Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06/18/2001_Regular
CITY OF ROCHESTER — COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIUBOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 12 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE (1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS C)'-} L JUNE 18, 2001 7:00 P.M. (3-4) D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1) Approval of Minutes (5-22) 2) Cellular Phone Use Policy (23-26) 3) The Initiative Fund Funding Request (27-28) 4) Resolution of Support for Rochester -Olmsted Community Strategic Plan for Diversity (29-30) 5) River's Edge (31-32) 6) Skyway Bridge Painting (33-36) 7) Bid Award to Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. to Build a New General Aviation Arrival/Departure Building (37-38) 8) Bid Award to Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. to Expand Lower Level Passenger Gates 3 and 4 in Terminal Building (39-40) 9) Advertise for Bids for New Regional Jet Bridge to be Attached to Terminal Building in New Gate Area being Constructed this Summer (41-42) 10) Change Order #1 with ACSG/Architectural Alliance for Terminal Building Addition (43-44) 11) Change Order #10 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for Terminal Building Improvements (45-46) 12) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities (47-48) 13) Approval of Accounts Payable (49-50) 14) Labor Agreement for 2001-2003 IATSE (51-60) 15) Reclassifications (61-62) 16) Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department (63-64) 17) MnDOT Traffic Control Signal Agreement (65-66) 18) MnDOT Agreement for Federal Participation in Advance Construction of 50t' Avenue NW (67-68) 19) Real Estate/16t' Avenue NW Council Agenda June 18, 2001 Page 2 (69-70) 20) Development Agreement/North Park (71-72) 21) Development Agreement/Ridgeview Manor (73-74) 22) Owner Contract/Basic Construction in Century Hills Fifth Subdivision (75-76) 23) Owner Contract/Sanitary Sewer Extension to Serve Lots 1-5, Olson's Subdivision (77-78) 24) Owner Contract/Watermain Extension/Relocation to Serve Slumbedand (79-80) 25) Amendment to Owner Contract/Watermain to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park (81-82) 26) Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway Approach Agreement/Duane A. & Julie K. Draayer (2654 Oak Hills Drive SW Property) (83-84) 27) Pedestrian Facility Agreement/PEMSTAR Inc. (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Rochester Technology Park) (85-86) 28) Execute Professional Services Agreement for Alternative Urban Area - wide Review in Portions of Marion Township (87-88) 29) Advertise for Bids/Construct Bike Trail Along West Circle Drive from 2nd Street SW to CSAH 8 (89-90) 30) Advertise for Bids/Bike Trail Project on 2nd Street SW from 23`d Avenue SW to West Circle Drive (91-92) 31) Advertise for Bids/Bamber Lake Area Pond/Storm Sewer Improvements (93-94) 32) Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Bridges on Douglas Trail at 50th Avenue NW & at 55th Street NW (95-96) 33) Annexation/Utility Connection Agreement for Property Located in Marion Township (97-98) 34) Award of Contract/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 18t Street SE from 130 Avenue SE to 15th Avenue SE (99-100) 35) Advertise for Bids/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 20th Street NW from 13th Avenue NW to Valkyrie Drive NW (101-108) 36) Northern Heights Drive Traffic Petition (109-110) 37) Changes to Designated Bus Loading Areas in the Downtown (111-112) 38� Service Contract Amendment/Black & Veatch Engineers �' '/Z :2,?) 'ELnggiineering d D+wir� t�« cw7i w" E) HEARINGS (113-120) 1) Continued Hearing/Final Plat to be Known as Rose Harbor Estates Second (121-142) 2) Zoning District Amendment Initiated by Rochester Common Council to Establish Special District #5, the History Center Campus Special District (143-150) 3) Final Plat to be Known as Hindermann Fitzgerald First Replat Council Agenda June 18, 2001 Page 3 (151-160) 4) Type III, Phase I, Final Plat by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be Known as Kingsbury Hills Second (161-184) 5) Final Plat to be Known as Century Hills Fifth Subdivision (185-192) 6) Final Plat to be Known as Cascade Ridge Second Subdivision (193-206) 7) Continued Hearing/Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit by Olmsted County HRA to Construct a Garage for the Purpose of Storing Maintenance Equipment to be Used for Maintaining HRA Properties (207-210) 8) Amend 1998 Action Plan for City of Rochester's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program (211-214) 9) Establishment of Agency Fare for ZIPS Dial -A -Ride (215-216) 10) Permit Parking Petition from Edison Neighborhood (217-224) 11) Hearing/Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2, Sunnydale Subdivision F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (225-234) 1 } City Administrator - Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Related to Zoning District Amendment #01-04 (235-236) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES H) TABLED ITEMS (237-246) 1) Zoning District Amendment Initiated by Rochester Common Council to Establish Zoning Districts for Land Recently Annexed to City of Rochester Located South of Lamar Court Between 15`" and 18t' Avenues SW 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR A t t rM 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: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/01 3 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NOACouncil CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-38 t t cM DESCRIPTION: PREPAR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G. NEU This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. T 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. Cellular Phone Use Policy 'D-3. The Initiative Fund Funding Request D-4. Resolution of Support for Rochester -Olmsted Community Strategic Plan for Diversity D-5. River's Edge D-6. Skyway Bridge Painting D-7. Bid Award to Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. to Build a New General Aviation Arrival/Departure Building D-8. Bid Award to Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. to Expand Lower Level Passenger Gates 3 and 4 in Terminal Building D-9. Advertise for Bids for New Regional Jet Bridge to be Attached to Terminal Building in New Gate Area being Constructed this Summer D-10. Change Order 41 with ACSG/Architectural Alliance for Terminal Building Addition D-11. Change Order 410 with Alvin E. Benike, Inc. for Terminal Building Improvements D-12. