown on the General Development Plan for this property. This access point is approximately 650 feet from the TH 63 off -ramp. This distance should provide the needed queue area. The plan identifies a north/south collector roadway through the property, which is consistent with the Currently Valid Thoroughfare plan. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required along all roadways within the development. Sidewalk facilities will be required along the north side of 481' Street SW and along 11°iAvenue SW. Drainage: According to the applicant, storm water management for this area could be self-contained within the site by constructing on -site facilities, or could be handled through participation in the City's storm water management plan. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to development. Wetlands: A wetland delineation will need to be completed for this property and submitted to the LGU. It appears as though wetlands exist on this property, primarily within the floodplain area. I Page 3 0 0 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer is located along TH 63 at the east side of this property. Watermain will need to be extended from approximately 700 feet south of 481" Street. Parkland Dedication: The Park and Recreation Department has recommended that the parkland dedication requirements for the R-2 zoned property be in the form of cash in lieu of land. if the easterly portion of the property is developed with commercial uses, no parkland dedication is required for that portion. Environmental Review: This GDP does not trigger a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Referral Comments: 1. Planning Dept. Transportation Division 2. John Hanford, Planning Department LGU 3. Rochester Public Works 4. Rochester Park & Recreation 5. Olmsted County Public Works 6. RPU Water Division 7. Rochester Fire Department 8. Olmsted County SWCD Report Attachments: 1. Copy of General Development Plan 2. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative 3. Referral Comments (8) Summary: This GDP proposes to develop 82 acres of land located between TH 63 and 11" Ave. SW, north of 48'" St. SW. The eastern 45.66 acres is proposed for mixed commercial -industrial development in the M-1 zoning district. The western 36.32 acres is proposed to be zoned R-2, and developed residentially, potentially with townhomes. Much of the western portion of the property includes Willow Creek and it's floodplain and would remain open space. Roadways abutting this project will need to be upgraded in the future. Eleventh Ave. SW is designated a "collector" on the ROCOG Thoroughfare Plan, 481" St. is designated an "arterial" and TH 63 is a "freeway". The Thoroughfare Plan also identifies a future "collector' roadway between 481" St. SW and 40'" St. NW. This GDP accommodates the future uprades, with the exception of 11`" Ave. SW. Additional right-of-way will need to be dedicated for 11` Avenue consistent with the requirements for a "collector' road The topography of the site varies, with relatively flat floodplain adjacent to Willow Creek in the west to steep side slopes and a hill in the central portion of the property, with the eastern portion gently rolling to relatively flat. Future construction of an interchange at 48'" St. and TH 63, a collector road between 48'" St. SW and 40'" St. SW and upgrades to 48'" St. SW, and eventually 11'" Ave. SW, will change the appearance and character of this area. Additionally, the City approved a land use plan amendment and zoning district amendment in 1998 for the abutting property to the north to designate that property as appropriate for " industrial" uses to rezone the property M-1. It is likely that development of this property will require an Excavation permit under Section 62.1100 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. 10Q9 / Page 4 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999). Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. A Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendment are being considered concurrent with this GDP. If the amendments are approved, the land uses within the GDP would be consistent with the land use designation and zoning for the property. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. If the Land Use Plan amendment and Zoning District amendments, being considered concurrent with this application, are approved, the density will be consistent with permissible uses of the property. The proposed site is bordered on three sides by roadway corridors designated as higher level streets on the ROCOG Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. These include: — TH 63 on the east, a corridor designated for long term upgrading to a freeway on the Thoroughfare Plan; — 48" St. SW on the south, a corridor designated as a future arterial street on the Long Range Thoroughfare Plan. 4e St. SW will be the primary east -west street in the north Willow Creek area, planned to extend from the TH 52131arion Rd interchange on the east to CSAH 8 and possibly CR 104 on the west — 11" Ave. SW on the west, designated as a collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan The development of a highway im�trovement project to upgrade TH 63 to a freeway facilityfrom TH 52 south past 48' St. SW has been in the planning and design stages since 1994. In 1995 the TH 63 South Corridor Study was completed which reaffirmed the historic Thoroughfare Plan designation of TH 63 as a freeway, and identified the need for two interchanges at 40s and 4e Streets in order to provide adequate capacity to provide for local access to/from TH 63 from what was expected to be a significant area of commerciaVindustrial zoning. In fact much of the area has now been Zoned for these uses, including the lands to the north of the site as well as the area east between TH 63 and St. Bridget's Road. In 1998 MnDOT, the City of Rochester and Olmsted County agreed to begin the next phase ofproject development activities that would lead to the eventual construction of the planned interchanges by undertaking the TH 63 Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project. In 1999 funding for the first interchange was secured through MNDOT's annual project selection process, and this year the remaining funding for construction of the second interchange and reconstruction of connecting roads was secured through supplemental funds appropriated by the Legislature for upgrading of High Priority Interregional Corridors. Page 5 General Development Plan December 22, 2000 0 131 i The Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment project has evaluated capacity needs, interchange and roadway design options, and a range of social, environmental and economic impacts. A preferred design has been identified which includes a diamond interchange at the intersection of 4e St. and TH 63. As part of the design process Hie following access and cross section design features affecting the property under consideration are included in the preferred design alternative: — One access along the 4e St. SlV frontage which is intended to serve as the location for o public collector street that will extend between 4e and 4e St. on the west side of TH 63. No individual lot access will be accommodated off of 48'" St. The access location will jointly serve the property on the south side of 4e St. as well as serve as the intersection for the planned collector street. The spacing of the intersection from the interchange ramps is dictated by the needs for queue storage at both the ramp and the frontage road intersections. With the expected high intensity of development, a distance of approximately 650 feet was identified as the recommended spacing. This is approximately double the distance found between the ramp and frontage roads at locations such as the 41' St. and 55" St. NW interchanges. Those interchanges provide good examples of inadequate spacing between ramps and frontage roads, particularly during peak hour conditions. — The plan indicates the necessary right of way for the off -ramp as well as right of way needs along 4e St. SW. Based on long term traffic capacity needs, 48" St. will be constructed as a four lane divided roadway with right and left turn bays provided at all intersections. Additionally, sidewalk will be provided along the north side of the corridor and a trail facility along the south side of the corridor. Staff would note that in terms of the proposed collector street (Commercial Drive) the element that has been fixed as part of the TH 63 design process is the location of the intersection with 48`" St. The actual alignment of the road north of 48" St. could be varied if there was agreement between the abutting owners for an alternative location for the road. In reviewing the proposed plan, staff would note that additional right of way above that shown on the GDP will be needed for 11 'h Ave. SW, consistent with its designation as a collector street corridor. Consistent with citypolicy, substandard street and capacity charges will apply to the property, and in lieu of preparing a Traffic Impact Study (which essentially has been completed as part of the TH 63 Preliminary Design study) a prorated contribution towards completion of that work by the consultant for MNDOT will be expected. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The policies and goats found in Chapters 1 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. This development will help to further the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan and also those found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan to increase the supply of housing. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation (3�11 Page 6 0 !/ General Development Plan December 22, 2000 Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. , Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. See response to Criteria "B" above. Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. See response to Criteria "B" above. This development may need to be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of the planned improvements. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in It the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Sanitary sewer is located along TH 63 at the east side of thisfroperty. Watermain will need to be extended from approximately 700 feet south of 48` Street SW. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. See response to Criteria "B" above. This development may need to be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of the planned improvements. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. — Page 7 0 �33/ General Development Plan December 22, 2000 According to the applicant, storm water management for this area could be self- contained within the site by constructing on -site facilities, or could be handled through participation in the City's storm water management plan. Detailed grading and drainage plans will be required prior to development. Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. See response to Criteria 'B" above. The residential portion of this development appears as though it will be served with private roadways. The GDP identifies two accesses fall" Ave. SW to serve residential units west of Willow Creek. The southerly access is very close to the intersection with 4e St. SW and may need to be eliminated in order to meet access spacing standards of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. This portion of the site will be developed at a low enough density that one access should be adequate. The commercial -industrial portion of the site makes accommodations for a collector roadway connection between 48" St. SW and 40" St. SW. The location at which this roadway intersects with 48'" St. SW is fixed, however the alignment is not. To more efficiently utilize the investment of constructing this road, the applicant should consider an alignment that would provide far developable land on both sides of the road on this and the adjacent property. Access locations shown off of the north -south collector road ("Commercial Drive SW") will need to be aligned across from each other. The off -set alignment of the northern accesses will need to be corrected Recommendation: "'!f the Commission and Council conclude the north/south collector road should be re- aligned to provide for buildable land on both sides of the road and to better work with the topography, condition #1 should be modified to require this modification to the GDP. Staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable criteria: The General Development Plan shall be revised as follows, and a revised Plan shall be filed with the Planning Department: Additional right-of-way shall be identified along 110 Ave. SW consistent with the requirements for a collector road, including pedestrian facilities. Access openings on the roadway labeled "Commercial Drive SW" shall be corrected to line up across from other openings. The southerly access to 11a' Ave. SW shall be eliminated. 2. At the time of platting, controlled access will need to be dedicated along TH 63, 48n" St. SW and 11t6 Ave. SW and the frontage road, except fore the street/driveway openings approved with the plat(s). In addition, right-of-way shall be dedicated for 11a' Avenue and 48N St. SW consistent with the requirements for those roadways. Any right-of-way in excess of dedication requirements shall be reserved as right-of-way. Page 8 0 • General Development Plan December 22, 2000 3. At the time of platting, the developer shall dedicate their proportional amount of right- ' of -way for the 48'h St. SW/TH 63 interchange. Any right-of-way needed in addition to the area dedicated shall be platted and reserved with the first phase of this development. Terms of the conveyance shall be outlined in the Development Agreement. 4. Prior to platting this property, the applicant shall complete a Wetland Delineation and submit it to the LGU for review and approval. 5. Development of this property shall be phased to limit the amount of traffic generated prior to completion of planned roadway improvements. 6. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. Any on -site stormwater facilities serving 50 developable acres or less will remain private, and execution of a longterm maintenance and ownership agreement will be required. All required private stormwater facilities must be constructed concurrent with the initial stages of the development. 7. In lieu of preparing a Traffic Impact Study, the applicant shall provide a prorated contribution towards completion of that by the consultant for MNDOT. a. Prior to Final Plat submittal, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to, phasing this development, substandard street reconstruction charges and/or traffic improvement district charges including 11th Ave. SW and 48'h St. SW, stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, extension of utilities and contributions for public infrastructure. Memo To: Mayor and Citv Council From: Stevan E. K,-envold C! Date: May 21, 2001 Subject: Revised E-4 and E-5 RCA's for Cascade Street Project The RCA's for E-4 and E-5 which were included in your agenda packet have been revised to reflect a reconstruction assessment rate of $30.00 per front foot instead of the $30.90 assessment rate listed in those RCA's. This project was previously considered in i999 for construction in 2000. When the project ,was delayed, the property owners were told that the reconstruction assessment rate in effect at that time ($30.00) would be applied if the project was constructed in 2001. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETIN& DATE 05r21,01 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works E IJ�EEM NO. � � 6Vf SC-(; iiEM DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING: (J9612) j PREPARED BY: Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to D Neison 18th Avenue NW This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project Number M009 (J9612) Proiect Name Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to 18th Avenue NW Project Background The existing street was constructed in various segments from 1954 to 1958. Informational meetings were held on October 13, 1999, and October 24. 2000 The feasibility of the croject was reported to City Council on April 2, 2001 with the recommendation of not feasible as a concrete . -c and gitter and overlay project." The council opted to move the project forward as a Reconstruction project assessed at the rate of $30.00 per front footage. Additionally, the council requested Public Works hold another Informational meeting to explain the details of a Reconstruction project to the affected property owners This rneeting was held on May 1, 2001 with approximately 15 of the 97 property owners represented. Estimated Project Costs Project Cost Construction: Grading & Pavinq, Curb & Gutter $465,000.00 Sidewalk Replacement S5,000. 00 Storm Sewer Reoaws/Upgrades S125.W0 00 watermain Replacement S0.00 Watermam Servce Replacement Sanitary Sewer $0.00 Sub Total S595,000.00 En ineenna, Interest. Contin encies 20% $119.000.00 TOTAL S7f4000.00 Proiect Cost Distribution Distribution: S eaal Assessments - Frontage $170.542.20 Special Assessments - Sidewalk $1, 894.58 Special Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds $0,00 Saritary Sewer Utility Funds $0.00 City Street Share S541, 563.23 TOTAL $714, 000.00 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied for a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7 5=o annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paid in full when levied. re"�{{ COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: u Adopt a resolution ordering Project J-9612 to be made. ,p✓'r COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: _J2W�r Second by frrtlf't'*W. to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 05/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: (J9612) Public Works Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to 18th Avenue NW ITEM NO. REVI1siED — --G7 _ PREPARED BY: D Neiscr This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement project: Project Number M009 (J9612) Project Name Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW frcm 9th Avenue NVV to 18th Avenue NW Estimated Project Costs Project Cost Construction: Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter _ S465,000.001 Sidewalk Replacement $5,000. CO! Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades :". 25,000. 001 atermain Replacement so co; atermain Service Replacement Sanitary Sewer s0.00i Sub Total ! _595.000 GG Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 20% 5'. 19,000 OCi TOTAL 5-14,000. CC'. Project Cost Distribution At the April 2, 2001 City Council Meetic me council deters ,red that a Reconstruction project was the correct Pavement Management Strategy for th s street. As such, they set the assessments at the current Reconstruction rate of $30.00 per front footage for the a ected property owners. Distribution: Special Assessments-Fronta a 3770.542.20 Special Assessments - Sidewalk 51.994 Ec Special Assessments - Service Replace _ Water Utility Funds s0 CGI Sarittary Sewer Utility Funds CityStreet Share 354 a TOTAL i-1 Assessment Period All special assessments may be levied 'c- a period of ten years with interest charged at a rate of 7 5% annually on the unpaid balance, or they may be paic n 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 t^e property abutting ;ne project at that time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: ►J Adopt the resolution levying the propcsed assessments for Project J-9612.�" t;OUNCILACTION: Motion by: second by IE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM DESCRIPTION: PROJECT HEARING: (J9612) ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to 18th Avenue NW This is a Hearing to consider the following local improvement project: Project Number M009 (J9612) Project Name Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to 18th Avenue NW Project Background The existing street was constructed in various segments from 1954 to 195B. MEETING I 3S DATE: 05/21 /01 ITEM NO. EPARED BY: D. Nelson Informational meetings were held on October 13, 1999, and October 24, 2000. The feasibility of the project was reported to City Council on April 2, 2001 with the recommendation of "...not feasible as a concrete curb and gutter and overlay project." The council opted to move the project forward as a Reconstruction project, assessed at the rate of $30.90 per front footage. Additionally, the council requested Public Works hold another informational meeting to explain the details of a Reconstruction project to the affected property owners. This meeting was held on May 1, 2001 with approximately 15 of the 97 property owners represented. Estimated Project Costs Project Cost Construction: Grading & Paving, Curb 8 Gutter $465 000.00 Sidewalk Replacement $5,000.00 storm Sewer Repairs/upgrades $125,000.00 Watermain Replacement $0.00 Watermain Service Replacement Sanita Sewer $0.00 Sub Total $595,000.00 En ineerin , Interest. Contin encies 20% $119,000.00 TOTAL $714,000.00 Project Cost Distribution Distribution: Special Assessments - Frontage $178 810.28 Special Assessments - Sidewalk $1,894.58 Special Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds $0.00 Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds $0.00 City Street Share $533,295.15 TOTAL $714,000.00 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 a resolution ordering Project J-9612 to be made. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: CC; Department of Public Works ' 2014th St. SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55900-3740 Doug Nelson Of Engineering: In regards to the report on feasibility of a proposed local improvement project for project #M0009 19612 Cascade St. NW from 9th Ave NW to 18th Ave. NW Dated Mar. 28-2001. This as we see it has been very misleading to our neighborhood in as two proposals were brought in three meetings for the neighborhood, now! IN the second proposal, we were lead to believe that it was workable and well thought out and truthful and it would go either way. That the planning committee, had done their homework on the project. They also, had prices of how much would come out of our pockets for cost. Now to find out months latter that, oh no, we didn't really evaluate your streets, we couldn't because when we have done this in the past and we present our proposal people have turned us down on other projects. I say RUBBISH, to this statement. When a proposal is presented to the neighborhood, it should be facts,and truth. Not wait for two years down the road and change the whole plan! As we understand it after the Oct. 24-2000 meeting, considerable subsurface soil exploration and detailed design efforts were done with a new strategy of reconstruction of the street and now a whole new price, DOUBLE THE COST,($30.00) we were originally quoted. This should not be ours to suffer for the negligence of the planning committees prior research, on coming to the neighborhood committee meeting and presenting their proposal to us all. Why were we so long finding out about this discrepancy, if the research was done after the Oct. 2000, meeting? Five months have passed, we could have had meetings in the winter, which means that this project could have been underway one way or the other by now! We at retirement age don't have a tremendous amount of money to draw on, which puts us on a very tight budget. Something like this could cause us considerable amount of stress and financial burden and harm. Being a family that has lived in this neighborhood for 40 plus years we feel this is unfair and that we have been treated unfaithfully, and dishonest by this proposal! Regarding the notice of proposed assessment #2 was very upsetting to us as was the 3rd informational meeting, which was presented Tue. May 1-2001 during a rain storm and tomado alert. There were very few people attending with no wonder considering the unfortunate weather condition, which no man has control over, I feel there was not a true representation of feels at this meeting with so small of a group. So sad for us all! We were for the first initial street rehabilitation strategy of concrete curb and gutter and an overlay, at $15.00. So that our neighborhood could be upgraded and maintained in 131 the best possible way.and saving us money in the long run, too! There are so many stresses in life, and with the way expenses keep rising. We are very very disappointed with what has happened to this project and the way it was handled! We being taxpayers of the Wonderful City of Rochester,feel we are being taken advantage of! Now it is out of our hands and the City Council will do the desiding that should have been ours to do! Respectfully Submitted Robert and Joan Koenig Lot 25 Block 5 1604 Cascade St. NW Rochester, MN 55901 282-8903 Dated May 3, 2001 26 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: AGENDA fiECTIO - ORIGIN ING DEPT: IT M NO /CONSENT Public Work Feasibilit epert for: C scade Stre NW from 9th venue NW I PREPARED BY: j� 18th A nue NW (J- 12) D. Nels9n/ O This is a Feasibility Report for the following local improvement project: Proiect Number M009, (J9612) Proiect Name Concrete Curb and Gutter in Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to 18th Avenue NW Proiect Background The existing street was constructed with bituminous curbing in phases from 1954 to 1958. Cascade Street has very little aggregate base and poor sub -base soils, making a rehabilitation effort not the preferred course of action. Rather a reconstruction of the entire street is needed to adequately construct the base and sub -base sections, provide proper drainage, and maintain existing sidewalk and boulevard grades. A reconstruction of Cascade Street would involve the following costs: Estimated Proiect Costs Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $470,000 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $125,000 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies $119,000 41 Total $714,000 Proiect Cost Distribution Special Assessments— Frontage ...............$ 85,792.95 Special Assessments — Sidewalk_ .......... ..... $ 1,894.58 City Funds .................................. ................ S 626.312.47 Total ..... ....................................................... $ 714,000.00 Recommendation We report the project is not feasible as a concrete curb and gutter and overlay project. It is feasible to reconstruct Cascade Street, but we do not recommend its construction at this time due to the cost of the project and the proposed assessments. We do recommend a maintenance effort of surface milling and a bituminous overlay in 2001. This would be at no cost to the abutting property owners. The overlay should last 7 to 10 years at which time a complete street reconstruction project would be needed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution receiving the Feasibility Report. Attach: Map, Feasibility Report, r ' INCIL ACTION: Motion bv: Second In t REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED (J� LOCAL IMPROVENIENT PROJECT FOR: PROJECT NO. M0009 J 9 6 1 2 CASCADE STREET NW FROM 9TH AVENUE NW TO 18TH AVENUE NW ` March 28, 2001 Honorable Mayor & Common Council City of Rochester, Minnesota A resolution proposing certain request for the following project: Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to I Sth Avenue N 1V, was referred to the Public Works Department for preparation of the Engineers Feasibility Report. Feasibility Report We report the project is not feasible as requested: Construct concrete curb and gutter and provide an overlay to Cascade Street from 91h Ave NW to 18`h Ave NW. The existing street section is not capable of being modified to allow for the placement of concrete curb and gutter without a major reconstruction of the street. Built in phases from 1954 to 1958, Cascade Street has very little aggregate base material. In some areas the aggregate base is less than 3 inches, compared with a normal requirement of 8 to 10 inches. Additionally, the sub -base soils, underneath the aggregate base, are very poor and should be removed and replaced. Cascade Street has received numerous overlays through the years, such that several blocks have 7 to 9 inches of bituminous. It has been these overlays that have carried the street loadings. It is not possible to lower the elevation of the existing street centerline and provide adequate street drainage to a new concrete curb and gutter facility, while maintaining the existing sidewalk and boulevard cross-section. According to the City's Comprehensive Pavement Management Strategy (CPMS) the most cost-effective strategy for this street, which has a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 28, is reconstruction. Another option would be to provide an edge mill and a 1 '/z" bituminous overlay until a reconstruction is possible. An overlay should provide 7 to 10 years additional street life before a reconstruction is necessary. Therefore, we do not recommend the construction of new concrete curb and gutter and an overlay. We do recommend that in 2001 we edge mill and provide a bituminous overlay to the street. This would be at no cost to the abutting property owners. ME — 2 — \LwC11 28, 2001 If Cascade Street was Reconstructed the following would be the project costs: ' Project Cast corutructlon: GraSn it P"na, Curb a Gutter $465 000.00 Sidewalk Reol o ent $5 000.00 Storm Sewer Re rades S12500..00 Watem sin R ent So.00 Wm ...ain Service Re lacemem Sav Sewer 30,00 Sub Tctal S595,000.00 Endneedn . Interest. Continoendes 20% $119,000.00 TOTAL S714,000.00 Assessment Distribution: This project was initiated and slightly less than half supported at the October 13, 1999 public meeting. A second meeting was held on October 24, 2000 with enough neighborhood support to request council action for the project. The property owners were presented with the curb and gutter assessment rates for the year 2000 at both meetings as that was the "desired" course of action. Therefore the cost of street rehabilitation, as established by City Council Policy, for the year 2000 is shown below even though the construction cost numbers reflect a Reconstruction effort: Residential Zones.............$15.00 per assessable foot ' Commercial Zones ...........$22.50 per assessable foot Residential corner lot assessments are based on the length of the short side of the lot plus any length greater than 120 feet on the long side if the long side is reconstructed. Curb Gu".er Overlay Rates Year 2000 feet Total Cost Residentlal Zones _ _ _ _ Commercial Zones Subtotal $15.00 5.719,53 $85,792.95 $22.50 ___ $85,792.95 Replacement sidewalk is assessed by the square foot of sidewalk replaced and is assessed directly to the abutting property owner at the following rates: 4" Sidewalk(residential)............................ ..................... $5.00 per square foot 5" Sidewalk (commercial)...............................................$5.75 per square foot 6" Sidewalk (at residential drive approaches).................$6.50 per square foot 7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches)...............$7.00 per square foot 6" Conc. Drive Approach (residential)............................$30.00 per square yard Residential corner lot sidewalk assessments are based on the replacement length of the short side of the lot plus half the quantity on long side if the long side is replaced. Sidewalks 2000 sq. ft sq. ft Total Cast 4" Sidewalk (residential) $5.00 931.15 $4,655.75 5" Sidewalk (commercial) $5.75 6" Sidewalk (al residential drive approaches) $6.50 28.25 $183.63 7" Sidewalk (at commercial drive approaches _ $7.00 Subtotal $4,839.38 credit for in side & warrantee _ __ $2( 944.80) Subtotal $1,094.58 -3- I1 / \[:\BCt123,20CI Proiect Distribution: Distribution: Special Assessments - Frontage $85,792.95 Special Assessments - Sidewalk $i,894.58 Special Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds $0.00 Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds $0.00 Ci Street Share $626,312.48 TOTAL $714,000.00 Submitted for your consideration: Russell Kelm, PE Design Engineer Douglas Nelson, PE Engineering Manager I :.PF, '�'li:'.'i j�,! 1`r1'.1''. d'G I"_'_f ::.�:�`..; +.:: •`.i ,..:: 1%hr . i:_::.: n ,;,r::•:u.;":�'. -4- M klWl 128, 2001 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER AND OVERLAY IN 10 CASCADE STREET NW FROM 9THAVENUE NW TO 18TH AVENUE NW m ol 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING M-D DATE: 05/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Works �': — 5 i i tM DESCRIPTION: ASSESSMENT HEARING: (J9612) Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to 18th Avenue NW PREPARED BY: D. Nelson This is a Hearing to consider levying of the proposed assessments regarding the following public improvement project: Project Number M009 (J9612) Project Name Reconstruction of Cascade Street NW from 9th Avenue NW to 18th Avenue NW Estimated Project Costs Project Cost Construction: Grading & Paving, Curb & Gutter $465,000.00 Sidewalk Replacement $5,000.00 Storm Sewer Repairs/Upgrades $125,000.00 atermain Replacement $0.00 atermain Service Re lacement Sanitary Sewer $0.00 Sub Total $595,000.00 Engineering, Interest, Contingencies 20% $119,000,00 TOTAL $714,000.00 Project Cost Distribution At the April 2, 2001 City Council Meeting, the council determined that a Reconstruction project was the correct Pavement Management Strategy for this street. As such, they set the assessments at the current Reconstruction rate of $30.90 per front footage for the affected property owners. Distribution: Spedal Assessments - Fronta a $178,810,28 Special Assessments - Sidewalk $1.894.58 S edal Assessments - Service Replace Water Utility Funds $0.00 Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds S0.00 CitX Street Share $533,295.15 TOTAL 1 $714,000.00 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 for Project J-9612. t.OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to. CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST OPTION 1 MC09 STREET RECONSTRUCT CASCADE ST NW FROM 9 AV TO 18 AV NW TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING AOORESS L E G A L D E S C R I P T L 0 N " ELFORD'S 1ST ADDITION 04/10/01 PAGE PROPERTY LOT E::K MICHAEL J 8 KATHY J FERGUSON LOT 2 74.22.43.CC5843 002 1611 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55911 STREET RECONSTRUCT 68.310 FEET 30.90000000 2,110.78 41N SIDEWALK REPL 57.560 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 287.80 CREDIT 1.000 EACH 287.80000000 2B7.80- TO BE ASSESSED 2,110.78 _________________________________________________ ------------ _____------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID J BRUNNETTE LOT 3 74.22.43.005844 003 1705 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 67.210 FEET 30.90000000 2,076.79 TO BE ASSESSED ---------------------------------------------------------- _--------------------- 2,076.79 ____________________________________________________ *' ELTON HILLS EAST 12TH MICHAEL E 8 CHRISTINE E SMITH LOT 1 BLK 1 74.23.32.006110 001 001 1007 30TH ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 65.860 FEET 30.90000000 2,035.07 TO BE ASSESSED ---------------------------------- 2,035.07 _----------------------- _------- ____________ --------------- __----------------------------- NHUT V TRAN 8 CHERYL SMITH --- LOT 2 BLK 1 74.23.32.O06111 002 001 933 30TH ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 70.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,163.00 TO BE ASSESSED 2,163.00 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ :E A & PAMELA A BECKER LOT 3 BLK 1 74.23.32.006112 003 001 927 30 ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 70.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,163.00 TO BE ASSESSED 2,163.00 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ JOSEPH E 8 BONNIE J HENKEL LOT 4 BLK 1 74.23.32.CC6113 004 CC1 921 30TH ST NW ROCHESTER MN 559C1 STREET RECONSTRUCT 7C.100 FEET 30.90000000 2,163.00 TO BE ASSESSED ------- _____--------------------------- 2,163.00 _________________________________________ ------------------ _--------- RONALD A 8 NANCY J _--------------------- BROVOLD __ LOT 5 BLK 1 74.23.32.0061114 005 001 915 30TH ST NW ROCHESTER MN 5591:1 STREET RECONSTRUCT 70.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,163.00 TO BE ASSESSED 2,163.00 -------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS R 8 MARY C HAASE LOT 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ BLK 1 74.23.32.CC6115 006 001 911 30TH ST NV ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 70.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,163.00 TO BE ASSESSED 2,163.00 ------------- _------------------------ DARRELL J & LUCILLE J HORN ______________________________________________________________________________________________ LOT 7 BLK 1 74.23.32.CC6 i16 007 001 905 30TH ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 70.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,163.00 TO BE ASSESSED 2,163.00 ___________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WALTER J POOEIN LOT 8 BLK 1 74.23.32.006117 008 001 125 21ST ST #4R PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 .:-Y OF RCCHESTER TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET TO 3E ASSESS20 ...................................... LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST L E G A L 0 E S C R I P T 1 0 N 30.90000000 1,854.00 1,854.00 ------------------------------------- " ELTCN HILLS EAST 6TH •' 04/10/01 PRCPERTY ID PAGE 2 LOT BLK TIMOTHY A & KARI L FAIRCLOUGH LOT 1 BLK 1 74.22.41.006368 001 001 1023 CASCADE ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECCNSTRUCT 65.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,008.50 TO BE ASSESSED 2,008.50 --------------------------------------------------------- LAR.RY 0 & ELOISE V APPLEN _------------------------------------- LOT 2 BLK 1 74.22.41.006369 _-------- ____........ 002 ________________ 001 1019 CASCACE ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 65.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,008.50 TO BE ASSESSED 2,008.50 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DAVID A PETERSEN LOT 12 BLK 2 74.23.32.006381 012 002 958 28TH ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 76.120 FEET 30.90000000 2,352.11 TO BE ASSESSED 2,352.11 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PAUL J & SANDRA M ANDERSON LOT 13 BLK 2 74.22.41.006382 013 002 1010 30 ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED 1,854.00 .......... __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DONALD W & JL'LIA C WOOLLEY LOT 14 BLK 2 74.22.41.006383 014 002 1024 CASCACE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 65.790 FEET 30.90000000 2,032.91 TO BE ASSESSED 2,032.91 ______----- _--- DANIEL J & .ULIA RAE _------ _____________________________________________________________________ CAESAR LOT 8 BLK 3 74.23.32.006391 008 003 959 28TH ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 70.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,163.00 TO BE ASSESSED .-------------------------------------...-------------------------...__"---- 2,163.00 - - '- ----......---'-------------- M;'_AN R LALCCN -------------------- LOT 9 BLK 3 74.23.32.006392 009 003 93, 30 ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 67.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,07C.30 TO 3E ASSESSED 2,070.30 _.................. ________________________________________ ----------------- BRENDA L LAMCNICA ______________------------------------------- LOT 10 BLK 3 74.23.32.006393 010 003 924 30TH ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 67.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,070.30 4IN SIDEWALK REPL 28.250 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 141.25 TO BE ASSESSED 2,211.55 _________________ ------------- _---------------------------- KENNETH D & DE30RAH L HAAS _-------------------------------------------------------------------- LOT 11 BLK 3 74.23.32.006394 O11 003 918 30TH ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECCNSTRUCT 67.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,070.30 TO BE ASSESSED 2,070.30 ______________ __---------------------------------------------- BEAR CREEK SERVICES FOUNDATION ___------------------------------------------------------------------- LOT 12 BLK 3 74.23.32.006395 012 003 620 1ST ST SW ROCHESTER MN 55902 STREET RECONSTRUCT 67.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,070.30 TO BE ASSESSED 2,070.30 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TITO ARAD LOT 13 BLK 3 74.23.32.006396 013 003 2010 24TH AVE I CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST 04/10/01 PAGE 3 TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS FRANCISCO CA 94116 ET RECONSTRUCT 65.630 FEET U eE ASSESSED LEGAL D E S C R I PT I ON PROPERTY 10 30.90000000 2,027.97 2,027.97 ** ELTON HILLS 1ST *' LOT BLK TERRENCE F & LOT 25 BLK 4 74.22.43.006540 025 004 1716 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 65.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,008.50 TO BE ASSESSED 2,008.50 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DAVID W & AMY H ANDERSON ETAL LOT 26 BLK 4 74.22.43.006541 026 004 1713 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER ON 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 63.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,946.70 TO BE ASSESSED 1,946.70 _------------- _____________--------- _......................... --------------- _------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH E & BEVERLY J MACHLICA LOT 27 BLK 4 74.22.43.006542 027 004 1706 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 63.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,946.70 TO BE ASSESSED 1,946.70 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORNELIUS J & JOANN R MAHONEY LOT 28 BLK 4 74.22.43.006543 028 004 2621 17TH AVE NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 63.350 FEET 30.90000000 1,957.52 41M SIDEWALK REPL 56.500 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 282.50 TO BE ASSESSED 2,240.02 THOMAS WHITING LOT 23 BLK 5 74.22.43.006584 023 005 36522 BUTTERNUT POINT RD OT LAKE MN 56472 ET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 ., of ASSESSED 1,854.00 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER & AMY D HOLABIRO LOT 24 BLK 5 74.22.43.006585 024 005 1608 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED ------------------------------------ 1,854.00 ._...------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------- AMY H & DAVID W ANDERSON — E 1/2 LOT AND ALL LOT 3 74.22.43.006587 002 006 1713 CASCADE ST NW BLK 6 ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 90.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,781.00 TO BE ASSESSED --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,781.00 ** ELTON HILLS 2ND ** ROBERT J & JOAN F KOENIG LOT 25 BLOCK 5 74.22.43.006624 025 003 1604 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 65.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,008.50 TO BE ASSESSED 2,008.50 EUGENE G & LEONA KAY REBELLATO LOT 26 BLOCK 5 74.22.43.006625 026 005 1602 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 65.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,008.50 TO BE ASSESSED 2,008.50 ----------------------- DANIEL R DALE _................... _....................... LOT 1 BLOCK 7 __........... ____________________________________________________ 74.22.43.006647 001 007 1605 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 CI'Y OF ROCHESTER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST 04/10/01 PAGE 4 TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS L EGA L OESCR I P T: C ,4 PROPERTY ID LOT BLK STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED 1,854.00 --- ...------------------------------- .....------------------------------------------- ...........................................' DATE A & ANTONIA M DETERS 16C3 CASCADE ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 61.620 4:4 SIDEWALK REPL 27.180 TO SSE ASSESSED -------------------------------- LOT 2 BLOCK 7 74.22.43.006648 002 007 FEET 30.90000000 1,904.06 SQUARE FE. 5.00000000 135.90 2,039.96 .................................................................................................. " ELTON HILLS 3RD " ALAN K MINER LOT 15 BLK 8 74.22.44.006701 015 008 1319 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREE' RECONSTRUCT 55.000 FEET 30.90000CCC 1,699.50 TO SE ASSESSED 1,699.50 ----- _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ TERANCE G REFSLAND LOT 16 BLK 8 74.22.44.006702 016 008 1.3'.3 CASCADE ST NW RCC:-ESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 55.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,699.50 TO BE ASSESSED 1,699.50 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CAT�ERINE A JACQUE LOT 17 BLK 8 ------- 74.22.44.006703 ----------------------' 017 008 13C7 CASCADE ST NW RCC:-ESTER MN 55901 S'REET RECONSTRUCT 55.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,699.50 TO BE ASSESSED 1,699.50 ______ _____________________________ ____--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RCCNFY K HEMENBERGER LOT 18 BLK 8 74.22.44.006704 018 008 13C' CASCADE ST NW RCC:OSTER MN 55901 S"REE' RECONSTRUCT 55.000 FEET 30.900000GC 1,699.50 'C BE ASSESSED 1,699.50 ' ... ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC"-- H & JENNIFER L GOODMAN LOT 19 BLK 8 74.22.44.006705 019 008 13 -ASCADE ST NW RCC:-ESTER MN 55901 5"REE" RECONSTRUCT 75.560 FEET 30.900000CC 2,334.80 _ EE ASSESSED 2,334.80 --------------------._ ----- ------------------------------------ R ----MAS KIMBALL ------------------------ LOT 20 BLK 8 -------------------------------------------- 74.22.44.006706 020 008 CASCADE ST NW RC. -SS -,ER MN 55901 5-REE' RECONSTRUCT 64.300 FEET 30.9000000C 1,986.87 TC EE ASSESSED 1,986.87 ..... __----- _----------------------- MARY C GOLTZ _--------- ______________________________________________________________________________________ LOT 18 LESS BEG AT SECOR LOT 74.22.44.006828 018 021 1226 CASCADE ST NW 18 TH NLY AL ELY LINE A CIS OF ROCHESTER MN 55901 LOFT TH WLY TO SW COR LOT 18 TH ELY TO BEG ELK 21 STREET RECONSTRUCT 96.330 FEET 30.900000GO 2,976.60 TO BE ASSESSED ___.... _------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2,976.60 ____________________________ KR:5714 L THESING 122^- CASCADE ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 55.000 TO BE ASSESSED ---------------- ________________ DAV:D A & ELLEN B STREIFEL 1214 CASCADE ST NW RCC:-ESTER MN 55901 " ELTON HILLS 5TH " LOT 19 BLK 21 74.22.44.006925 019 021 FEET 30.90000000 1,699.50 1,699.50 ----------------------------- __________________________________________________ LOT 20 BLK 21 74.22.44.006926 020 021 CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST 04/10/01 PAGE 5 TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N PROPERTY 10 LOT BLK STREET RECONSTRUCT 59.640 FEET 30.9000CGC0 1,842.88 3E ASSESSED ............ .....------------------------------ ..................................... 1,842.88 _.._-------------------- _.- " ' -------"-- GLENNA B PHILLIPS LOT 21 BLC 21 74.22.44.006927 021 021 2641 12 AVE NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 78.700 FEET 30.9000OCC0 2,431.83 TO BE ASSESSED 2,431.83 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ GORDON L & JANE A GROSENICK LOT 21 BLK 22 74.22.44.006966 021 022 2648 12TH AVE NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 69.930 FEET 30.90000000 2,160.84 TO BE ASSESSED 2,160.84 CLARENCE R SCHWIETERS LOT 22 BLK 22 74.22.44.006967 022 022 1126 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 55.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,699.50 TO BE ASSESSED 1,699.50 _____---------------- _...... __... _____.......... __.................... -------------------------------------------------------------- JANE C SHEFFIELD SWLY 5FT LCT 24 AND ALL LOT 74.22.44.006968 024 022 1120 CASCADE ST NW 23 BLK 22 ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000D00 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED 1,854.00 JOHN S & MARY L WIATER PT OF LOTS 24 AND 25 DES AS 74.22.44.006970 024 022 2657 11TH AVE NW BEG AT N COR LOT 25 TH SWLY AL ROCHESTER MN 55901 NWLY LINES CF 50 LOTS 128.65FT TO A PT WH :S 5FT NELY OF NELY LINE LOT 23 TH SELY 49.31FT TH NELY 119.26F7 TO A PT ON NELY LINE LOT 25 '.'H IS 76.39FT SELY OF PL OF BEG TH NWLY AL NELY LINE LOT 25 TO BEG JIREET RECONSTRUCT 85.040 FEET 30.90000000 2,627.74 TO BE ASSESSED 2,627.74 _____________ ------------------------- CRAIG A & BRENDA R _................. WILCOX _......... _---------------------------------------- LOT 26 BLK 29 _------------------- 74.22.44.007018 _____ 026 029 2666 IITH AVE NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 61.420 FEET 30.9000CCCO 1,897.88 TO BE ASSESSED 1,897.88 " ELTCN HILLS 8TH *' DOREEN M GROSSBACH LOT 1 BLK 1 1219 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 62.580 FEET 30.90000000 1,933.72 TO BE ASSESSED 1,933.72 ............................................................................. MICHAEL W & JOANN SONNIER LOT 2 BLK 1 1211 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.900000OC 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED 1,854.00 BARBARA A SORENSON LOT 3 BLK 1 2711 12TH AVE NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.900000OO 1,854.00 4IN SIDEWALK REPL 116.730 SQUARE FEE 5.0000CCCO 583.65 TO BE ASSESSED 2,437.65 DIANE M MCFADDEN LOT 2 BLK 2 74.22.44.007143 001 001 ......................... 74.22.44.007144 002 001 74.22.44.007145 003 001 74.22.44.007150 002 002 CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST 04/10/01 PAGE 6 TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N PROPERTY ID LCT BLK 11Z9 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 ' STREET RECONSTRUCT 69.500 FEET 30.90000000 2,147.55 TO BE ASSESSED 2,147.55 --------------------------------------------- BARBARA J GANNON _-------------- LOT 3 BLK 2 _____---------------------- _............ 74.22.44.007151 ____________________________ 003 002 1119 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 66.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,039.40 41N SIDEWALK REPL 150.a40 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 754.20 CREDIT 1.000 EACH 754.20000000 754.20- TO BE ASSESSED 2,039.40 ----------------- ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ GEORGE I & JOANN M TOPNESS LOT 4 BLK 2 74.22.44.007152 004 002 1111 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 4IN SIDEWALK REPL 165.230 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 826.15 CREDIT 1.000 EACH 826.15000000 826.15- TO BE ASSESSED 1,854.00 .... ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DONALD & KARIN BYERS LOT 5 BLK 2 74.22.41.007153 005 002 1107 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED 1,854.00 _--------------------- KATHLEEN PACKER ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ LOT 6 BLK 2 74.22.41.007154 006 002 1101 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1,854.00 ------------------------------------------------ GREGORY S & DARLENE J WALBURN LOT 7 BLK 2 74.22.41.007155 007 002 1033 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 I STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED 1,854.00 _____________________ ------------------------------------------------- MORRIS L & AGNES M SOLL _______------------------------------------------------------- LOT 8 SLK 2 74.22.41.007156 008 002 1027 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 TO BE ASSESSED ----------- _____-------------------------------------- _-------------------------------------------- 1,854.00 _________________________________ '• ELTON HILLS 1ST REPLAT •• DANIEL J & MARY J MORAVEC LOT 1 BLK 1 74.22.44.007314 001 001 1323 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 56.970 FEET 30.90000000 1,760.37 41N SIDEWALK REPL 54.900 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 274.50 TO BE ASSESSED 2,034.87 _____---------------------- _______________________________ ------------------------------------------------- FRANK W WHITE III _...... LOT 2 _----------------- BLK 1 74.22.44.007315 002 001 1327 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.000 FEET 31.90000000 1,761.30 TO BE ASSESSED 1,761.30 __________________________ ------------------------ ROBERT R & STACEY D _------------------------------- FREIMUTH LOT 3 __------------------------------------------------ 8LK 1 74.22.44.007316 003 001 1333 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET 30.90000000 1,764.39 TO BE ASSESSED 1,764.39 ---------------------------------- KARL F & MARY M RANDA __ LOT 4 ........................... BLK 1 ______________________________________________________ 74.22.43.007317 004 001 CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST 04/1:O1 PACE 7 TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS L E G A L 0 E S C R I P T I 0 N PRC%ERTY ID LOT BLK CASCADE ST NW ESTER MN 55901 -ET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET 30.90000000 1,764.39 TO BE ASSESSED 1,764.39 __--------------------------------------------------------- _------------ _____................. ______________________________________ JERI L LIDDY LOT 5 ELK 1 74.22.=3.007318 005 001 1407 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET TO BE ASSESSED .......................................... DUANE F & DONNA WILLIAMS 1411 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET TO BE ASSESSED ----------------------------------------- BECKY J ZMOLEK 1417 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 30.90000000 1,764.39 1,764.39 ------------------------------- _........ ________....... _............ _____________________ LOT 6 ELK 1 74. 22.-3.007319 006 001 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET 4IN SIDEWALK REPL 28.780 SQUARE FEE 61N SIDEWALK REPL 28.250 SQUARE FEE TO BE ASSESSED -------------------------------------------- SHEILA R BORENE 1423 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 30.90000000 1,764.39 1,764.39 _______________________________________________________________________________________ LOT 7 ELK 1 74.22.-3.007320 007 001 30.90000000 1,764.39 5.00000000 143.90 6.50000000 183.63 2,091.92 ....................................................................................... LOT 8 ELK 1 74.22.43.007321 008 001 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET 30.90000000 1,764.39 4IN SIDEWALK REPL 29.850 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 149.25 TO BE ASSESSED 1,913.64 LOLA M JOHNSON LOT 9 ELK 1 74.22.-3.007322 009 001 1427 CASCADE ST NW ---"ESTER MN 55901 ET RECONSTRUCT 58.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,792.20 _ _E ASSESSED 1,792.20 --------------------------------------------------------------------------___----------------------_....._'---------_...._..__..._. BRADLEY R & LISA M SCHRADER LOT 10 ELK 1 74.22.-3.007323 010 001 1433 CASCADE ST NW RCCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET 30.90000000 1,764.39 TC BE ASSESSED 1,764.39 ----------------------------------------------------- BENRY W & MARY C DCRAN _------ _______............. LOT 11 ELK 1 ____ ....... ___... ___________________________________ 74.22.-3.007324 011 00, 1439 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET TO BE ASSESSED REKIYATU 0 LAWAL 1443 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET TO BE ASSESSED BOBBY R & JOYCE A BRAUN 1449 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET TO BE ASSESSED DANIEL R ERDMAN 1455 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 30.90000000 ---------------- LOT 12 ELK 1 30.90000000 1,764.39 1,764.39 ------------------ 1,764.39 1,764.39 74.22.-3.007325 012 OC1 ................................. _------- _________________________________________ LOT 13 ELK 1 74.22..3.007326 013 001 30.90000000 1,764.39 1,764.39 .................................................................................. LOT 14 ELK 1 74.22.43.007327 014 001 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET 30.90000000 1,764.39 41N SIDEWALK REPL 163.100 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 815.50 CREDIT 1.000 EACH 815.50000000 815.50- E CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PRCPERTY LIST 04/10/01 PAGE 8 TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS L E G A L D E S C R I P T 1 0 N PROPERTY ID LOT BLK TO BE ASSESSED 1,764.39 EDWARD L & KAREN M CARNEY LOT 15 BLK 1 74.22.43.007328 015 001 1461 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 57.100 FEET 30.90000000 1,764.39 TO BE ASSESSED 1,764.39 NEIL R & JULIE M YOST LOT 16 BLK 1 74.22.43.007329 016 001 1467 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 54.770 FEET 30.90000000 1,692.39 TO BE ASSESSED 1,692.39 THOMAS D BARTZ LOT 1 BLK 2 74.22.44.007330 001 002 1406 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.640 FEET 30.90000000 1,873.78 TO BE ASSESSED 1,873.78 MARTIN E & JUDITH F MUELLER LOT 2 BLK 2 74.22.43.007331 002 002 1410 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 55.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,699.50 TO BE ASSESSED 1,699.50 ----------------------- _---------------------- ERIC W & AMY L THOMPSON _......... ____________________________________________________________________________ LOT 3 BLK 2 74.22.43.007332 003 002 1416 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 55.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,699.50 TO BE ASSESSED 1,699.50 _....................................... ---------------------------- _................................. LAUGY DARN & LOAN THI PHAM LOT 4 BLK 2 ______________________________ 74.22.43.007333 004 002 1422 CASCADE $T NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 56.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,730.40 TO BE ASSESSED 1,730.40 I OLMSTED CO HOUSING & REDEVELOP LOT 5 BLK 2 74.22.43.007334 005 002 2122 CAMPUS DR SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 STREET RECONSTRUCT 56.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,730.40 TO BE ASSESSED 1,730.40 DIANA J & DARRYL J WELDE LOT 6 BLK 2 74.22.43.007335 006 002 1432 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 56.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,730.40 TO BE ASSESSED 1,730.40 JAMES L & DEBBIE K MICHEL LOT 7 BLK 2 74.22.43.007336 007 002 1436 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 56.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,730.40 TO BE ASSESSED 1,730.40 RICHARD J & LINDA M BATTEY LOT 8 BLK 2 74.22.43.007337 008 002 1442 CASCADE $T NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 53.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,637.70 TO BE ASSESSED 1,637.70 TERRY J THUL LOT 9 BLK 2 74.22.43.007338 009 002 1446 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 53.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,637.70 TO BE ASSESSED 1,637.70 MICHELLE S HOFF LOT 10 BLK 2 74.22.43.007339 010 002 C17Y OF ROCHESTER _-CAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST 04/10/01 PAGE 9 TAXPAYERS NAME AND NAILING ADDRESS L E G A L J E S C R I P T I 0 N PROPERTY ID LOT BLK I CASCADE ST NW (ESTER MN 55901 __:ET RECONSTRUCT 53.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,637.70 TO BE ASSESSED 1,637.70 ....................... JON i & JOY D MCIVER _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _CT 11 BLK 2 74.22.43.007340 011 002 1456 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 559C1 STREET RECONSTRUCT 53.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,637.70 TO BE ASSESSED 1,637.70 .................................................... ________ ............ ____________________________________________________________ JERCME W & MARY JO STENSLAND LOT 12 BLK 2 74.22.43.007341 012 002 1462 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 53.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,637.70 TO BE ASSESSED _____ 1,637.70 --------------------------------- ............ _------------------------------------------------ EDWARD A & FERN K NELSON _-T 13 BLK 2 _.............................. 74.22.43.007342 013 002 7468 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.070 FEET 30.90000000 1,856.16 TO BE ASSESSED _______________________________________________________________________________________ 1,856.16 ----------------------------------------- JOSEPH L ANDERSON LOT i BLK 4 74.22.44.007369 001 004 1324 CASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 68.600 FEET 30.90000000 2,119.74 TO BE ASSESSED 2,119.74 .................................................................................................................................... ROSALIE K CROWLEY LOT 2 BLK 4 74.22.44.007370 002 004 1330 CASCADE ST NW RCCH',ESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 68.400 FEET 30.90000000 2,113.56 TO BE ASSESSED ------------------------ ______________--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,113.56 ______________ " ELTON HILLS 2ND REPLAT *' HIAWATHA HOMES FOUNDATION _OT 1 BLK 1 1820 VALKYRIE DR NW RCC+ESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 65.000 FEET 30.90000000 2,008.50 419 S:OEWALK REPL 52.230 SQUARE FEE 5.00C00000 261.15 CRE-:" 1.000 EACH 261.15000000 261.15- TC 3E ASSESSED - 2,008.50 ___________________________________________________________________________________ TERRY E & BARBARA A BARNHART '_-T 2 BLK 1 1312 -ASCADE ST NW ROCHESTER MN 55901 STREET RECONSTRUCT 60.000 FEET 30.90000000 1,854.00 TO SE ASSESSED. 1,854.00 ............ _______________________________________________________________________ DOUGLAS J & TONI L WIGHAM LCi 3 BLK 1 242 CAROLANN ST EYOTA MN 55934 STREET RECONSTRUCT 59.200 FEET 30.90000000 1,829.28 TO SE ASSESSED ....................................................... ."'""""""""" 1,829.28 -----------_- " CITY LANDS 107-14-22 " CITY OF ROCHESTER COI AT SECOR SEC TH 201 4TH ST BE N1540.73FT FOR PL OF BEG TH ROCHESTER MN 55904 S4:48.26FT TH NW66FT TH SW36FT 'H NW146.37FT TH NE282.8FT TO E LINE SE1/4 TH S TO BEG SEC 22 107-14 LANDS IN CITY STREST RECONSTRUCT 102.000 FEET 30.90000000 3,151.80 74.22.44.007375 001 001 _________________________ 74.22.44.007376 002 001 ......................... 74.22.44.007377 003 001 74.22.41.026199 CITY OF ROCHESTER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY LIST 04/10/01 PAGE 10 TAXPAYERS NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS L E G A L D E S C R I P T I O N PROPERTY ID LOT BLK TO BE ASSESSED 3,151.80 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 CITY OF ROCHESTER SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS PAGE 11 OPTION 1 2 M009 STREET RECONSTRUCT CASCADE ST NW FROM 9 AV TO 18 AV NW ,-.AL COST OF JOB TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED TOTAL TO BE DEFERRED TOTAL TO FUTURE 180,704.86 STREET RECONSTRUCT 5,786.740 FEET 30.90000000 178,810.28 4IN SIDEWALK REPL 931.150 SQUARE FEE 5.00000000 4,655.75 CREDIT 1.000 EACH 287.80000000 287.80- CREDIT 1.000 EACH 754.20000000 754.20- CREDIT 1.000 EACH 826.15000000 826.15- 61E SIDEWALK REPL 28.250 SQUARE FEE 6.50000000 183.63 CREDIT 1.000 EACH 815.50000000 815.50- CREDIT 1.000 EACH 267.15000000 261.15- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �y DATE: 5-21-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING I cc I i tM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #01-04 initiated by the Rochester PREPARED BY: Common Council to establish zoning districts for lands within Sections 10, Mitzi A. Baker, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 23 Rochester Township recently annexed to the City of Senior Planner Rochester. May 15, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 25, 2001 to consider zoning districts within Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 23 Rochester Township that were recently annexed to the City of Rochester. Included with the staff report to the Commission was a preliminary zoning map recommended by the Planning Department. At the public hearing, numerous neighborhoods and individuals shared their views regarding the proposed zoning districts. A summary of the testimony is provide in the attached minutes from the meeting. After closing the public hearing, the Commission recommended modifications to the zoning map prepared by the Planning Department. Enclosed are two maps. One identifies the zoning districts recommended by the Planning Department and included in the original staff report to the Commission. The other, represents the recommendation by the Rochester Planning Commission for establishing zoning districts within this area. The commission made several different motions, which are included in the attached minutes. - e the public hearing, the Planning Department has been contacted by a few property owners that do not support the ig district recommended for their property by the Rochester Planning Commission. (P4, p GO+„a..waso v. Y Planning Staff Recommendation: �07 See attached staff report dated April 19, 2001. X A l� Council Action Needed: 1. The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Councils decision on this zone change. If the Council approves this zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law to amend the Official Zoning Map for the City of Rochester. 2. In order to facilitate permit issuance for new construction, additions or changed in use within this area, the Council may wish to suspen the rules and expedite the second reading of the Ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION: ion By: Seconded By: Action: Rochester ad � '�% MAIN OFFICE PC. Box 6478 331 16th Ave. N.W. Rochester, MN 55903-6478 (507) 288-0224 • Fax (507) 288-5816 RICHARD H. PLUNKETT PRESIDENT Mayor and Common Council City of Rochester 201 e Street SE Rochester MN 55904 Dear Mayor and Council Members: HAMMOND BRAIV_ May 15, 2001 RR 2 Box 450 Hammond, MN 55991-9611 (507) 753-2431 • Fax (507) 753-2136 In 1962 I bought 50 acres that now abut on Greystone on the south and Bamberwoods on the east. Over the years we have held cattle, horses and dogs on the property. We have cultivated oats, corn and alfalpha. Most of these activities continue today. My children and I are the current owners and did not object to annexation by the city. The staff of the Planning Commission recommended that our 50 acres be zoned RI, consistent with the Greystone designation nearby. The Commission considered the matter at its last meeting. We were aware of the staff recommendation and did not attend ' the meeting. Several of the neighbors and residents of Bamberwoods did attend and objected to the staff recommendation. The Commission then designated 44 of our acres as "Interim` and the remaining 6 acres as RSA. The "interim" designation puts our land in a non -zoned limbo and apparently renders it illegal for the city to issue any building permit for my residence. A new kennel for my dogs, another stall for the horse or even a deck on the house would be forbidden. This is an unfair burden without reasonable policy justification. The RSA designation is inappropriate (and illegal) for land that is not already developed. Furthermore, since the entire 50 acres is under common family ownership and would, if ever, be developed as a single project, sound policy dictates a common zoning designation for the property. Inasmuch as our property is unlikely to be developed as commercial or multifamily housing, and the RSA designation is inappropriate we request that the Council reconsider and adopt the Commission staffs original recommendation for this property. Fairness and sound policy call for this property to be treated as Greystone was and designated Rl. Sincerely, I 'chard 4�Z� May 16, 2001 The Honorable Mayor Chuck Canfield and City of Rochester Common Council City Hall 201 Fourth Street SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Rochester Township Area Zoning Plunkett Property, 18'h Avenue SW Dear Honorable Mayor and Common Council: 1 A:9:: ea 9i i 0B"a I va s CA)= ARC MI T C CTs The Plunketts would like the opportunity to voice their opinion on the rezoning of their property that includes unplatted land between Bamberwood I" Subdivision and 18'h Avenue SW, and Lot 1 of La Mar Subdivision. The entire property is approximately 45.77 acres, of which 44.02 acres is unplatted. Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department staff had presented and suggested this property be R-I at the neighborhood informational meeting and at the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission for zoning of the entire Rochester Township area, commission members decided, based on comments from neighbors, to change this originally planned R-1 designation on the property to an Interim Zone and an R-Sa zone. The Plunketts are not in agreement with modifying this originally planned R-1 designation. The reasons for wanting an R-1 zone on the Plunkett property and not Interim or R-Sa are numerous. One of the main reasons is how the Interim zone would affect their existing home on the property. If zoned Interim, no modifications that require a permit (build an addition, a deck, a swimming pool, an extra garage, etc.) would be allowed. The Plunketts intend to continue using this property as a residence long into the future, and they feel it is unfair to deny them the flexibility to be able to make improvements consistent with that use if desired or needed. The Interim zoning designation is used to "assist in notifying the public that the future zoning of selected, undeveloped land will be subject to change at some time in the future. The Interim Zone provides the owner of the property the time needed to analyze and organize an official request for permanent zoning district boundaries." Although the Plunketts have no plans to develop their land in the near future, if development becomes necessary, it would be their intention to develop the land for single family residences. The R-1 zoning as originally proposed best reflects the property owners intentions, and if adopted would notify existing homeowners and potential homeowners of the future plan for the property as single family. An Interim Zone, on the other hand, would give a false impression for the future of the property as something other than single family. P Lo va L XS ROCHESTER OFFICE r 17 Thud Avenue S Rochester. MN 559C 5u7-288-646 Fax 507-288-505 AIASO% CITY OFFICE E=1-424-63= DELAFIELD OFFICE -62-646-6E3 One issue that has been discussed in support of the Interim zoning of the property is that the neighbors would be notified of any change. The owner's intent is to zone the property R-1 and if there is any change to the R-I designation the neighbors will be notified. When the required General Development Plan is submitted, the neighbors will also be notified and be able to review and comment on the proposed plan. Honorable Mayor Canfield and Common Council May 16, 2001 Page 2 The R-Sa designation is inappropriate for the Plunkett land. The definition of R-Sa states "This district is intended to maintain the character of existing residential areas which have been developed with single family detached dwellings on large lots with significant amounts of open space, resulting in the creation of spacious residential environments" (italics mine). The Plunkett property was purchased in 1962 as a large rural residence/farm and has remained virtually unchanged since that time. The only portion of the property that has been platted (1.75 acres) has not been built upon purposely to allow for future development. Clearly the property has not been "developed with single family detached dwellings", as the ordinance requires for an R-Sa designation. We have analyzed how an R-Sa designation of the northern four to five acres of the Plunkett land might affect future development, recognizing that the land, although technically in four parcels, would likely be developed by the family as a single project. The best access to the Plunkett development is off 28 s Street SW where the Planning Commission recommended R-Sa zoning. This R-Sa zoning would affect the entire layout by requiring oversized large lots right at the entrance into a typical R-1 development. Such a layout would present an uncharacteristic and misleading entry to a more typical R-1 neighborhood and force uneconomic infrastructure costs It on the front end of the development, when developed, and into the future. The future development of the Plunkett property would also provide secondary access for the R-1 zoned Greystone development to the south. Your willingness to listen to the property owner's concerns and point of view, as well as take into account planning staffs original proposal for R-1 on the Plunkett property is appreciated. The Plunketts would like all of their property zoned R-1 and are planning to be available at the council meeting if you have questions or concerns to discuss. Sincerely, Y'AJGGY COLB�Y�Aj�S�SSOCIATES Wade DuNlond, ASLA Department Head of Land Development WCD YCA #6451 LD2 cc: Mitzi Baker Richard Plunkett PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Merrihills Second Subdivision, are opposed to R-1 zoning for the properties known as Windemere (the Plunkett residence), the adjoining oat field, and the smaller lots to the north, but south of 28th Street S.W. Our opposition is based on the inappropriate uses that R-1 might allow in a residential area and the foreseeable possibility of small -lot development instead of larger lots that would be more appropriately scaled to existing surrounding development and would be required with R-Sa zoning. rr...... __Name �IIUL l.U�tlL6fs! � +�Gt� //1 Ll ./inrG'r�rrc.> Address lir�lti�+ Dry_ 1 _ •� %%rig / 11W 1 �iuvar� Si w 26o-7 (50 PETl'riON 4 We, the undersigned residents of Merrihills Second Subdivision, are opposed to R-1 zoning for the properties known as Windemere (the Plunkett residence), the adjoining oat field, and the smaller lots to the north, but south of 25th Street S.W. Our opposition is based on the inappropriate uses that R-1 might allow in a residential area and the foreseeable possibility of small -lot development instead of larger lots that would be more appropriately scaled to existing surrounding development and would be required with R-Sa zoning. Name .^ MOOS Address y�y � �s w �K i gY ? •� , SIG I"y 1• CI�M�(.t.LYY /�`T" • W N µ N '7 4' d io 9 Gu 7o 7 :.S �_✓ / S/ PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Bamberwood First Subdivision, are opposed to R-I zoning for the properties known as Windcmcre (the Plunkett residence), the adjoining oat Field, and the smaller lots to the north, but south of 28th Street S.W. Our opposition is based on the inappropriate uses that R-I inight allow in a residential area and the foreseeable possibility of small -lot development instead of larger lots that would be more appropriately scaled to existing surrounding development and would be required with R-Sa zoning. Name Address /5'oG 30 '5 0. 0%1 IA 3 ZrD �/�til_T�� PETITION 4 We, the undersigned residents of Bantberwood Est Subdivision, arc opposed to R-1 zoningv for the properties known as Windemcre (the Plunkett residence), the adjoining oat field, and the smaller lots to the north, but south of 28th Street S.W. Our opposition is based on the inappropriate uses that R-1 might allow in a residential area and the foreseeable possibility of small -lot development instead of larger lots that would be more appropriatek scaled to existing surrounding development and would be required with R-Sa zoning. Name Address ZZO g82.0 rs`�r1u �_- 150-7 fig' ` sr- 272 v27ao �� � os•'�.cJ > sit JAJ t 311 S'• 3(-(J tg{'l 2�' s4-. S'w 13 M 2.1 '�- S t- s t,J r «3 PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Bamberwood First Subdivision, are opposed to R-t zoning for the properties known as Windemere ([he Plunkett residence), the adjoining out field. and the smaller lots to the north, but south of 28th Street S.W. Our opposition is based on the inappropriate uses that R-1 might allow in a residential area and the foreseeable possibility of small -lot development instead of larger lots that would be more appropriately scaled to existing surrounding development and would be required with R-Sa zoning. Name Address Uiuc Cie. riZ70 I %4 lliuf J CC9. 1 !s l Wft �- JX �. 7 0 2h—a,:) lea q 191 k1+�_e Sa , no -CA . 0 S( s' 10- 60L-,stj 'zdCt,Es fer . Mt'J t 1336�7 Cle", &�--S-C(J- �/5 3 z 2- /3-�Y- �Zr,&— ' , . 6y, Spaeth, Terry / From: Kvenvold, Steve ' Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 5:03 PM To: Spaeth, Terry; Neumann, Gary Subject: Fw: R-Sa District —Odginal Message— From: Adkins, Terry Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 4:47 PM To: Kvenvold, Steve Subject: R-Sa District Steve, Section 60.323 (2) says the R-Sa district "is intended to maintain the character of existing residential areas which have been developed with single family detached dwellings on large lots with significant amounts of open space, resulting in the creation of spacious residential environments." The phrase "maintain the character of existing residential areas" (especially the use of the word "existing") strongly suggests this zoning district applies to developed land rather than undeveloped land. How can one "maintain the character of existing residential areas" of an undeveloped piece of land? But, this is a zoning decision which is, under the law, a legislative issue. The courts tend to defer greatly to the policy -making body on legislative issues. So long as the City can show a rational basis for its legislative act (such as the assignment of the R-Sa zoning district to an undeveloped parcel land in order to promote the development of single family homes on large lots), a court will defer. And, the ordinance does say "is intended to maintain the character of existing residential areas" rather than " is limited to," "applies only to" or "shall maintain." Bottom line: I can't say it is absolutely illegal for the city to apply the R-Sa zone to undeveloped property. I can come up with a rational basis for the City's desire to promote single family homes on large lots on undeveloped land. But, I can say the stated intent of the R-Sa zoning district is to apply to existing residentially -developed land, not undeveloped land. The application of R-Sa to undeveloped land does not promote the stated intent of the R-Sa district. Terry t +5S �- Z O z b _ MTH i < CT \ 000000001 01 000003 g� 4 9= d! z 9 e a Q y < 9 4 l01 a O ; IS 0! 90 � N N N o � � 0 00 n 2 7r03m 0 CCAOm 3 F3 OCD 3 N CD w 0 � N 7 � 3. +I7 ROSTER-OLPISTED PLANNING DEPAIENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester. MN 5594"=--14 COUNTY OF DATE: April 19, 2001 TO: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner "k•QOCHESTER•.ff/1.1� / rkn OR471'D:jUGUST•- RE: Zoning District Amendment #01.04 initiated by the Rochester Common Council to establish zoning districts for lands within Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 23 Rochester Township recently annexed to the City of Rochester. Background: In October 2000 the City approved annexation of lands in Rochester To%& ship that were 100% surrounded by the City of Rochester. Upon annexation the entire area was zoned "H- Holding" district with re -zoning to a permanent district to occur in the future. IF In December 2000, the City received notice that the annexation had rece'red final approval from the State. In early February, the Planning Department mailed surveys to the developed neighborhoods to determine interest by property owners for the zoning of the property. Rescential subdivisions were provided with a brief summary of the R-Sa (Mixed Single Family O eray) district and the R- 1 (Mixed Single Family) district. After receiving and tallying the survey responses, Planning staff met to d1s.—uss the survey results and potential zoning for the area. Results from the survey were taken into consideration in formulating recommended zoning districts. Other factors also considered include the potential for re -subdivision, placement of homes on lots, lot sizes, flexibility for future additions and modifications to dwellings and accessory structures, and performance regulations of the R-Sa and R-1 districts. On April 4, 2001 the Planning Department hosted an informational open house for the residents included in the annexation and re -zoning. Staff from the Planning Depa=ent, as well as staff from Rochester Public Works and City Administration were present. Maps of the area were available for viewing, including a preliminary zoning district map for the area and aerial photographs. The open house was attended by approximately 50 property owners from the area. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSP,GHRA 507/285.8224 PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - wELLISEPTIC 507/285-834. FAX 507/287-2275 Yy AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 0 f 5if / Proposed Zoning for Consideration: Within the this area, three City zoning districts are being proposed. These districts include the R- Sa (Mixed Single Family Overlay District), R-1 (Mixed Single Family) District and a small area of B-4 (General Commercial). The B-4 (General Commercial) district is proposed for a small area located along T.H. 63 south, south of 281" St. SW. This property was zoned HC — Highway Commercial prior to annexation and includes commercial uses. In preparing a recommended zoning map, staff took into consideration several factors. Survey results (property owner interest in R-1 vs. R-Sa), existing lot sized and dimensions, placement of existing building on lots, potential for future additions, potential for re -subdivision and setback and open space requirements of the R-1 and R-Sa districts were considered. Attached is a proposed zoning district map. The Lenwood Heights neighborhood is shown as an "undecided" area. Staff suggest that either the R-1 or R-Sa zoning would be appropriate for this subdivision. Approximately 75% of the property owners in that subdivision returned surveys expressing an interest in the R-Sa zoning. Based on a review of aerial photographs, with parcel boundaries overlaid, staff suggests that an R-1 zoning would provide little opportunity for re - subdivision within this development and would maximize flexibility for homeowners who may want to build additions in the future. The Planning Commission will need to make a recommendation to the City Council for the future zoning of the area identified as "undecided" on the attached map. Procedure and Criteria: The amendment to the Rochester Zoning Map to establish zoning for this area is considered a comprehensive amendment to the Official Zoning Map for the City of Rochester. Criteria and Suggested Findings: Under the provisions of Paragraph 60.338 of the Rochester Land Development Manual, the Commission shall recommend for approval and the Council shall approve, an application requesting an amendment to the zoning map if the amendment satisfies the following criteria: 1) The criteria of this subdivision apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. An amendment need only satisfy one of the following criteria: a) The area, as presently zoned, is inconsistent with the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan; b) The area was originally zoned erroneously due to a technical or administrative error; c) While both the present and proposed zoning districts are consistent with the Plan, the proposed district better furthers the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan, Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan, and Chapter 10 of the ROCOG Long Range Transportation Plan; or d) The area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to rezone so as to encourage development or redevelopment of the area. Finding: Through the Water Quality Protection Program, municipal services are being extended to portions ofthe area; to eliminate individual septic systems, drain fields and private water systems; protect water quality and the health, safety and welfare of the ' community. The area was recently annexed to the City of Rochester. 2) The criteria of this subdivision also apply to those amendments to the zoning map filed by formal petition. However, an amendment must satisfy all of the following criteria: a) the permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning district will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood; and Finding: Permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning districts will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties. b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the reclassification of a single lot or several small lots to a district which is different than that assigned to surrounding properties, for reasons inconsistent with the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the state enabling legislation, or the decisions of courts in this state). Finding: The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map of Proposed Zoning Districts 2. Summary of Survey Results 3. Zoning Tables (R-Sa and R-1) 4. Definitions of Use Categories for R-Sa and R-1 5. Summary of Area Accessory Developments 6. Site Location Criteria Definitions for R-Sa and R-1 7. Correspondence from Property Owners mgm • 0 0 o a o a o 0 0 0 o c o o a c a o c o o c c o 0 0 o a o c o 0 0 O h C O O c7 O e N N N O h 7 M h M h vt •-+ O N O O M --• N N M r^. N �O N b �n vi h N �t M F U F .. i•i r.i z c o o 0 o 0 e 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o a 0 a 0o o 0 o o p c o o a o o e c o a o c o o e c o 0 0 Nc N^ -- 1p .-• N •--• M M ^ N ^ N A V -- 0 0 N^ O^ tV 0 0 0 0 0 :-: O -:-� O N Nl [V r• M -� CV .+ O O .-� � z 0 0 o e o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o c c o o c o c o 0 o c o 0 0 M 0 V1 q 0 h 7 O N b b O M h O h O O W V �D .- tV o0 N M R CCS vt.lR .�. :th •y - O F In a W w rd z � o a z q OgNgV� 'xxggz�cnzqq gFcntltic-1' QQQQQgFtltl� a 0Z-V]V]W 07V]VVI E" O—]F C1 Cocn F A Q LF F F 00Z) ~..1 O�w��aaaa �QaSgQ N w--Naa aaaz Q O F,u: w U w zwxxxx�x¢a O w[ F F F x w w F p <Qrn= w O a^ �nv�nrr.�an.n.wa q u w 3 y:00z w x ¢a O 3 O wwwp pu0V)vWun7 wrxrdW nUF- �'J ¢00¢OaCa¢QaL� wwwwOL"FQ r w .a 3 �3�wwo:xzzw z¢rM 00 w w w 0 o o 0 Q,F-. ¢�z¢wx w-- i a 3 '<F..F--FFFHrr:z cg00c]UJ 3v, 3 wwww��.a� W �Uxxxxxo3� ¢ ¢ VODUUUUcnOF Q q E F0q Ca0aa E'O n p F0. V F00 U U (0-F0. U V ,� wwwww 10J / EXCERPTS FROM T H E ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL C y m as to m m CD m C C . m � N 3 Q N N � Q m Z C Q N (D F — fn Co H Q) CL � U � Q m F m y (A w 'a p in Co C Z C m Z Q) O N Q7 J Z N Q' m W C m Z 3 E3 W D � O m .0 0 r C4 N N to w a N 0 m � � y y N m m v` w L 3 m m U t C U m c s v 3 m a C O 'a O O c N N 2` O 10 �. E � ny m L U m U j c N U c r V G O m m $ L O O N Q a`� a N Ip Z O N m 00 � c 9a r� m m U m {� N L -0 0 n� $ ry m m t m m � W _o Z V W � d w y� m } L � C Q W N 0 �° oZ>- m N m mZ O N v m m7 N ag m Q oLLQ Y € §y .. 3�m zr g= 9 sae Ern_v ?i n n'^o C0 nit o DO c wy 6 m t o E o m m m buy E A Eo' ^ 5T c K X o c�ac i 3 �m 3 LL' N jY N Qx p N (V K� CYO C P n B 255 c c8 W C� ` Q O - O'ya a _ o w is p wZ$ W)H C� Wp2 YLL ~ Fw O 00� Z i0 u =jN W o u aox" o 6 qo `o_'w rim ry � � L� ry ry Fn C V i0 b 6 F LL i• �� �� "J9N N N q pJ p�V lV �N OC.G N lY fp �D O 0 m � n m 6 j Ce- w 0 C nY p ip C a o v ui SLI m 5 _ m p iU n pn 2 �LLQ 6W N W m woi =w `o L r lly N� aW U� Oa o� w� o¢ w uSw o� NQ� ONm JWW GULL UK WLLe �-r room �n0 WWN U SOU wi Op= Woo O wpwp boo NWW Ott Qww `o ❑ 11 ) & § § G \ol ! !» • |�,l� # � {`! q � 5 §E q \ q / [ fa;$ || - - - !! §.� ! �,22| ; !! |._!, (�k! is as ..zz§§ w / §!§ § @ '�� § | B U U @ m - C C a) QC N CD w E C LL a) 4) � N v/ X_ C .T a N @ w � C C @ N O LL N e C Z N F- a) Q �ccc N12 c �ry a U_ rn co o ) LL z a) Jd pa) (D:s Na Z N J m W Z o xLE W— r2 m U d N N 40 ,40 m Q pOn t tl a m a zoo o c �E` a r W N x m u E Eemm a m •. no- "q ¢ Q N c o m mo I ti °3 my q qn X �X X _cX9a o a O.9 m m � m 7 i L T 3 in n S � E m ut E'_ �t �o a 9 3 o y a o9`J m W a "• _ - Y o o v r a x LL3_o c Y aa ¢� m O • a m Ea m m :. a m tp I U j � C L-a w Z C I O ms V a IU w n ao poe poi i OO d o p Y W aoLL ~ m o = f a N m m U E N C e - a' E Ecry ,v_a a o oag n �w `a m m J m U $ mm m C F £ a F m ti m w x W 9 K- �a 5 W c a_ v £ $ m K W J m� �ro=� LL a$; a o - � � '^ ❑ d 07 Z� E _ : 0 � Z UI m U) m N a x a m m Z W U o 3 c f Z LL a 3 A o m mm a a aAD s K 2> m W W Z KZ m LLWm2O �rra w LL V o ¢ m g O <O6 a CLL aK Z Q Z y w w ww �a N-LL QW U� Oa Oi w� oa N W W fQ6 2>� w awLL ULL ax WLLO o-> yXm w U�N U <QX �wi oa_ ,orc >o FmF �F o wo woo WW art zz K =oo t C �T a a m U) m c C W W U C cc m C, C 2 m N CD Q ~ r w cc uj a N Q m R c F m N y m N N N N to o a Z � Y 5 cb $$m gy y C� 66 C W W N NtN Z 6 0 0 0 N °m5 CN 6� NN l! Q 6 N N � ¢ a a gc fl Cp N N N N N WW YaM p NN tiq <¢ 6 v Q m p v W CM Im V ry I I [ 0 °m ig 3 � m rs LL o� _3E FF Ziz m � E Qq n e w o LLw S o a a s a m �5 a a n; a� ¢9 O QU E9 IFNY mJ ¢5q�o m> N <U ' < o q < 4§ (q F0- m W W m> 16 20 9- 2 Z Wm � ¢LL am ¢y m R W =C m C C 07 P n E V L n 9 a J m a V r m IL b Z y N LL 3 T o LL ¢ GY mm $ �m9at idr�� s m',g� i`n�o� am2 y�445Sg11 OEM 2UW 162 Excerpts from the Aester Zoning Ordinance and Land Aelopment Manual USE CATEGORIES AS DEFINED IN SECTION 62.140: • Single Family Detached: A one family detached dwelling as defined. • Group Residential Care: Group residential care uses include any day care facilities or residential facilities as each are defined by this ordinance. • Office Uses: A building or portion of a building used for office purposes by a business, service, professional or institutional establishment, including medical offices or clinics, studios for those involved in art, sculpture, music and the like, and all other establishments similar in character. • Medical Facilities: Establishments engaged in providing diagnostic services, extensive medical treatment (including surgical services) and other hospital services, as well as continuous nursing service, including general medical and surgical hospitals, specialty hospitals, medical laboratories, bio-medical research and development, outpatient care facilities, medical schools and associated dormitories, medical appliance sales, and similar uses, but not including animal hospitals. • Nursing and Personal Care Facilities: Establishments primarily engaged in providing intermediate or long term nursing and health related care to individuals, typically classified as nursing homes. • Parking Facility: Any structure associated with a nonresidential use whose purpose is to provide the required off-street parking spaces for a principal use, or any site utilized for parking which constitutes the principal use on a parcel of land. This category also includes community lots which are established to meet the parking needs in a residential area. • Area Accessory Development: Developments which provide facilities to meet the area needs of a social or technical nature, such as churches, institutional buildings, public parks, nursery, elementary or secondary schools, temporary shelters operated by nonprofit agencies, public emergency service facilities, and utility system components, subject to the regulations in Section 62.930 of this ordinance. • Temporary Uses: A use which does not conform to the regulations of the applicable zoning district established for a fixed period of time with intent to discontinue such use upon the expiration of such time. A temporary use shall not involve the construction or alteration of any permanent building or structure, and shall be regulated as provided for in Paragraph 61.115. • Substantial Land Alteration: See Section 62.1101. Quarry: See Section 62.1101. • Sand or Gravel Excavation: See Section 62.1101. PAGE 1 MARCH 23. 2001 Excerpts from the Rolester Zoning Ordinance and Land Dpelopment Manual 1b1 SUMMARY OF AREA ACCESSORY USES AND SITE LOCATION CRITERIA 62.936 AREA ACCESSORY DEVELOPMENTS SITE LOCATION STANDARDS The standards in this table identify the Site Location Requirements for Area Accessory Developments in all Zoning Districts. The Site Location Requirements are described in Paragraph 63.250. The permitted uses are described in Paragraph 62.930 (1)-(13). LIST OF PERMITTED USES ZONING DISTRICTS Residential ' Uses ' B-fi All Other Districts Utilities 1 Utility Stations 2 Major Water and Sewer Facilities (3) * J E Public Emergency Facilities 4 J J J Parks and Recreation Facilities (5) Neighborhood E E E Regional D D D Schools (6) Nursery E E E Elementary D D D Secondary J J J Churches 7 E E E Government/Non-Profit Offices (8) * D Cultural Facilities (9) * D Bus Shelters Recycling Containers (10) * D,F Cemeteries 11 E E E Social Services Centers 12 A NOTES: "Residential' includes R-Sa, R-1, R-lx, R-2, R-3, R-4, AG, Developing District Residential and CDC -Residential * means that the use is not permitted in the district A blank means that there is not a Site Location Requirement PAGE 2 MARCH 23, 2001 (10 Excerpts from the RoVester Zoning Ordinance and Land Aelopment Manual / APPLICABLE SITE LOCATION STANDARDS PER SECTION 63.250 4 • 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 order streets. • Site Location "C": The use shall be located at the intersection of two arterial or higher order streets in an R-Sa, R-1, R-1x, R-2, or R-3 District. • Site Location "D": Uses shall only be permitted to take access off of a major local or higher order streets. • Site Location "E": Uses shall be located so as not to take access from or channel a majority of the traffic generated by the use onto a limited local or local residential street. If access to the site is to be provided from a frontage road, the frontage road must be a through road, or, if a dead end, its intersection must be with a nonresidential street or a collector or higher order street as defined by the Thoroughfare Plan. • Site Location "F": Uses shall not take access to any major local or collector street where access to the site from the primary street system (arterials, expressways and freeways) by way of the collector or major local results in traffic passing through a residential area. • Site Location " Hl": In order to avoid the potential negative impact of residential facilities on a neighborhood, no two Type II or Type III facilities may locate within one -quarter mile of each other. An exception may be made if the two facilities are separated by a physical barrier such as an arterial street, nonresidential zoning, or topographical features that could mitigate the need for separating such facilities. In such instances the request for a zoning certificate shall be processed as a Type II use. • Site Location "J": The site provides direct access to a collector, arterial or expressway. PAGE 3 MARCH 23, 2001 III LETTERS FROM PROPERTY OWNER(S) April 16, 2001 To: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission The residents of Lenwood Heights would like the opportunity to provide technical data to correct several mistaken impressions regarding Lenwood Heights stated by representatives of the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department at their Informational Open House presenting preliminary zoning designations for several Rochester Township neighborhoods. Please see the data below: I. Lenwood Heights is NOT "a neighborhood of half -acre lots": The 49 lots in Lenwood Heights can be categorized into 3 groups: 22% of the lots average 0.50 acres in size (range=0.44-0.54 acres) 31% of the lots average 0.62 acres in size (range=0.56-0.65 acres) 47% of the lots average 1.12 acres in size (range=0.75-1.93 acres) As a result of the lot sizes in Lenwood Heights, the City's cost estimates for individual homeowners' connection to City sewer and water services were as high as $40,000 in Lenwood Heights (estimates which did not include costs for installation of sewer/water lines to the front of each house from the City lines installed in the street). II. "The smallest Lenwood lots" DO "allow building additions to be made in future within the setback requirements under R-Sa zoning";. The following data (in rows 2-5) are manual measurements of five of the smallest lots in Lenwood Heights: Lot Size (acre) #1 0.49 #2_ 0.46 #3 0.5 # 4 0.51 #5 0.57 Front (R-Sa: 351)* 50 31 70 41 50 Back (R-Sa: 351) 125 43 100 42 175 Left (R-Sa: 101) 21 60 21 31 17 Right (R-Sa: 101) 16 27 30 105 36 Frontage (R-Sa: 90') 100 160 100 180 120 *Front = Distance from edge of easement to front of house; Back = Distance from house to rear lot line; and "Left" and "Right" refer to side of house when viewing the front of the house. All measurements are in feet. R-Sa setback requirements are in bold parentheses in the left -most column. r • 113 Furthermore, the lot areas covered by buildings in the above lots were calculated generously (i.e., overestimated) by subtracting the above measurements (using the measurement made on the most out -reaching part of each building) from the lot size measurements given on a plat map (using the smallest dimensions of irregularly - shaped lots), and assuming that each house is a perfect rectangle (which it is not) and that each lot is a -perfect rectangle (which it is not). These data are as follows: Lot Size (acre) 0.49 0.46 0.5 0.51 0.57 Building (Sq. Ft.) 1953 4818 1911 2068 2077 NOTE: The "70% minimum landscape area" required by R-Sa zoning requires that no more than 6534 square feet may be covered by buildings in a half -acre lot (30% of 21,780 square feet in a half - acre = 6534 square feet). No house in Lenwood Heights comes even close to 6534 square feet in area. III. Lenwood Heights has more aerobic pretreatment units installed in residential wastewater treatment systems than any other neighborhood in the Rochester area. This is important because Performance -Based Standards for residential wastewater treatment systems are now in place at the Minnesota State level (rules in use in Rochester Township), giving a credit for the installation of a pretreatment unit. This credit would be in the form of a) reduction in the required number of feet of soil separation or b) reduction in the required square footage of drainfield. This, in turn, means that smaller drainfields--i.e., a smaller portion of a lot --can be utilized by a home for a septic system equipped with an aerobic unit. Conclusion: These data serve to clarify that Lenwood Heights qualifies for R-Sa zoning. Furthermore, in support of this designation, 75% of our residents have voted (unanimously!) for R- Sa instead of R1 zoning. Providing these data is not in any way a waiver by the residents of Lenwood Heights of their rights under Minnesota State Law or United States Federal Law. Submitted by: udith A. Gilbert, On behalf of 75% of Lenwood Heights homeowners 2309Institute Hills Road, SW Rochester, Minnesota 55902 April 7, 2001 Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, Minnesota 55904 4 Dear Planners: Our house was constructed in the mid-1930's--one of the very first ones in this area. We have lived in this house since 1976 and hope to continue to do so for many years. One of our neighbors it contacted us today to let us know we are designated for commercial and small lot zoning. We have been out of town on several trips and leave tomorrow on yet another. Since your office is not open this weekend, I am writing this note to strongly protest this zoning designation for our parcel of land. This property is ill -suited for development and the integrity of our neighborhood is at stake. I will be in direct contact when I return April 25, 2001. Sincerely, �!J Oi 6'4� Meellee L. Fish P, S. �'p " April 11, 2001 To the Rochester Zoning Commission/Planning Board art h1i�`, We the undersigned are stating our clear opposition to changing the Institute Hills addition from its current R-Sa zoning to R-i zoning. As you know, an unannounced ballot was sent to home owners in this area. Four did not respond to this small postcard, three opposed a change and 1 voted for the change. This in clearly not a mandate for change. Non responders cannot be interpreted as being pro -change. To underscore this point, the following home owners are now on record as being actively opposed to the proposed zoning change. Thank you for your attention to this majority. Names Addresses 14yd_20c7 6964�, fw ��s TyOu 5 nior� ten a- Garton I?a7-a, 2121 &-atJsr, 1� -) z3D`t s1; ,S,vv SS�b Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 0 • U ity easements be provided along the south lot lines of Lot 4, Block 1 and Lots 2, nd 4, Block 2. • The lity and access easement shown along the north side of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block hall be widened to provide the required 10 feet from the cen rilne of the water m\access dge of the easement. • An easeovided along the easterly edge of the plat, ov he existing sanitary • Indicateay and fioodplain boundaries. • West Cie indicated on the plat as WEST CIRC DRIVE NW (COUNTY ROAD 2 • Controllb indicated on the interior road s as specified in the developm t. 2. The Developer executes a s lement to the Cir 19 Plaza Development Agreement that outlines the obligations o e applicant r ting to, but not limited to; stormwater management, park dedication, t tc impro ents, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, floodway, and contrib 'ons f public infrastructure. 3. The roadway section for Heartland D NW shall be determined prior to final platting. The minimum cross se s I be a_40 foot face to face three lane section with a shared two way left -turn a from '" Street NW to Heritage Drive NW. 4. Pedestrian facilities shall b constructed con rrent with this development, at the owner's expense, along frontage of both si s of all new public streets. In addition a 10 foot wid ituminous pedestrian pa is required along the entire frontages of West C' a Drive NW and 1e Street 5. The existing 10 oot wide drainage easement shall b acated and a 50 foot wide drainage eas ent re -dedicated along an alignment ap ved by the City Engineer. 6. The appl' nt is working with FEMA to amend the floodwa nd fioodplain bound es on this property. The design of Superior Drive, N Heartland Drive NW, and grading or filling within the areas currently coned floo ay and fioodplain wi eed to comply with development standards applicable to se areas. If the endments are not approved by FEMA, the roadway design ma eed to be revised. Zoning District Amendment #01-04 initiated by the Rochester Common Council to establish zoning districts for lands within Sections 10, 11 14 15 16 and 23 Rochester Township recently annexed to the City of Rochester. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated April 19, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Baker clarified that the request was not to rezone the properties, but to establish zoning districts within the City. She explained that, when the properties were annexed into the City, all properties were placed in a Holding zone so that staff had the opportunity to poll property owners whether or not there was an interest in RSA zoning and for staff to make recommendations. 11 Page 6 . 0 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 Ms. Baker explained all the different elements staff looked at to formulate their recommendation. Some of these included aerial photographs, existing lot lines, building placement, and potential to subdivide and/or re -subdivide. Ms. Baker explained that the both R-1 and RSA zoning districts allow for some non-residential uses. However, they are limited to specific locations. Ms. Baker reviewed the different zoning recommendations and explained the designations. Ms. Baker stated that the Lenwood Heights neighborhood showed interest in the RSA zoning district. However, after staff reviewed all the information available, staff thought that the R-1 zoning district warranted consideration. She stated that either district would be appropriate for the neighborhood. Ms. Baker provided some background history and informed the Commission that the Planning Department held an open house. Ms. Baker stated that staff had several discussions with the Bamberwood neighborhood. As a result of those discussions, she explained that the already subdivided lots warrant consideration for the RSA zoning district. She explained that the large undeveloped parcels do not meet the intent of the RSA zoning district. The RSA designation is only to be used in an established residential neighborhood where there is large lot development with an abundance of open space. Ms. Baker stated that the surveys did not give a clear understanding of what the neighborhood wanted to be zoned in the neighborhood surrounding Balsam Court and Institute Road. Ms. Baker stated that the large undeveloped areas on the map do not qualify for RSA zoning. Therefore, they did not receive a survey. Ms. Rivas asked if the properties in Woodcrest and 18"' Avenue could also be zoned RSA. Ms. Baker responded that the property owners only expressed interest in the R-1 zoning district. Ms. Wiesner and Ms. Rivas suggested hearing property owners starting west and moving east on the proposed zoning map. Mr. Ken Moen, of 505 Marquette Bank Building, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He explained that he represented people who live in Lenwood Heights, Merrihills, Bamberwood, Oakledge, and Hyland Acres. He asked the Commission to consider those areas to be in the RSA zoning district instead of the R-1 zoning district. He explained that, to maintain the essential character of the neighborhoods, the properties should be placed in the RSA zoning district. Mr. Moen questioned staffs interpretation of the Ordinance, with regard to the RSA zoning district not being appropriate for the two large parcels between 15"' Avenue SW and County Road 147. He read the definition of the RSA zoning district and stated he felt that zoning those parcels to the RSA zoning district would be consistent with the surrounding properties. Ms. Wiesner asked how many acres the two parcels contained. ^ Page 7 • • '61 City Planning and Zoning Comtnission Minutes Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 A person from the audience responded 20 acres per parcel. 1 Mr. Moen explained that Merrihills, Bamberwood, Lenwood Heights, Oakledge, and Hyland Acres are contesting the annexation and are currently in District Court. Therefore, he asked the Commission to keep the properties in the Holding zone, until the court announces their decision. Mr. Moen stated that he disagreed with the proposed findings in the staff report and made the following comments: 1. The area is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, if zoned RSA. 2. It was not zoned erroneously. It was zoned under existing township law. 3. It does not better advance the goals of the Comprehensive Plan to put R-1 zoning districts in the middle of larger lot developments. 4. Putting small lot developments in the area is spot zoning. Ms. Wiesner asked what the properties below the two 20 acre parcels were zoned. Mr. Moen responded R-1. Ms. Wiesner questioned how he considered it spot zoning when there is no road in between the properties. Mr. Moen responded that the RSA zoning district surrounds 3/< of the two parcels. He explained that the lot sizes, in the RSA zoning district, are determined by a formula. Ms. Wiesner asked what Ponderosa Drive was zoned. it Ms. Baker responded R-1. Mr. Ohly asked what the basis was for challenging the annexation. Mr. Moen explained that the areas he was representing are not considered feasible to provide city sewer and water services. The township provided all the necessary services for those areas and the City would not be providing additional services. Mr. Duane Rorie, of 1040 Maywood Road SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that 6 out of 7 property owners asked for RSA zoning on the survey. However, the proposed zoning map shows the R-1 zoning district. He stated that they were told they were combined with Oakledge, which either did not respond to the survey or may have had a predominance of people who wanted to be located in the R-1 zoning district. He asked that the Commission consider zoning his property to the RSA zoning district. Ms. Lois Shub, of 1425 20'hStreet SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She stated that only two people voted; one for RSA zoning and one for R-1 zoning. She explained that two people that live in the neighborhood were out of the country for one year and one owner of one of the properties does not live in the area. She stated that she was the individual who voted for the R-1 zoning district, but did not understand the difference. Therefore, she asked the Commission to reconsider and zone the area to the RSA zoning district. Page 8 • 0 ' n? City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes / 7 Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 Mr. Kenneth Reed, of 2024 Woodcrest Lane SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that he owns a three -acre parcel in Oakledge. He requested that the Commission zone the area RSA. Mr. John Wiltsie, of 2608 Merrihills Drive SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He asked staff to clarify the difference between the R-1 zoning district and the RSA zoning district. Ms. Baker explained that the R-1 zoning district allows for a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. She stated that it is rare to see more than 3 % lots per acre in an R-1 zoning district for single-family lot development. The majority of the lots being developed are being developed on larger lots. Ms. Baker stated that the main difference between the R-1 and RSA zoning district is the lot sizes. She explained that the lot sizes, in the R-1 zoning district, are not dictated by averaging out what the neighboring lots are. There are just minimum lot sizes that need to be complied with. However, there is not a maximum lot size. Ms. Baker explained that the ability to subdivide in the RSA zoning district is limited by how the lot sizes are established. Ms. Wiesner explained that there is a higher landscaping ratio in the RSA zoning district. Ms. Baker responded that Ms. Wiesner was correct. She explained that the RSA zoning district requires 70 percent of the lot to be maintained as open space. it also requires increased setbacks. The R-1 zoning district allows for smaller setbacks and only requires 50 percent of the lot to be maintained as open space. Mr. Albert Vesper, of 2122 Balsam Court SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He asked if commercial development is allowed in the R-1 zoning district. Ms. Baker stated that the R-1 zoning district allows for some non-residential uses in very limited locations. She pointed out that the RSA zoning district also allows for some non-residential uses, which some people may consider to commercial in nature. Mr. John King, of 2132 Lenwood Drive SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Moen that the properties in the lawsuit be held in the Holding zone, until the District Court makes a decision. He stated that he requested, on the survey, that the property be zoned RSA. He stated that 75 percent of the residents in the Lenwood Heights area requested the RSA zoning district. Mr. Ohly asked if Lenwood was completely developed. Mr. King responded that he did not think there were any available lots. Mr. Ohly asked if the neighbors discussed the limitations that would be placed on their properties, if they were zoned RSA. Mr. King responded that everyone was aware of the restrictions. Mr. Ohly expressed concern that people know the difference between the RSA and R-1 zoning districts. He stated he wanted to make sure the neighborhood understands the differences. Page 9 • • 3r City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes ` Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 Mr. King responded that Mr. Moen has made them aware of the differences. 4 Ms. Judy Gilbert, of 2227 Lenwood Court SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She stated that she sent a memo to the Commission explaining the dimensions of the parcels in her neighborhood. She stated that she feels the area meets the qualifications for the setbacks and open space to be able to build onto their homes, if their properties were zoned to the RSA zoning district. Ms. Rivas thanked Ms. Gilbert for the detailed information she prepared. Mr. Jerry Lobland, of 2211 Lenwood Drive SW, Rochester, MN addressed the Commission. He stated that he agreed with Ms. Gilbert. He stated that he was the President of the Lenwood Association. He stated that everyone who voted in his neighborhood voted to be located in the RSA zoning district. Mr. Herman Bleimeyer, of 2324 Lenwood Drive SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that he agreed and supported the comments made by his neighbors. He also stated he met with a number of his neighbors who were not able to be present at the meeting and found them to be well informed on the difference between the two zoning districts. Ms. Noralane Lindor, of 2217 Balsam Court SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She asked what was being proposed on the property to the north of Balsam Court. Ms. Baker stated that the property to the north of Balsam Court expressed interest in the R-1 ' zoning district. Ms. Lindor stated that one of her neighbors, who does not live in her particular area, brought to her attention that the survey was not reflecting the wishes of her neighborhood. Therefore, she explained that she was the author of the survey with signatures submitted to Commission. She stated that she felt the R-1 zoning district would diminish the character of the neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding what surveys were received from that neighborhood Ms. Karen Andrews, of 2301 Balsam Court SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She stated that she purchased her home due to the appearance of the surrounding lots. She explained that she voted for the RSA zoning district, as the R-1 zoning district would be detrimental to her property value. She further explained that Balsam Court was basically a lane and would blend into the adjacent neighborhood that is being proposed to be zoned RSA. Ms. Bonnie Vesper, of 2122 Balsam Court SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She stated that she did not live next to Ms. Andrews, however, she agreed with zoning that area to the RSA zoning district. Ms. Meellee Fish, of 2309 Institute Road SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She stated that she returned her survey card to ask for the RSA zoning district. She explained that she also submitted a letter to the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department stating the same. Mr. John Dyer, of 2409 Hillside Lane SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that he did not think many people in his neighborhood voted on the survey, as they are retired. However, his immediate neighbors have indicated to him that they would prefer the Page 10 • . I City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes f( Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 RSA zoning district. He explained that the lots in the neighborhood are not well -suited to subdivide, as they are hilly. Also, most of the homes are situated in the front of the lot. Therefore, he requested the neighborhood be zoned to the RSA zoning district. Ms. Karen Yaszemski, of 2806 15a' Avenue SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She stated that 71 percent of the neighborhood wanted to be placed in the RSA zoning district. They feel the integrity of the neighborhood would be preserved if located in that zoning district. She explained what the neighborhood consisted of. She expressed concern with regard to higher density. She indicated that six people in her neighborhood were out of town for the last 4 to 6 months, therefore, their surveys did not get returned. Ms. Yaszemski stated that her property value would decrease if the two large parcels between County Road 147 and 15" Avenue SW are not zoned RSA. Ms. Baker stated that staff looked at largely undeveloped areas as not being suitable for the RSA zoning district, as they do not meet the intent of that zoning district. She further explained that those areas deemed not appropriate for the RSA zoning district were not sent a survey. Discussion ensued regarding who received surveys. Ms. Petersson asked staff if the Commission could keep some areas in the Holding zone. For example, the two large parcels between County Road 147 and 15" Avenue SW. Ms. Baker responded that the Holding zone is used as a temporary designation until the City initiates a zoning district amendment. Therefore, staff suggested consideration of the Interim zoning district. She explained the differences between the two. Discussion ensued regarding the difference between the Holding zone and the Interim zoning district. Mr. Ray Schmitz, of 1508 28" Street SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern regarding zoning his property to the R-1 zoning district and expressed concern about the impact the two large parcels between County Road 147 and 150' Avenue NW would have on his property, if it were zoned in the R-1 zoning district. He stated that he agreed that the properties in the lawsuit should be in a Holding zone or in the RSA zoning district. Ms. Karen Yaszemski, of 2806 15'" Avenue SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She stated that a neighbor that could not be at the meeting asked for her to express his desire for the RSA zoning district. She explained that the individual lives next door to Mr. Schmitz and abuts a field. Mr. Burke stated that there are more restrictions in the RSA zoning district. He questioned that, because individuals are asking for a more restrictive zoning district, why the Commission would refuse them. Ms. Baker explained that the property owners asking for the RSA zoning district are not the ones who own the 40 acre property; they live adjacent to it (the two large parcels between County Road 147 and 15'" Avenue SW). She stated that, if both the parcels were included in the RSA zoning district, it would limit the ability to subdivide the property and use the land efficiently and extend city services and utilities through the site to allow for orderly growth and development of the City. Page 11 • . / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 Ms. Baker stated that she spoke with at least one representative of the two parcels who had no objection to the R-1 zoning district. Mr. John Wiltsie, of 2608 Merrihills Drive SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He asked staff to explain what the factors were that lead staff to recommend R-1 zoning districts to some of the neighborhoods. Ms. Baker reiterated that they looked at many elements to formulate their recommendation. Some of these included survey responses, Ordinance regulations, performance standards, aerial photographs, existing lot lines, building placement, and potential to subdivide and/or re - subdivide. Ms. Baker explained that staff did not do specific site measurements. Mr. Troy Bleeker, of 2025 Arlen Court SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He explained that the neighborhood is pretty well developed. He indicated that he was not sure which way he voted, but would like to have RSA zoning. He stated that staff should have given more of an explanation on the survey as to what the two zoning districts consisted of. Ms. Wiesner asked what the average lot size per acre was in his neighborhood. Mr. Bleeker responded 1 acre. Ms. Wiesner explained that the RSA zoning district has 70 percent lot coverage for landscaping. If there were some smaller lots in the area, it would make them nonconforming. No one wished to speak on behalf of the Forest Hills area. No one wished to speak on behalf of the Oak Ridge area. No one wished to speak on behalf of Southtown Heights. Mr. Ken Moen stated that offices, medical facilities, and funeral homes are allowed in the R-1 zoning district and not in the RSA zoning district. He stated that a residential care facility and one other use is allowed in the RSA zoning district. Mr. Moen stated that designating the two large parcels between County Road 147 and 15", Avenue SW as RSA zoning would protect the integrity of the entire area. Ms. Nola Christiana, of 2701 14'" Avenue SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. She stated that she agreed with what others have stated about putting the two large parcels in the RSA zoning district. She questioned if the areas are RSA mixed single-family overlay district, and the other is R-1 single-family district, why is it that there is a table with other uses that can be placed there when they are not residential. Ms. Baker responded that both the RSA and R-1 zoning districts allow for some non-residential uses. She explained that there are no residential districts in the City that are simply residential with nothing else permitted. ' Page 12 ' ! n� / City Planning and Zoning Commission MinutesV( Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 Ms. Baker explained the intent of the Land Use Plan and the benefits of mixing certain non- residential uses into residential neighborhoods at limited locations. Mr. Dick Christiana, of 2701 141h Avenue SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He questioned how fair it was to have a property owner look out their front window to see a series of houses every 60 feet. Ms. Petersson stated that it would be unlikely for it to happen. Ms. Wiesner questioned why no one has complained about the proposed for R-1 zoning district on the east side of the Bamberwood neighborhood. Mr. Bill Damerel, of 2075 Lenwood Drive SW, Rochester, MN, addressed the Commission. He clarified that 71 percent of the neighbors turned in their surveys. Out of that 71 percent of those that sent their surveys back, 100 percent asked for the RSA zoning district. Mr. Ray Schmitz suggested leaving some of the questionable areas in the Holding zone and have the Council seek advice from the City Attorney at the next meeting. Ms. Baker suggested that the Commission make a recommendation to the Council on all the properties. If the Council wishes to consider leaving some of the areas in the Holding zone, they could benefit from the advice of the City Attorney at that time. Ms. Baker stated that one person who spoke from the Oak Ridge area commented that there were two people who were out of the country for a lengthy amount of time. She stated that the family in Australia contacted the office by e-mail and requested R-1 zoning. Ms. Baker explained the differences between the Holding and Interim zoning districts. She read the definitions directly from the Ordinance. She further explained that, if a property were placed in the Interim zoning district, the property owner would need to file an application to rezone the property in the future. Ms. Baker stated that it could be appropriate to place the two large parcels between County Road 147 and 15'h Avenue SW in the Interim zoning district. Mr. Brede asked if the two parcels could be held in the Holding zone, since the annexation is being contested. Ms. Baker responded that it would be more helpful for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council with regard to those parcels. Discussion ensued regarding access to Oakledge. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding access to Oakledge. Mr. Ohly moved to recommend the -RSA zoning district for the Institute Road and Balsam Court area. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. Page 13 . • / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 Mr. Hodgson stated that he supported the orderly growth in the City, but the Commission also has the responsibility to protect some of the unique characteristics of the neighborhoods. The motion carried 8-0. Ms. Rivas moved to recommend the R-1 zoning district for the parcel at Mayowood Road and Bamber Valley Road, as shown on the preliminary zoning map. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend the RSA zoning district for the Lenwood area that is shown as undecided on the preliminary zoning map. Mr. Burke seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend the RSA zoning district for the Oakledge area and Hyland acres area. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend the RSA zoning; district for the north portion of the Lamar area (area above two large parcels between County Road 147 and 151h Avenue SW). Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend the Interim zoning district for the two large parcels (Plunket property) between County Road 147 and 15 Avenue SW. Mr. Brede seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-1, with Ms. Rivas voting nay. Ms. Rivas moved to recommend the R-1 zoning district in the Southtown Heights area, including the larger parcels in the area. Mr. Ohly seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0, with Ms. Wiesner abstaining. Mr. Staver moved to recommend approval of the remainder of the proposed map as presented by staff. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Text Amendments Mr. Brent Svenby presented the memorandum is on file at the Rc Burke 2. Discussion reqardinq Decorah E Ms. Baker stated that the Decorah Edi located at 2122 Campus Drive SE, on Ms. Baker asked the Commission if t The Commission agreed to not pro di dated A 25, 2001, to the Commission. The d Planprng Department. Mr. 5senta5qn would be held in Conference Room A/B, 16, 200 at 4:00 p.m. would like a meX provided. a meal. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ! 89S DATE 5-21-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEAPINTGS PLANIVLVG —� ITEM DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #01-12 by B & H Development to be known as Circle PREPARED BY: 19 Plaza Second. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 19.63 acres of land into 8 Brent Svenby, lots for commercial development and to dedicate right of way for three new roadways Planner within the subdivision. The property is located north of 191h Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and allows for the continuation of Superior Drive NW. May 17, 2001 NOTE: The applicant did submit a revised plat addressing the revisions requested in condition number one and a supplement to the Circle 19 Plaza Development Agreement has been executed as suggested in condition number two, so those conditions can be removed. With controlled access being dedicated along the west lot line of Lot 4, Block 1, staff would recommend the following condition: An access easement be provided across Lot 3 Block 1 from SuE2Llq[ Drive NW to serve Lot 4. Block 4. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 25, 2001 to consider this preliminary plat to allow for 8 commercial lots. Mr. Tom Hexum addressed the Commissior, and stated that he did not have any objections to the: conditions recommended by staff. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat conforms to the criteria listed in the Land Development Manual and )mmends approval of this preliminary plat with the following modifications or conditions: The meeting as follows: - utility easements he provided along the south lot4ines of Lot 4, BIeGk 1 and Lots 2, - The easement shown along the north s de of ILnts✓-2 3,, agd-4, Weoir�mk7-•Ilv.+v "�Idened 9 utility2FIdanness provide the required 10 feet fFn Fn then nterl�ne o.M:v.-aterasernent: the -easterly -edge of the -plat, ever the existing sanitary-sewef-. • )AfP5t G ..I., nr; a tie indiGRWEI ee the IpW — WE .4D 22-) • GGntr61 . 9 1epeF a suppleMeRt t9 the Girnle 1) Plaza Development Agreement the trvvtlines the The D exenutes limite 1 obligations of the appliGaRt relating to, but not i e-#or-gWAie f.-rrFAR tFGtUFe 3. The roadway section for Heartland Drive NW shall be determined prior to final platting. The minimum cross section shall be a 40 foot face to face three lane section with a shared two way left -turn lane from 191h Street NW to Heritage Drive NW. 4. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed concurrent ,with this development, at the owner's expense, along the frontage of both sides of all new public streets. In addition a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along the entire frontages of West Circle Drive NW and 191h Street NW. The existing 100 foot wide drainage easement shall be vacated and a 50 foot wide drainage easement re- dedicated along an alignment approved by the City Engineer. COUNCIL ACTION: Iodonby: Second by: to: Oage 2 RCA %,,ay 17, 2 1 6. The applicant is working with FEMA to amend the floodway and floodplain boundaries on this property. The cn of Superior Drive NW, Heartland Drive NW, and any grading or filling within the areas currently zoned floodway Jd floodplain will need to comply with development standards applicable to those areas. If the amendments are not approved by FEMA, the roadway design may need to be revised. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01-12 by B & H Development to be known as Circle 19 Plaza Second with staff -recommended conditions. Ms. Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carries 8-0 Council Action Needed: 1) The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the land subdivision permit. The Council must make findings of fact based on the criteria included in the staff report. A motion to deny must include supporting reasons for a conclusion that at least one of the fifteen findings for denial in Paragraph 61.225 can be made. Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated April 20, 2001 2. Minutes of the April 25, 2001 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department GIS Division 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 7. Yaggy Colby Associates on Monday, May 21, 2001, in the Council/Board 1 Memorandum To: Mayor and Common Council From: Brent Svenby, Planning Department Date: 05/21 /01 Re: E-7 Preliminary Plat #01-12 Circle 19 Plaza Second by B & H Development In order to ensure that there is adequate area for the conveyance of water, staff would recommend that the following condition be added to the preliminary plat: The applicant shall provide a drainage easement, of sufficient width, along the north side of 19'h Street NW, consistent with the stormwater conveyance requirements assumed in the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) issued by FEMA. 1 D 1� 1 I I I I ITC O tA. � HARTMAN FARMS INC. PART OF SEC39, T107N, R14W ROCHESTER. OLMSTED COUNTY, MINNESOTA REVISED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PUN @ if is r::!s 3 • i _ i ,r 1Vld,l21VNIWil321d • � �Lg t! i -: VL053NNIw'83153HJOM a3 i aNOD3S VZVld 6t 31DMIJ as ; it T F fit._ I�{ a p sM r^Ifft.ej.p.• e' f: •�...._ -I it SSS It i#-e,F ji ISli s ;F}. -_F Ik i z _ q__ I aj ,3 a ��? Is. .a ?t?i. t3:F- { f s I �:t' F it I s .. tt ,.j':f. {a'S' t F �.•.F SSit � ;f ea _;� z i_i rlpxi Y(kfilt 1. al;xi IF}t1! y'F1Fyy{P94�{9F!i I i Alm �. If 2ii SFI�If!W;-R �ie[Sit.�iO3 E a Sit !4p Y M A vol i� $$ I r 1 CLL z ""' X_.-•-'_.. �, 9 11 1 'ii't S*:{ 1M C IDR A � R! �I�II ! �� .� \ !.•`'.t k is. .W.IM.�• _lit- I '-r. O) Q --_ aka. `.�i ��r� wr •M• J Z � a" 1 w�p• I I i i W It i �I a is J. rd .r 1 a � tri ?� ,�;� e t a •-�� I ��, I� M E ♦�—_-1 5 _ _. _._ _.. �' l \•� .,. it 1.:, � .�.—� 1 �i-��,.a ,I a �'�� "'-' t0]6f1 �aa.!\e�oVro\twt\am.VM..u\wl .�.rs � ra .•w-s .-� .�+..rn�• (R° ROCHESTER Minnedal<a TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 5/15/01 t DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for the REVISED Preliminary Plat #01-12,on the Circle 19 Plaza Second property. The following are Public Works comments from 4/18/01. Public works concurs with the revisions and has no new comments. Previous comments that has been addressed by the revisions, and/or since 4/18/01, are indicated with . 1. Approval of Grading and Drainage Plans is required for this development, prior to Final Plat submittal. It 2. 3. A City / Owner Contract must be executed prior to development of this property, to address the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. 4. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed concurrent with this development, at the Owner's expense, along the entire frontage (including Outlots) of both sides of all new public streets within this subdivision. In addition, a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along the entire frontages of West Circle Dr NW & 19'" St NW. 5. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's Engineer. C:ltemp1PP01-12 REVISED Circle 19 Plaza 2nd Subd 5-01.doc RO CHE S TER jar 1 {`�inneiaEa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TO: Consolidated Planning Department 201 4" Street SE Room 108 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-3740 07-287-7800 Rochester, MN 55904 5-507-281-6 FAX — 507-281-6216 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur 7. The roadway section for Heartland Drive is to be determined at the time of platting per the Development Agreement. A 40 foot face to face three lane section (shared two way left -turn lane) is required from 19th St NW to Heritage Drive. 8. The existing 100 foot wide drainage easement should be vacated and a 50 foot wide drainage easement re -dedicated along an alignment approved by the City Engineer. 9. A Pavement marking Plan is needed for Superior Drive to determine quantities. An epoxy material will be used as a cost to the Developer based on the quoted price received by the City. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and will include: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre :• Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Connection Charge for the 191h St NW frontage @ $73.13 per foot of frontage. :• Stormwater Management — TBD, for any areas that do not drain toward privately constructed on -site detention facilities Substandard Street Reconstruction Charges & possible Transportation Improvement District (TID) Charges Contribution for First Seal Coat @ $0.45 per square yard of roadway surface. Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 8 Street name Signs 2 Stop Signs 2 Speed Limit Signs 26 No Parking Signs (Note: The County will collect for signs @ Heritage Place & CSAH22) Pavement Markings on Superior Drive: TBD C:NtempNPP01-12 REVISED Circle 19 Plaza 2nd Subd 5-01.doc N-rpv we pledge, we delft er May 15, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: REVISED: Preliminary Plat #01-12 by B&H Development to be known as Circle 19 Plaza Second. Dear Mr. Svenby: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The water pressure within this entire area will be above 95 PSI. The builders must install pressure -reducing devices in each building at the water meter to protect the interior domestic systems. 2. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We previously had provided the applicant's engineering firm with these comments. 3. Coordination with the developer ofLotl, Block 2 is mandatory to assure proper location of all water main stub outs prior to construction. It Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, �, "-AA 1 `�'� St-' Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 bftd0 r ROCHESTER ,�irr�ze�a�a 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: April 23, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat #01-12 Circle 19 Plaza Circle, located north of 19 Street NW, west of West Circle Dr and continuation of Superior Drive NW. With regard to the above noted preliminary plat, the fire department has the following requirements: 1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shown appear to be adequate and shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. All fire department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. 3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy. 4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Number size must be a minimum 4 high on contrasting background when located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended. c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division B & H Development 2310 Telemark, Lane NW, Rochester, MN 55901 Yaggy Colby Assoc, 717 3`d Avenue SE, Rochester, MN 55904 3ET60 DATE: RE: ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARNiENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 L0UNT• OF City Planning and Zoning Commission Brent Svenby, Planner April 20, 2001 "t QOC NF.STER..41,1 DR.{TED:a CGS>t Type III, Phase 11, Land Subdivision Permit #01-12 (Preliminary Plat) to be known as Circle 19 Plaza Second. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: B & H Development 2310 Telemark Lane NW Rochester, MN 55901 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Rochester Public Works, MN DOT, Planning Dept. - Addressing, Planning Dept. — Wetlands, MnDOT, RPU — Water Division, RPU - Operations Division, Park Dept.: see attached Report Attachments: Development Review: Location of Property: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 3. Location Map 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat 5. Hartman Farms GDP The property is located along the north side of 19'h Street NW, west of West Circle Drive and south of Circle 19 Plaza. Zoning: The property is zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial - Industrial) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 19.63 acres of land to be subdivided into 8 for commercial development. Streets: This plat dedicates right-of-way for three roadways. One of those is the continuation of "Superior Drive NW" to 19'" Street NW. This street is designed with 66' feet of right-of-way at its north end and 80' at its south end. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GtS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 507265-8224 PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 s� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 ' 1 Circle 19 Plaza Second April 20, 2001 The second roadway is the continuation of "Heritage Place NW" to the west. This street is designed with 66' of right-of-way, with a 37' wide driving surface. The third roadway "Heartland Drive NW" connects to 19'h Street NW. This street is designed with 66' of right-of-way, with a 37' wide driving surface. The plat also dedicates controlled access along West Circle Drive and 19" Street NW. The proposed street meets the minimum standards as outlined in the Thoroughfare Plan and the Land Development Manual. Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the new streets in the subdivision. A 10' wide pedestrian path is required along the north side of 19t° Street NW and along the west side of West Circle Drive. Drainage: The plat is designed so that runoff will be directed into storm sewer collection pipe. The existing pond located to the west will be converted to serve as a regional detention pond and will accept storm water from this site. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of weUands. The maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this property. The floodway and flood fringe district crosses the property. The applicant does have a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) removing the floodway and flood fringe from the property. Public Utilities: Sewer and water services are available to the property and will be extended to serve the development. Electric power to this site is provided by RPU. Spillover Parking: Parking for each use will be reviewed at the time specific development is proposed. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland dedication required with this plat. General Development Plan: In June 1999, the City approved a general development plan for this property. The proposed plat is generally consistent with the approved General n Page 3 • / _l Circle 19 Plaza Second April 20, 2001 10 Development Plan. Staff Review: This plat generally conforms to the standards of the Land Development Manual. The applicant has through his representative engineering firms made requests to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to eliminate the floodway of the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek and to amend the flood plain boundary within that same area. FEMA has responded to the request and has determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If the project is built as proposed, a revision to the FIS and FIRM will be warranted. FEMA is in agreement to the CLOMR that this time. Once the proposed project is completed additional information is required to be submittal to FEMA for the actual revision to the FIS and FIRM. The DNR has responded to the request and supports the request to FEMA for the floodway and flood plain amendments. Staff Recommendation: Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the criteria which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. In addition, Section 61.226 lists the findings that must be made for the denial of a land subdivision permit. These sections are attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request under the provisions of LDM Sections 61.225 and 61.226. The staff recommends that the following modifications or conditions be imposed on this preliminary plat in order to insure that the above -mentioned criteria are met: 1. The plat shall be revised prior to the City Council meeting as follows: • Utility easements be provided along the south lot lines of Lot 4, Block 1 and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2. • The utility and access easement shown along the north side of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 shall be widened to provide the required 10 feet from the centerline of the water main to the edge of the easement • An easement be provided along the easterly edge of the plat, over the existing sanitary sewer. • Indicate the floodway and floodplain boundaries. • West Circle Drive be indicated on the plat as WEST CIRCLE DRIVE NW (COUNTY ROAD 22) • Controlled access be indicated on the interior roadways as specified in the development agreement. 2. The Developer executes a supplement to the Circle 19 Plaza Development Agreement that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, floodway, and contributions for public infrastructure. Page 4 • • j9eq Circle 19 Plaza Second r April 20, 2001 3. The roadway section for Heartland Drive NW shall be determined prior to final platting. The minimum cross section shall be a 40 foot face to face three lane section with a shared two way left -turn lane from W Street NW to Heritage Drive NW. 4. Pedestrian facilities shall be constructed concurrent with this development, at the owner's expense, along the frontage of both sides of all new public streets. In addition a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along the entire frontages of West Circle Drive NW and 19' Street NW. 5. The existing 100 foot wide drainage easement shall be vacated and a 50 foot wide drainage easement re -dedicated along an alignment approved by the City Engineer. 6. The applicant is working with FEMA to amend the floodway and flooplain boundaries on this property. The design of Superior Drive NW, Heartland Drive NW, and any grading or filling within the areas currently zoned floodway and floodplain will need to comply with development standards applicable to those areas. If the amendments are not approved by FEMA, the roadway design may need to be revised. Page 5 • • ,ML 7V� Circle 19 Plaza Second / April 20, 2001 i L CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. it E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts on the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. Page 6 • • /y� Circle 19 Plaza Second April 20, 2001 L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of Flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. Effective May 15, 1999 M • • pu we pledge. x:.PePiver 507/280-1579 April 3, 2001 TO: Jennifer Gamess, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat #01-12 by B&H Development to be known as Circle 19 Plaza Circle. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 19.63 acres of land into 8 lots for commercial development and to dedicate right-of-way for three new roadways within the subdivision. The property is located north of 19t' Street NW, west of Nest Circle Drive and allows for the continuation of Superior Drive N\V. RPU's Operations Division review of the above reference plat is complete and our comments are as follows: Utility easements will be needed along the south lot lines of Lot 4, Block 1 and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2. Sincerely, Michael J. Engle ks Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.org 1 t Page 4 0 to �O' / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 F, and allows for the continuation of Superior Drive NW. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated April 20, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Ms. Wiesner questioned if the impervious surface would be placed in the floodway area. Mr. Svenby responded that specific types of uses are permitted in the floodway area. Ms. Wiesner stated that she thought grades were not supposed to be changed in a floodway area. Mr. Svenby responded that the pathway could fall in the backside of the ditch. He further explained that the applicant would need to obtain approval from the City on the grading proposed on the site. Discussion ensued regarding what is allowed in floodway district. Discussion ensued regarding where a pedestrian pathway could be located. Ms. Rivas expressed concern that the pedestrian pathway would be located appropriately. The applicant's representative, Tom Hexum, addressed the Commission. He stated that discussions had taken place with regard to the pathway. He explained that they are obligated, in their site development agreement, to create a pathway or contribute towards one. He stated that the City and County are in the process of deciding whether it would be a county section road. Mr. Hexum stated that Dale Allen, of Yaggy Colby Associates, was present for any questions the Commission may have. Mr. Staver asked Mr. Hexum if he was in agreement with the staff -suggested conditions. Mr. Hexum responded that they did not have any objections to the conditions. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner moved to recomm Development to be known as C Ms. Rivas seconded the motio 19 Plaza Second CONDITIONS: 1. The plat shall be revised prior to the City Cou -12byB&H mmended conditions. ed.6-0 cil meeting as follows: ^ Page 5 • City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 • Utility easements be provided along the south lot lines of Lot 4, Block 1 and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2. • The utility and access easement shown along the north side of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 shall be widened to provide the required 10 feet from the centerline of the water main to the edge of the easement.' • An easement be provided along the easterly edge of the plat, over the existing sanitary sewer. • Indicate the floodway and floodplain, boundaries. • West Circle Drive be indicated on the plat as WEST CIRCLE DRIVE NW (COUNTY ROAD 22) • Controlled access be indicated on the interior roadways as specified in the development agreement 2. The Developer executes a supplement to the Circle 19 Plaza Development Agreement that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating to, but not limited to; stormwater management, park dedication, traffic improvements, pedestrian facilities, right-of-way dedication, floodway, and contributions for; public infrastructure. ' 3. The roadway section for Heartland Dnve NW shall be determined prior to final platting. The minimum cross section shall be a 40 foot face to face three lane section with a shared two way left -turn lane from 190' Street NW to Heritage Drive NW. 4. Pedestrian facilities shalt be constructed concurrentwith this development, at the owner's expense, along the frontage of both sides of all new public streets. In addition a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along the entire frontages of West Circle Drive NW and 19's Street NW.' ' 5. The existing 100 foot wide drainage easement shall be vacated and a 50 foot wide drainage easement re -dedicated along an alignment approved by the City Engineer. 6. The applicant is working with FEMA to amend the floodway and floodplain boundaries on this property. The design of Superior Drive NW, Heartland Drive NW, and any grading or filling within the areas currently zoned floodway and floodplain will need to comply with development standards applicable.to those areas. If the amendments are not approved by FEMA, the' `roadway design may -need to be revised. Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, d report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted P nri Ms. Baker clarified that the request was t to districts within the City. She explained at, whe, properties were placed in a Holding z e so that owners whether or not there was an ' erest in R recommendations. April 19, 2001, to the Commission. The staff ig Department. me the properties, but to establish zoning the properties were annexed into the City, all gaff had the opportunity to poll property zoninq and for staff to make REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5? 3 DATE: 5-? 1-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING �S ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type ill, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #01-16 by B & H PREPARED BY: Development to amend the Floodway Overlay and Flood Fringe Overlay districts Brent Svenby, on the property located along the north side of 19th Street NW and the west side Planner of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The applicant is proposing to remove the floodway and flood fringe overlay zoning district as part of an amendment to the flood insurance maps adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in February 1998. May 17, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on April 25, 2001 to consider this zone change to remove the Floodway and Floodfringe from this property. Mr. Hexum was present to represent the applicant and address the Commission. The Commission finds that there is support from the MN DNR to amend the floodway and floodfringe as proposed and that there is general support from FEMA, subject to additional information being filed. Motion by Mr. Burke, seconded by Mr. Hodgson to recommend approval of Zoning District Amendment #01-16. Motion carried 8-0. The Commission recommended that at the Council initially adopt a resolution of support to be forwarded to the MN DNR and FEMA and that at the appropriate time, the Council adopt and record an Ordinance amending the floodway and floodfringe on this property, as approved by FEMA. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated April 20, 2001. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed with the zone change as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of support that can be adopted supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law. After FEMA approves of the revisions, Planning will bring this item back to the Council so that an ordinance may be adopted. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated April 2. Minutes of April 25, 2001 CPZCPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Exhibit Attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 21, 2D.11 in the Council I Board Chamber at the Rochester - Olmsted Government Center Building r Yaggy Colby Assoicates JNCIL ACTION: Motion By: Seconded By: Action: r _ _ R % � «{ �� � Q z %,� \/.� ±22 ��1� �«d« »�� /��/� � � � � « � \�� \§y § y� � 7,� �v< » � «- « «»,� �� y �\ /\ ©� \ � ���� � ^� � - - x����;�d2d/ _ w�� :� � \ � � y«: \dam � »� ` � , \� � � \� � � ��� � � 2� 2<� � � w>©� w:2� - � 2�.�� a.2 « .� : ���� �\�\\ ^� � � :� / /�'� :. . �~9&�� g {����/ ��� �. > / �� � , � � � � � . RO • STER-OL\1STED PLANNING DEPARTMENTµop +Fs �.. ,,,/A 2122 Campus Dnve SE, Suite !.0 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: April 20, 2001 RE: Type III, Phase II Zoning District Amendment #01-16 by B & H Development to amend the Floodway Overlay and Flood Fringe Overlay districts on the property located along the north side of 191h Street NW and the west side of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The applicant is proposing to removed the floodway and flood fringe overlay zoning district as part of an amendment to the flood insurance maps adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in February 1998. Consolidated Planning Department Review: Petitioner: B&H Development 2310 Telemark Lane NW Rochester, MN 55901 Project Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester. MN 55904 Suzanne Andre Jiwan Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 37`h Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of 191h Street NW and west of West Circle Drive. Requested Action: The property is presently zoned M-1 (Mixed Commercial -Industrial) and is subject to the overlay zoning districts of Floodway (FW) and Flood Fringe (FW). The requested action would remove both the overlay designations from the property. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan indicates that this property is designated as suitable for "Industrial" types of uses. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAP'RNG 5071285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNINGZONING 507M5-8232 • WEL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/297-2275 2C�7 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIFIUATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER .we. J �O V Page 2 • April 20,2001 C FEMA & DNR Review: Section 62.821 of the Land Development Manual states: All amendments to the flood plain provisions of this zoning code, including amendments to the official zoning map, must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. Changes in the official zoning map must meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical Conditions and Criteria and must be received prior FEMA approval prior to adoption. The applicant has through his representative engineering firms made requests to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to eliminate the floodway of the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek and to amend the flood plain boundary within that same area. FEMA has responded to the request and has determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If the project is built as proposed, a revision to the FIS and FIRM will be warranted. FEMA is in agreement to the CLOMR that this time. Once the proposed project is completed additional information is required to be submittal to FEMA for the actual revision to the FIS and FIRM, The DNR has responded to the request and supports the request to FEMA for the floodway and flood plain amendments. At this time there seems to be adequate information available to determine that a revision to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps is supported by the MN DNR and will be supported by FEMA, with the submittal of additional information upon the completion of the proposed project. Effect of Regulations: The floodway zoning district assures that adequate space is retained within the channel of a stream and Page 3 April 20,2001 the adjoining floodplain to carry and discharge the regional (100 year) flood. Therefore, the floodway areas cannot be filled or used for permanent structures or storage of materials or equipment that would reduce the capability of the floodway to carry the regional flood. Properties designated as flood fringe can be used for uses permitted in the underlying zoning district if all new structures are raised to an elevation one foot above the adopted 100 year elevation at the location. Removing the floodway and flood fringe designations on the Hartman Farm site will allow the applicant to proceed with filling and constructing public roadways and utilities to serve the development. It would also allow for construction of permanent structures provided they meet all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and LDM. Analysis: The City of Rochester cannot adopt an ordinance rezoning this property from M-1 FW and M-1 FF to M-1 until such time that both FEMA and DNR have approved the LOMR (Letter of Map Revision). The City can initially adopt a resolution of support of the change to be transmitted to FEMA and DNR. The staff recommends that the City accept and adopt a rezoning ordinance in the fashion found acceptable to FEMA and DNR. The "floodway" area mapped on this property does not or will not act as a conduit for flood water either because the development of a 7.71 acre retention pond and two 4 inch x 6 inch concrete box culverts will be constructed under the future roadways will become the conduit for flood waters. Section 62.821 of the LDM states: The flood plain designation on the official zoning map shall not be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood and is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources if the commissioner determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. According to the information submitted by Barr Engineering, the floodway and flood fringe boundaries on the Hartman Farm may be removed from the site. A 7.71 acre retention A f V Page 4 April 20,2001 pond and hao 4 inch x 6 inch concrete box culverts will be constructed under the future roadways %N,.I become the conduit for flood waters. The MN DNR supports this amendments and Staff recommends that the City support the rezoning request and initially adopt a resolution of support. Attachments: 1. Existing and proposed floodplain boundaries. 2. Letter fr;,m Barr Engineering Company 3. Letter frcm MN DNR 4. Letter frcm FEMA 4 41 ROCHESTER ait Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 4112/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2010 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for ZONE#01-16 on the B & H Development proposed as Circle 19 Plaza Second) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: Public Works has reviewed the data provided by the applicant's consultants and accepts the results and recommendation of FENfA. 1 C:%WINNT1Profiles\plaluven%Temporary Internet FlleM0LK931Z0NE01-16 8 H Properties Flood Zone Circle 19 Plaza 2nd.doc y .,..,,,�.a„Y 4700 W 7th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-480* Phone: 61-832-2600 • Fax: 612-832-2601 Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO March 2, 2000 Mr. Ron Livingston Olmsted County Consolidated Planning and Zoning 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Hartman Property Dear Mr. Livingston: The Hartmans are developing the property in the NE quadrant of Section 29 R14WT107N. The stormwater design for the site routes the runoff hydrograph through a stormwater retention pond. This storage reduces the peak discharges downstream. which reduces the flood elevations along the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. Enclosed are data describing the changes in discharges, flood elevations, and flood inundation area. The data included are a location map, drainage area map, modified FIS inundation map, modified FIS flood profile and water surface elevation table. This data will be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for approval of a CLOMR. The CLOMR will narrow- the floodway on the Hartman property and replace two culvert crossings in this reach of the creek. Hydrographs are developed for existing and proposed conditions using the HEC-1 computer model. Watershed divides are determined from USGS topo_raphic maps of the area. The model includes two storage ponds — the existing flood control structure KR-6, and the proposed stormwater retention pond on the Hartman property. The peak discharges for the existing and proposed conditions for four storm frequencies at three stream locations are shown below. The outlet of the pond is a 4'x6' box culvert with a weir at the inlet to limit the outflow discharge for the lower frequency storms. Peak Discharge In cfs Storm Frequency Location 10 yr 50 r 100 yr 500 yr KR6 Proposed condition 21 . 74 90 93 Existing condition 21 74 90 93 CSAH 22 intersection Proposed condition 79 140 199 300 Existing condition 324 i 490 591 740 Rochester city limits Proposed condition 385 ' 586 716 922 Existing condition 638 i 956 1,152 1,444 4 Mr. Ron Livingston S /� March 2, 2000 c2 Pace 2 The peak discharges are used in the HEC-2 model developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers for the Olmsted County Flood Insurance Study. Data from three HEC-2 models are shown in the attached table. Roch54 is the current FIS HEC-2 model for the Norh Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. This is the duplicative effective model for the FFMA submittal. Hartexl is an HEC-2 model modified to include the new culverts at the CSAH 22 and 19th Street crossing. This is the existing conditions model for the FEMA submittal. Hartpr6 is an HEC-2 model that modifies the existing conditions model to evaluate the effect of the proposed conditions. The discharges are lower in this model, and the proposed culverts are included. This is the proposed conditions model for the FEMA submittal. Please review the data and contact me with any comments. FEMA requires that Olmsted County is aware of the project and has a program requiring maintenance of the culverts. Sincerely, Suzann Andre Jiw PE SJ/lah c: Bob Bezek :O D MA\P C DOCS\DOCS\214533\1 I Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2300 Silver Creek Road NE Rochester, MN 55906 (507) 285-7423 10 April 18, 2001 Brent Svenby, Planner Rochester -Olmsted Planting Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Brent: Re: Zoning District Amendment #01-16, B&H Development, Floodway to Flood Fridge District, West Side of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22) along the north side of 19' St. NW As we discussed, it is my determination that the above referenced revision is consistent Rith local, t state, andfederal floodplain management requirements and our agency supports the nevi siontroon final receiving approval from FEMA. Thank you for the opportutity to comment. If you have any questions. please don't hesitate to contact me at the above address or telephone number. Kncerely Bob Bezek Area Hydrologist DNR Waters :-DOWICOUNTIES10t.MSTEDICrMSIROCMSIEOXPLAn'AB&H Developmentwpd DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TrY:651-296.5484 - 1-800-657.3929 An o V* l}DNemity Prnploya 8� Primed oa Ra,JM Paper Containing a Who vats Divuyiry g �ut{v brOthwom of 10%Post-consumer Waste Federal Emergency Management Agency The Honorable Chuck Canfield Mayor, City of Rochester 201 4`h Street SE — Room 281 Rochester, MN 55904 Dear Mayor Canfield: Washington, D.C. 20472 APR 0 3 2001 IN REPLY REFER TO: Case Number: Community: Community No.: 104 00-05-181R City of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota 275246 This is in reference to a letter from Suzanne Andre Jiwani, P.E. requesting a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for the Hartman property. The proposed project will be located approximately 50<) feet downstream of the existing KR-6 dam to approximately 3,900 feet downstream of the existing 19ei Street NW bridge along the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek, and will consist of the construction of a 7.71 acres retention pond and the construction of two 4 inch x 6 inch concrete box culverts. The area of the proposed project is shown on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels 27109CO141 E and 27109CO142 E, both dated February 4. 1998. We received the following data, prepared by Barr Engineering Company, in support of this request: • HEC-2 hNdraulic model, dated July 27, 2000, of the 10% (10-year), 2% (50-year), 1 % (100-;• ar), and 0.2% (500-year) annual chance floods and the I % chance floodway, duplicatir, the models used to prepare the February 4, 1998, Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Olmsted County, Incorporated Areas, for the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek; • HEC-2 htidraulic model, dated December 20, 2000, of the 10%, 2%, 1 %, and 0.2% annual chance floods, for the modified existing conditions for the proposed Hartman property revision; • HEC-2 h,•draulic model, dated January 24, 2001, of the 1 % annual chance floodway, for the modified existing conditions for the proposed Hartman property revision; • HEC-2 htidraulic model, dated December 20, 2000, of the 10%, 2%, 1 %, and 0.2% annual chance floods, for the proposed conditions for the proposed Hartman property revision to the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek; • HEC-2 h%draulic model, dated February 8, 2001, of the 1% annual chance floodway, for the propct--zed conditions models for the proposed Hartman property revision; a14 • • • an untitled certified topographic plan, dated September 21, 2000, at a scale of ' 1 inch = 1000 feet, with a contour interval of 10 feet, representing the proposed project conditions; • a certified topographic work map, dated May 25, 2000, entitled Circle 19 Plaza Phase II Grading Plan, Rochester. Minnesota, at a scale of 1 inch = 50 feet, with a contour interval of 2 feet, representing the proposed project retention pond; • a copy of the Olmsted County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas FIRM numbers 27109C0141 E and 27109C0142 E, dated February 4, 1998, annotated to reflect the proposed project 1 % annual chance floodplain and floodway; and • completed application/certification forms, including community concurrence with the revision. We have received all of the data we required to perform technical review of your request as of March 26, 2001. The effective model, used to prepare the FIS, does not provide enough detail to evaluate the effects of the proposed project. An existing conditions model was developed to provide this detail. This existing conditions model was then compared to the effective model and the proposed conditions model to differentiate increases or decreases in flood hazards caused by more detailed modeling from increases or decreases in flood hazards that will be caused by the proposed project. The existing conditions model reflects an increase in the 1% chance water surface elevation for the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek from the effective model, with a maximum increase of 1.83 feet at the downstream face of the existing 19`h Street NW bridge. The proposed conditions model shows the proposed project would cause a decrease in the 1 % chance water - surface elevation for the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek, with a maximum decrease of 2.99 feet at the upstream face of the existing 19'h Street NW bridge. We have reviewed the submitted data and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If the project is built as proposed, a revision to the FIS and FIRM for your community will be warranted. This revision will show the following effects, as shown by the data submitted to support the request: 1 % Annual Chance Water -Surface Elevations When we compared the effective conditions model to the proposed conditions model, we determined that the proposed project would cause decreases in the 1% annual chance water -surface elevations, with a maximum decrease of 2.23 feet at the upstream face of the existing 19`h Street NW Bridge on the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. In addition, increases occur in the 1% (100-year) annual chance water -surface elevations, with a maximum increase of 0.75 feet at a point approximately 590 feet downstream of the existing 19`h Street NW Bridge on the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. • c20 i 1% Annual Chance Floodplain When we compared the effective conditions model to the proposed conditions model, we determined that a decrease of the 1 % annual chance floodplain will occur the entire length of the project. The 1% annual chance floodplain will decrease by a maximum of 470 feet at the downstream face of the existing 19`h Street 1\71V Bridge on the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. Floodway When we compared the effective conditions model to the proposed conditions model, we determined that changes in the 1% annual chance floodway top width will occur the entire length of the project. The 1% annual chance floodN; ay top width will decrease by a maximum of 375 feet at the existing 191h Street NW Bridge on the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek. Future revisions to the FIS and FIRM, or restudies of the flood hazards in this area, could modify this determination. We based this determination on the 1% annual chance discharges computed in the revised hydrologic model. Future development of projects upstream may increase discharges, which may increase flood hazards. A comprehensive restudy of your community's flood hazards would consider the cumulative effects of development on discharges and could, therefore, establish greater flood hazards in this area. Your community must approve all proposed floodplain development, including this proposed project, and ensure that permits required by other Federal agencies and/or State and local agencies have been obtained. State and/or community officials may set standards for construction that are more restrictive than the minimum NFIP standards or may limit development in floodplains, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety. If the State and/or the community have adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, those criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP requirements. Please note that this document does not override or supersede any State or local procedural or substantive provisions which may apply to floodplain management requirements associated with amendments to State or local floodplain zoning ordinances, maps, or State or local procedures adopted under the NFIR When your community requests a map revision to reflect the effects of the completed project, you must submit either a copy of a public notice stating the community's intent to revise the floodway on the FIRM or a statement by the community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected jurisdictions of the revision to the floodway, in compliance with NFIP regulations Subparagraph 65.7(b)(1). Culverts will fail to function as designed without proper maintenance, such as the regular clearing of the culvert. To avoid such failures, we require participating communities to ensure that the flood -carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of any watercourse is maintained according to NFIP regulations Subparagraph 60.3(b)(7). Therefore, upon completion of the project, your community must submit documentation ensuring that the modified culverts will be i maintained to preserve their design function. We may request that your community submit a _ description and schedule of its culvert maintenance, as outlined in Subparagraph 65.6(a)(12) of the NFIP regulations. NFIP regulations Section 65.3 states that when a community's Base (1% annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) increase or decrease because of physical changes that affect flooding conditions, the community must submit technical or scientific data to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that substantiate these changes. The community must submit such data as soon as possible, but no later than 6 months after such data become available, so that FEMA can base flood insurance premium rates and floodplain management requirements on the most up-to-date and accurate information available. Upon completion of the proposed project, your community, must request a revision to the FIS and FIRM per NFIP regulations 65.3. The revision request should be submitted to our Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois, and include the data listed below. 1. Evidence of compliance with NFIP regulations Paragraph 65.4(b), which states that "all requests for changes to effective maps... must be made in writing by the community's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or an official designated by the CEO. 2. As -built plans of all proposed project elements, with electronic copies, if applicable, certified by a Professional Engineer. 3. HEC-2 hydraulic modeling of the 10%, 2%, 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood and floodway for the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek, representing as -built conditions. 4. Certified topographic mapping, representing as -built conditions, delineating the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains and the 1 % annual chance floodway for the North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek, including the locations and alignments of the cross sections and flow lines used in the hydraulic model, representing as -built conditions. a. Please show this information on a certified map of suitable scale and topographic definition to provide reasonable accuracy. b. Label all items for easy cross-referencing to the hydraulic model and summary data. 5. Copy of Olmsted County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas FIRM numbers 27109C1041 E and 27109CI042 E, dated February 4, 1998, respectively, annotated to reflect as -built conditions. 6. A letter stating that your community will adopt and enforce the modified regulatory floodway, OR, if the State has jurisdiction over either the regulatory floodway or its adoption by your community, a copy of your community's letter to the appropriate State agency notifying it of the modification to the regulatory floodway and a copy of the letter from that agency stating its approval of the modification. • • R19' 7. Our review of your request indicates that this project will create a potential for erosive conditions along North Run of the North Fork of Cascade Creek between Cross Sections 15 and 23. Please provide evidence of adequate erosion protection and channel stability or an engineering analysis that demonstrates that no appreciable erosion or degradation will occur during the base flood event. If the project is built as proposed in the data submitted in support of this request, you do not have to resubmit items 3 through 5 listed above, otherwise, please resubmit them. If the effects of the project are incorporated into the FIS and FIRM through a physical map revision, you do not need to submit property owner acceptance because the physical map revision process includes a comment period during which property owners can submit their concerns about the revision of the FIS and FIRM. We have enclosed a copy of our application/certification forms for your reference. The application/certification forms package may be downloaded directly from the FEMA website at http://www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/EN_main.htm or copies may be obtained by contacting the FEMA Map Assistance Center, toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Typically, we do not require these forms if the project is completed as proposed in the data submitted in support of this request. The enclosed document, titled Requirements for Submitting Application/Certification Forms to Support Requests for NFIP May Revisions, describes in detail the circumstances under which the forms are required. The NFIP is not funded by taxes, rather, its expenses are primarily bome by policyholders. We recover costs associated with reviewing and processing requests for modifications to published FISs and FIRMS to minimize the financial burden on the policyholders. The fee for an as -built Letter Of Map Revision (LOMR) request in follow-up to this conditional LOMR is $3,400, which we must receive before we can begin processing. This fee represents the new fee schedule effective June 1, 2000. However, the fee schedule is subject to change, and the requester is required to submit the fee in effect at the time of the submission. Your payment must be a check or money order made payable to the National Flood Insurance Program and should be fon arded to: Federal Emergency Management Agency Fee Charge System Administrator P.O. Box 3173 Merrifield, Virginia 22216 Once we receive the processing fee and the items listed above, complete our review, and verify that the completed project meets all applicable NFIP standards, we will revise your community's FIS and FIRM to incorporate the effects of the completed project, as appropriate. Pan 65 of the enclosed NFIP regulations further describes the data needed to support a request to revise a FIS and FIRM. Your compliance with the criteria outlined in the NFIP regulations will streamline our review, allowing us to expeditiously revise your community's FIS and FIRM. 94�o 0 • If you have any questions regarding this CLOMR, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center, toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627). Sincerely, Philip Myers Hazards Study Branch Mitigation Directorate Enclosures cc: Mr. Ron Livingston Floodplain Administrator City of Rochester Ms. Suzanne Andre Jiwani, P.E. Barr Engineering Company For: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief Hazards Study Branch Mitigation Directorate it Page 3 0 0 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes / Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 Ms. Rivas stated that she ght a year round facility would be approp Ms. Baker stated that the ComN in operation. Mr. Staver asked if the building n Mr. Svenby responded no. With no one else wishing to be shoZintheirwhen the facility should be nee�, M public hearing. Ms. Rivas moved to recommend aWdVal of Type III, Phase I, Conditional Use Permit #01-08 by Tri-Valley Head Startjdth th tall -suggested condition and the addition that the facility could operate yea ound. M Wiesner seconded the motion. Discussion ensued regarog signage. The Zaximum -0. CON 1. Tmber of children served, per da cannot exceed 50. 2. T operate year round. Type III, Phase Il Zoning District Amendment #01-16 by B & H Development to amend the Floodway Overlay and Flood Fringe Overlay districts on the property located along the north side of 19 Street NW and the west side of West Circle Drive (CSAH 22). The applicant is proposing to removed the floodway and flood fringe overlay zoning district as part of an amendment to the flood insurance maps adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in February 1998. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated April 20, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant is asking that the City adopt a resolution of support of amending the floodway and floodplain on the property, based on construction improvements that will be done when the property is developed. The applicant's representative, Tom Hexum, addressed the Commission. He explained that the entire process started three years ago when the Highway 14 overpass was constructed and County Road 22. He explained and pointed out the floodway and floodplain on the site on the overhead projector. He explained that they would be back to the Commission for final letters of map revision over a period of years. He stated that they are accountable to the federal government, City, and County for the sizing of the culverts. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Mr. Burke moved to recommend adoption of a resolution supporting the changes. Mr. Hodgson seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING aa3 5-21-01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING e . q _.vl DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-18 to be known as Meadow Lakes Golfview PREPARED BY: Townhomes CIC No. 177. Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner May 16, 2001 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via cash in lieu of land, in the amount of $1,615, per the May 9, 2001 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. 2. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of Meadow Lakes Drive NW and 451" Ave. NW. 3. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall submit two copies of the documents assigning long-term maintenance of common lands and facilities to the Planning Department. This document shall be recorded concurrent with the final plat documents (mylars). 4. The CIC number proposed within the title of this plat is also proposed for another development. Prior to submittal of final plat documents (mylars), this must be resolved so that each development is identified with a unique CIC number. Council Action Needed. - If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Distribution: 1. City Clerk t 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4, Planning Department GIS Division 5. Yaggy Colby Associates 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. t,OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second Monday May 21, 2001, in the Council/Board 3 i »03(y o0�. w & V)� � Lu 3 ?7 Z� S® F- LU >� 7 S UU V)V) <LU �Z 00 <7 ƒ7 O U ] � /3nN � \ � S2f+n^'� AA MIN ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 CC U N T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner 1�� cswYlll DATE: May 16, 2001 RE: Final Plat #01-18 by Mike & Mickey Properties, LLC to be known as Meadow Lakes Goifview Townhomes Common Interest Community Number 177. Plannino Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Mike & Mickey Properties, LLC 4420 Meadow Lakes Drive NW Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Rochester Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (3 letters) 2. Proposed Final Plat Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located along south of Meadow Lakes Drive NW and west of 45'h Ave. NW. Zoning: The property included in this plat is zoned R-IX (Mixed Single Family Extra) district. Proposed Development: This development proposes to approximately 1.40 acres of land into 7 lots for townhome development and one common lot. The property is currently platted as one lot, Lot 1, Block 4, Fox Ridge Townhomes First, BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER IJ Page 2 May 16, 2001 Roadways: This Plat does rot propose dedication of any public right-of-way. T.-.e abutting roadways were previously platted and constructed. Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all roadways. Construction of sidewalk along the frontage of Meadow Lakes Drive and 451h Ave will be required. Drainage: Grading and drainage plans have been approved for this Plat. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands, no potential wetlards are indicated on this site. According to the Soils Survey, hydric soils do not exist on this property. Public Utilities: Utilities are available to serve this development. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. This development requires 5 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: The Park R Recreation Department stated that dedication requirements be met via cash in lieu of land. This property is included in the approved Fox Ridge Townhomes GDP. This plat does not dedicate right-of-way for any new roadways. A Preliminary Plat was not required for this Final Plat. Plannina Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via cash in lieu of land, in the amount of $1,615, per the May 9, 2001 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. 2. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of Meadow Lakes Drive NW and 45'h Ave. NW. �r� Page 3 �l �/ May 16, 2001 3. Prior to recording the final plat documents, the applicant shall submit two copies of the documents assigning long-term maintenance of common lands and facilities to the Planning Department. This document shall be recorded concurrent with the final plat documents (mylars). 4. The CIC number proposed within the title of this plat is also proposed for another development. Prior to submittal of final plat documents (mylars), this must be resolved so that each development is identified with a unique CIC number. Reminder to the applicant: • Payment of parkland dedication fees and execution of easements for off site utilities, turna- rounds or right-of-way is required prior to recording the final plat documents. • The applicant must obtain any land use approval that is required by another governmental entity with land use jurisdiction, in whole or in part, over this development. it ROCHESTER Minn¢Jola TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 5/1501 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7600 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #01-18 on the Meadow Lakes Golfview Townhomes CIC#177 (Replat of L1 B4, Fox Ridge Townhomes) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Grading & Drainage Plans have been approved for this property. 2. This property was included in the City -Owner Contract for J9566 Fox Ridge Townhomes. Execution of a separate City -Owner Contract will be necessary if the extension of public infrastructure (i.e. — Watermain & Hydrants) is required, that was not addressed in the plans for the J9566 contract. 3. Construction of concrete sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of Meadow lakes Dr NW & 45a' Ave NW. 4. Note: All street sign fees have been previously collected. C:\temp\FPf)1-18 Meadow Lakes Golfview Tawnhomes CIC177.doc r� ROCHESTER PARK AND R&REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH —STREET STREET SE / ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 ' FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 9, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Final Plat #01-18 Meadow Lakes Golfview Thownhomes CIC 177 Number of dwelling units ............................................. Density factor........................................................... Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 'Value established in '99 when plat was approved 7 units .0244 .17 acres $9,500Ja" The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $1,615 with payment due prior to recordation of plat. No dedication was required for this lot when originally platted in March '99. Applicant: Mike and Mickey Properties Inc 4420 Meadow Lakes Dr NW Rochester 4 J:\DST0TZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\NW 2898\MEADOW LAKES GOLFVIEW CIC 177.DOC baftd • • ALL-09MCA = ROCHESTER V,.f 1de; zeeata DATE: May 15, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief Qp CµESTEY ! �' qp i OR.gED•AL�GUST"•w DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief Rochester Fire Department 201 4th Street SE, Room 10 Rochester, MN 55904-3726 (507)285-8072 FAX #(507) 285-8256 SUBJECT: Final Plat #01-18, Meadow Lakes Golfview Townhomes CIC177, located south of Meadow Lakes Drive NW and west of 45th Avenue NW. With regard to the above noted performance residential development plat, the fire department has the following requirements: An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction. 2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. 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 Mike & Mickey Prop. 4420 Meadow Lakes Dr. NW, Rochester, MN 55901 Yaggy Colby Assoc., 717 3`d Avenue SE, Rochester, MN 55904 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a33 DATE: 05-21-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING e -to _..I DESCRIPTION: Vacation Petition #01-04 by Christian Science Society, Scott PREPARED BY: Sheller and Fred Birch to vacate the undeveloped right-of-way of the alley located Theresa Fogarty, adjacent to Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11, Block 3, West Zumbro Addition. The property Planner is located south of 2nd Street NW and north of Vt Street NW and west of the west frontage road of Highway 52 South. May 15, 2001 Planninq Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated April 20, 2001. Staff recommends approval of the vacation petition subject to the following: 1. Vacate only the alley right-of-way adjacent to Lots 6, 7, 10 and 11, Block 3, West Zumbro Addition. � rx " z u. 2. Prior to recording the vacation, a utility easement be dedicated along the entire length of the alley right-of-way being vacated. The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this vacation request at the April 25, 2001 meeting. The Commission recommended approval of the vacation petition. .Mr. Burke moved to approve recommend approval of Vacation Petition #01-04 by Christian Science Society, Scott Sheller and Fred Birch with staff -recommended conditions. Mr. Staver second the motion. The motion carried 8-0. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as recommended by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. If the Council wishes, make a motion to initiate the vacation of the remainder of the alley right-of-way to 18th Avenue NW. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated April 20_Q 2. Minutes of the CP&ZC April l 25, 2001 meeting. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached 1. Planning Department File 5. Applicants: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 21, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4 h Street SE Rochester, MN. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: cS TREE T _ .fib' A tteY T� ,PEST Tj O S+ Si. sr si' �% s+• Si. J-. - 6q. VACATG 7 1 3 3 A j0 (uij . \ (01" fob OFF F7 w %y c s T _ 5 T s+ a. J Jti _ L /s /4 /3 /z // • /c I , y � �,m ci .v ♦e ' a' � d l CF,v rc RZ SZ' S TREE 7 S T y III+ L 7� �r,z > r s� `i'9• ;r.t s 'a t ai, I !. Fj { jEST u S7�r S.4>STREET. •^ a%' sr' s,' s' f' S L / Zc a i �b /jrs r✓ :o 9 8°6 /r tr /9ra { il�in or�0,' r.snic� %�e foreooir�� ; r�s�rarrieA/ arid' cry rr,7Q exec....; 1 � y� /1 j cry �UJi%G : "�i c v,riJin. _ , :,i1u�i�ar i��.aad �o.�• soio'c,�✓nfy da /�eiQ .cep- �' /rnsfed log ffit oor� Df cour,�f �.ar���ss✓orJets , 0�, �K ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEP"fNIENT t 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 2'. c0UN iY of r�- TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner zJ-f- DATE: April 20, 2001 ID��97iti1 ��. RE: Vacation Petition #01-04 by Christian Science Society, Scott Sheller and Fred Birch to vacate the undeveloped right-of-way of the alley located adjacent to Lots 6, 7,8 9, 10 & 11, Block 3, West Zumbro Addition. The property is located south of 2"d Street NW and north of 151 Street NW and west of the west frontage road of Highway 52 South. Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): Christian Science Society 1723 NW 1"` Street Rochester, MN 55901 Scott Sheller 1728 NW 2"d Street Rochester, MN 55901 Fred Birch 1724 NW 2nd Street Rochester, MN 55901 Reason to Vacate: Platted alley was never constructed and the applicants wish to use the land to improve their property. Referral Comments: Department of Public Works Rochester Public Utilities - Operations Division MN Department of Transportation Report Attachments: 1. Vacation Petition 2. Location Map 3. Referral Comment (3 letters) BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GISIADDRESSINGMAPPING 5071285-8232 - HOUSINGi 507/285-8224 PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507r285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 ,rNN. AN EOUAL OPPORTUNnY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER �y a Vacation 01-04 • • ✓`� Birch 04/20/01 Staff Recommendation: , The 14' alley was platted in 1915 but has remained undeveloped. Rochester Public Utilities -Operations Divisions have no objections to vacating the alley right-of-way, but requests that a new public utility easement be dedicated over the proposed area to be vacated. The MN Department of Transportation has indicated that a portion of alley located between lots 8 and 9 in Block 3, West Zumbro Addition will be acquired in the TH 52 project, therefore, they recommend that only the alley portion between lots 6, 7 and lots 10. 11, Block 3, West Zumbro Addition be vacated.The location of the entire length of the alley right-of-way runs east to west between 181" Avenue SW and the frontage road of Highway 52 South. Staff recommends approval of the vacation petition subject to the following: Vacate only the alley right-of-way adjacent to Lots 6, 7, 10 and 11, Block 3, West Zumbro Addition. Prior to recording the vacation, a utility easement be dedicated along the entire length of the alley right-of-way being vacated. Rochester Public Works Department is suggesting that the entire alley right-of-way, approximately 414 feet in length, be vacated. Staff would suggest that the City Council initiate the vacation of the remainder of the alley right-of-way to 18`" Avenue NW. City of Rochester, Minnesota Date: Y-3- d ( 0 0 2?1 To: Mayor and Common Council City Hall City of Rochester, Minnesota Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or Utility Easement We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the city of Rochester, Minnesota, and we constitute 50% or more of the owners of the property on the line of the public property herein described to be vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate list showing the legal description and full ownership of each adjoining parcel.) Owners Name (If in joint tenancy, both or all parties must sign) Legal Description ac/" /o, I J Ize 3i,,+ 2:, trk ,cF_ f7L314W, 1 -y 5k N w Lf Rik 3 6J We hereby petition the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate Hollowing described public property: The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows: c-72 s '411r n eGSt/ht,. "- L.a� ':5'5 Si,lre_ Ae'p' 0 ti J- i t JqJ �- -17 14 Q' J 4- ALL L Sp� Czt— or GT/ttal , a+i'�!—xE 3.� L.�tr �t t4 C6t,,Jan:E1 ailke /%o �IS��u (e ?Z._. .._f laSS+. _ t7c/! tAJlj ocmrwe is�1�.' rPjr 3 2001 ram;H920ae Page t of 2 gn • j Your Petitioner respectfully requests that such proceedings as shall be necessary to accomplish this vacation be instituted as soon as possible. ` u-kA-+-s'bA.. SG4�ercCe Sccc� I/-7Z3 %-Lr-' .0'. W , 12C GE. Note: In cases where the property � \ is owned in joint tenancy,r r 7 Z S i, j,� W (Husband and wife, etc.) both owners must sign the Si ture of P ' ion Address petition. / 7? 25J Signature of Petitioner State of Minnesota L Signature of Petitioner Address County of Oem" � On this , %� day of 7 , before me, a Notary Public within 41 said County personally appeared ° � %Area}' 1 . o F, � . � , z0 A_. —1- to me personally known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknavledged said instrument to be the best of (his) Distribution: (his) (her) (their free act and deed and that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to (her) (their nowledge. 7w'I. Notary Public, Olmsted my Mirarasota Il aTHtr. Pudic iLlrissavrr. City Clerk (white copy) Consolidated Planning (canary copy) Petitioner (goldenrod copy) Vacating Streets, Alleys, And Utility Easements: Form Number 1 Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or Utility Easement Fa W92"9 Sheet 2 of 2 Revised 3117180 ROCHESTER On? /Y/inne6ota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 4/18/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4th Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904.3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Vacation #01-04 on the Christian Science Society, Scott Sheller, Fred Birch Properties (Alley serving L6, 7, 8 9. 10, 11, 63, West Zumbro Addition. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Public Works staff would suggest vacation of the remainder of this alley to 18"i Ave NW. C:ltemp\VAC01-04 Christian Science Society Sheller Birch.DDC alo • • rpu rfeap, aye deZwer 507/280-1579 April 13, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department FROM: Michael J. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Vacation Petition #01-04 by Christian Science Society, Scott Sheller and Fred Birch to vacate the undeveloped right-of-way of the alley located adjacent to Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11, Block 3, west Zumbro Addition. The properth is located south of 2nd Street NW and north of 1" Street NW and west of the west frontage road of Highway 52 South. RPU's Operations Division has no objection to this vacation as long as the area remains as a utility easement. a Sincerely, leaaC� Michael J. Engle M-. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 559062813 telephone 507.280.1540 ' facsimile 507.280,1542 website www.rpu.cvc 10 0 0 49 To: Theresa Fogarty, Planner Rochester Olmsted Planning Department Subject: Vacation Petition �'01-04 by Christian Science Society, Scott Sheller and Fred Birch to vacate the undeveloped right-of-way of the alley located adjacent to Lots, 6,7,8,9,10 & 11, Block 3, West Zumbro Addition. The property is located south of 2a' Street NW and north of 1" Street NW and west of the west frontage road of Highway 52 South. Dear Theresa, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above vacation further and has the following findings and recommendations: • The alley portion that is hatched on attachment "A" will be a taking in the TH 52 project. This alley portion is located between lot 8 and lot 9 in Block Lot 3, West Zumbro Addition. • It is Mn/DOT's recommendation that only the alley portion between lots 6,7 and lots 10,11 Block 3, West Zumbro Addition be vacated. Thank you for the opportunity to review Vacation Petition #01-04 by Christian Science Society. If you have any questions please contact Fred Sandal, Principal Planner, at (507) 285-7369 or Debbie Persoon-Bement, Plan and Plat Coordinator, at (507) 281- 7777. Sincerely, Dale Maul Planning Director cc �ra2-� Fred Sandal Debbie Persoon-Bement aka • • � MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE — SUITE 100 ROCHESTER MN 55904 Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held on Wednesday, April 25, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN. Members Present: Ms. Mary Petersson, Chair; Mr. Randy Slaver, Vice Chair; Mr. Ardeil Brede; Ms. Lisa Wiesner; Ms. Leslie Rivas; Mr. Paul Ohly; Mr. John Hodgson; and Mr. James Burke Members Absent: Mr. Michael Quinn Staff Present: Ms. Jennifer Garness; Ms. Mitzi Baker; and Mr. Brent Svenby Other City Staff Present: None ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS: Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the minutes of April 11, 2001, as written. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The minutes from April 11, 2001 were approved unanimously. Mr. Staver made a motion to approve the agenda, as written. Ms. Wiesner seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. ANNEXATION: Ms. Rivas explained that she would Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the report is on file at the Rochesi abstain from voting. April 19, 2001, to the Commission. The staff ig Department. Ms. Wiesner moved to rec mend approva f Annexation #01-07 by Caryl Ripley. Mr. Burke seconded the motildh. Thi Allid 7-0. with Ms. Rivas abstaining. VACATION: Ms. Mitzi Baker presented the staff report, dated April 20, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. IJ Page 2 0 0 a City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes J Hearing Date: April 25, 2001 Ms. Baker explained that staff received a request from Mn/DOT asking that the portion between Lot 8 and 9 not be vacated at this time. Ms. Wiesner asked if utilities are currently present. Ms. Baker responded that she was not sure but that RPU identified a need to maintain an easement. Ms. Wiesner asked if it was an established neighborhood. Ms. Baker responded yes. Mr. Brede moved to recommend approval of Vacation Petition #01-04 by Christian Science Society, Scott Sheller and Fred Birch with staff -recommended conditions. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. CONDITIONS: 1. Vacate only the alley right -of way adjacent to Lots 6, 7, 10 and 11i :Block 3, West Zumbro Addition. 2. Prior to recording the vacation, a utility easement be dedicated along the entire length of the alley right-of-way being vacated. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the sk report, dated April 20, 20 , to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester-OI led Plannin/eresa Ms. Wiesner asked how the number of c ' dren (5d at to receive care. Mr. Svenby explained that the applicant spo wigarty, of the Planning Department, and asked that they be allowed to r up to 50 children. Mr. Staver asked if the day care facility wouldAnly Nopen for three months. Mr. Svenby responde/applir-antld uld be o n from the m le of June to the middle of September. Ms. Rivas asked if thId need to apply for an ad ' ional conditional use permit, if they wanted to expaion to year round. Mr. Svenby respondeommission could place a limitation when the facility could operate. However, ifnt exceeds the limitation set by the Co ission, the applicant would need to comeCommission. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING iy57 DATE: 05-21-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING M DESCRIPTION: Utility Easement Vacation Petition #01-06 by Bryan Sieve and Clay Hartman. PREPARED BY: The applicants are proposing to vacate a drainage easement, which is 100 feet in width and runs Brent Svenby, east/west through the proposed Circle 19 Plaza Second preliminary plat. The drainage easement Planner crosses Lots 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 on the proposed preliminary plat. The easement was recorded by separate document after recording the final plat known as Circle 19 Plaza. May 16, 2001 Planninq Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated May 16, 2001. Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition: I 1. The applicant dedicates a 50 foot drainage easement on Circle 19 Plaza Second to replace this drainage easement. Council Action Needed: 1. Following the hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution to approve the vacation petition as submitted. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated May 16, 2001 Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney: Copy of legal description is attached 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicants: This item will be considered by the Council sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 21, 2001 in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 6. Yaggy Colby Associates COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ibrldk'dVNIN113Sd t1053NNFW'a3153HJea aNOD3S VZVld 61 31D2ID jI E:1r�T��z rcx r` z- `'• pi II�'1� II-iay Fre: F EF S# Y� ,To FiY 'i `'ET i} •a{fr{! _ ;�a ;Ni 9f^e ff-y5F j { fi O ' D \\ ! R 1 .x „ •+ ns-' I - H I �-�r� = Y•, n n C408 I WIN -.V � �•ii ., <g/fl'�" I � ON Y III 3 tw it � } ,'►-` _ �I' _ � * � tl`a y� C I Le �, ell ; Ii � d C - G \ El SO M OO DOL �/ enr —,�� — --.—seat -- �l 2 r al i I rv_ rpN / CIV NMI 016 ! .:ii.Fne I I r I Yi7M01 'j I ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTNIENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 G O V „, Y OF www.olmstedcounty.comfplanning TO: Rochester City Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: May 16, 2001 `F-QpCHESTER: trIYY, / LPG-• ..••'. Rq Ter) RE: Vacation Petition #01-06 by Bryan Sieve and Clay Hartman. The applicants are proposing to vacate a drainage easement, which is 100 feet in width and runs east/west through the proposed Circle 19 Plaza Second preliminary plat. The drainage easement crosses Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2 on the proposed preliminary plat. The easement was recorded by separate document, after recording the final plat known as Circle 19 Plaza. Planning Department Review: Petitioner(s): Bryan J. Sieve, Cinemagic Theatre's 5425 841h Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Clay Hartman it 2310 Telemark Lane NW Rochester, MN 55901 Reason to Vacate: The drainage easement was originally intended for open ditch drainage, The open ditch drainage has been reconstructed to conduct storm water through a storm sewer conduit. Referral Comments: Public Works Department Report Attachments: 1. Vacation Petition 2. Location Map 3. Proposed Drainage Easement Vacation Exhibit 4. Referral Comments - 1 letter Staff Recommendation: The 100' easement was recorded after the recording of the final plat for Circle 19 Plaza Subdivision to convey storm water through an open ditch from the development. The applicant has indicated that the open drainage ditch has been reconstructed to conduct storm through a storm sewer conduit. BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSINGIHRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Vac. 6 �9 / OS/16/01 16/01 Staff has reviewed this request and received a request from the Public Works Department that the applicant dedicate a new 50 foot drainage easement to replace the 100 foot drainage easement proposed for vacation. Staff recommends approval of this utility vacation request subject to the following condition: The applicant dedicates a 50 foot drainage easement on Circle 19 Plaza Second to replace this drainage easement. a5D ROCHESTER I'Y/inn¢sota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael I Nigbur DATE: 5/11 /01 10 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 401 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Vacation #01-06 on the Sieve & Hartman Property (Circle 19 Plaza drainage Ease). The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Public Works has no objection to granting the request, subject to the dedication of a new 50 foot drainage easement to replace the easement for proposed vacation. 4 C.ktemplVAC01-06 hartman Cirde 19 Drainage Ease.DOC City of Rochester, Minnesota• DATE: 04/24/01 r0: Mayor and Common Council City Hall City of Rochester, Minnesota 55901 PETITION TO VACATE PUBLIC RICHT-OF-WAY OR UTILITY EASEMENT We, the undersigned, are the owners of the following described property located within the City of Rochester, Minnesota, and we constitute 50% or more of the owners of the property on the line of the public property herein described to be vacated: (Describe here or attach a separate list showing the legal.descrip- tion and full ownership of each adjoining parcel.) OWNERS NAME (If in joint tenancy, both or all parties must sign) Bryon J. Sieve, Cinemagic Theatre's Clay A. Hartman, B & H Oev. LLC LEGAL DESCRIPTION el A Attached Parcel B Attached Ie hereby petition the Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, to vacate the following described public property: See attached legal The facts and reasons for such vacation are as follows: I. The drainage easement which is proposed to be vacated is 100 feet wide and was originally intended for open ditch drainage. 2. The open ditch drainage has been reconstructed to conduct storm water through a storm sewer conduit. 3 at wide e the t for draina r. MAY 2 2001 Sheet 1 of 2 l Your petitioner respectfully requests that such proceedings as shall be necessary to accomplish this vacation be instituted as soon as possible. Note: In cases where the property is owned in joint tenancy, Signature of Petiti aer Address (Husband and wife, etc.) Tim 9% both owners must sign the .r,✓ Lk.� "Iley 5yv,3 petition. Signa ur of -Petitioner Address 9 / '.Y-tN .ISfet Signature of Petitioner Address n STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF OLMSTED ) On this 23rd day of April Signature of Petitioner Address Signature of Petitioner Address ? O1 before me, a Notary Public within and for said County personally appeared Bryon _J.. Sieve Clay A. Hartman , to me personally known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be NhM Qtik44i0 (their) free act and deed and that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of 0iWW\) 04W) (their) knowledge. SS■ 22■ _ MICHAEL J, FRITZ , NOTARY PUBLICS 1NNESOTA OLMSTED COUNTY Notar Public lms ed C ty Minnesota MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1a1,!' M y ■ My Commission Expires on DISTRIBUTION: City Clerk (white copy) Consolidated Planning Department (canary copy) Petitioner (goldenrod copy) VACATING STREETS, ALLEYS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS: FORM NO. 1 Petition to Vacate Public Right -of -Way or I'tiIiry Easement D L MAY 2 2001 Sheet 2 of 2 Revised 3/17/80 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING d5;3 / DATE: 5/21 /01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. "7LUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G t i nivl DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ADKINS G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). a) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Subdivision 2 of Section 76.09 and Subdivision 1 of Section 76.11 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances, Relating to the License Requirements for Persons Making Connections to the Public Sewers. b) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 9.47 Acres of Land Located in a Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5 and a Part of the Northwest �yt�1�W Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota, Said Property Located on the North Side of Country Club Road and West Circle Drive/County Road 22. c) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property from the R-3 District to the B-1 District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. Said Property Located on the South Side of Valleyhigh Road NW — West Side of Superior Drive NW. d) An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Sections 60.200 and 62.937 of the Rochester Code \� of Ordinances, Relating to Telecommunications Services and Towers. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS . ,jUNCIL ACTION: Moo« by: Second by: ta: TO: FROM DATE: RE: MOSS & BARNETT j! A Professional Association MEMORANDUM Terry L. Adkins Brian T. Grogan May 16, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission - Zoning Ordinance CLIENT: 29976.6 69,937(1) My only suggestion for a revision to the Zoning Ordinance relates to Section 0-29S7r7 which I recommend should read as follows: Purpose: The City of Rochester acknowledges the legal right of wireless telecommunications providers to do business within the City. The City further acknowledges that pursuant to federal law, the City's regulations must be nondiscriminatory, must not be based on the health effects of radio frequency emissions and must not prohibit the delivery of telecommunications service. Accordingly, ... Terry, I believe that the present language for the purpose section is somewhat awkward and confusing and the above language may help to clarify the intended purpose of the zoning ordinance. If you should have any questions or if I can provide additional information, please feel free to contact me. 42260311 C