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-13. Approval of Accounts Payable D-14. Labor Agreement for 2001-2003 IATSE D-15. Reclassifications D-16. Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department D-17. MnDOT Traffic Control Signal Agreement D-18. MnDOT Agreement for Federal Participation in Advance Construction of 50`b Avenue NW '-D-19. Real Estate/16' Avenue NW D-20. Development Agreement/North Park D-21. Development Agreement/Ridgeview Manor D-22. Owner Contract/Basic Construction in Century Hills Fifth Subdivision D-23. Owner Contract/Sanitary Sewer Extension to Serve Lots 1-5, Olson's Subdivision D-24. Owner Contract/Watermain Extension/Relocation to Serve Slumberland D-25. Amendment to Owner Contract/Watermain to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park D-26. Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway Approach Agreement/Duane A. & Julie K. Draayer (2654 Oak Hills Drive SW Property) D-27. Pedestrian Facility Agreement/PEMSTAR Inc. (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Rochester Technology Park) COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: Request for Council Action Approval of Consent Agenda Items June 18, 2001 Page 2 D-28. Execute Professional Services Agreement for Alternative Urban Area -wide Review in Portions of Marion Township D-29. Advertise for Bids/Construct Bike Trail Along West Circle Drive from 2"`t Street SW to CSAH 8 D-30. Advertise for Bids/Bike Trail Project on 2"a Street SW from 23 d Avenue SW to West Circle Drive D-31. Advertise for Bids/Bamber Lake Area Pond/Storm Sewer Improvements D-32. Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Bridges on Douglas Trail at 50'h Avenue NW & at 55 Street NW D-33. Annexation/Utility Connection Agreement for Property Located in Marion Township D-34. Award of Contract/Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1" Street SE from 131s Avenue SE to 151s Avenue SE D-35. Advertise for Bids/Concrete Curb & Gutter and Overlay in 20"' Street NW from 13t' Avenue NW to Valkyrie Drive NW D-36. Northern Heights Drive Traffic Petition D-37. Changes to Designated Bus Loading Areas in the Downtown D-38. Engineering Service Contract Amendment/Black & Veatch Engineers COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �7 / DATE: 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D .-01 ITEM DESCRIPTION: CELLULAR PHONE USE POLICY PREPARED BY. S. KVENVOLD In October, 2000, the State Auditor's Office recommended that the City of Rochester adopt a policy on City owned cellular phones that specifically prohibited personal calls, except in the case of an emergency. We became aware of a policy of the State of Minnesota which allowed for State employee usage of electronic tools such as telephones, computers, facsimile machines, pagers, etc., as long as the occasional employee personal usage "does not result in any additional costs of loss of time or resources for their intended business purpose..." The City Attorney has prepared draft ordinance language that provides for the fimited personal use of City time, property or equipment to communicate electronically "provided this use, including the value of time spent, results in no incremental cost to the city or results in an incremental cost that is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively impracticable." (See attached.) COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Request a motion instructing the City Attorney to prepare the proposed ordinance language for Council approval. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: P. Memo To: TenyAdkins Audrey Betcher Ron Boose Richard Freese Linda Gilsrud Dave Kapler Larry Koshire Dale Martinson Roger Peterson Judy Scherr Steve Schmidt Roy Sutherland Phil Wheeler From: Stevan E. Kvenvold Date: March 19, 2001 Subject: Cellular Phone Policy At the last meeting of the department heads, we discussed the State Auditor's position that employees could not use their cellular phones to make personal calls; however, the State of Minnesota had adopted a policy which allowed State employees the limited usage of cellular phones for personal purposes. I contacted the State Auditor's Office and was informed that this policy applied only to State employees and not to local government employees. The attached memo from Terry Adkins indicates that the City of Rochester could adopt a policy similar to the State policy, which would allow for some limited personal usage of City equipment. Please provide me with your comments on Terry's suggested ordinance language. c: Mayor and City Council OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 2001 TO: Stevan K. Kvenvold — Rochester City Administrator FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney Tt S SUBJECT: Cellular Phone Policy Thank you for your March 6, 2001, memo forwarding to me your conversation with Lea Speeter of the State Auditor's Office. Ms. Speeter indicated that the State of Minnesota Information Technology Policy — 7 applied only to state employees. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §43A.38, subd. 4, the State adopted this policy as part of the code of ethics for executive branch employees. Speeter is correct. Information Technology Policy — 7 does implement state law and does cover state employees only. It does not apply to city employees. However, the important point in all of this is that the City of Rochester can follow this route and accomplish the same result. In other words, since the state legislative branch adopted a code of ethics for state executive branch employees which, in part, authorized a policy allowing the reasonable use of state time, property and equipment for personal communications, why cannot a home rule charter city do the same thing? I think a home rule charter city can do that. In fact, we already have in place a code of ethics. The code of ethics is found in Chapter 13 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances. The Home Rule Charter (Section 7.01, subd. 2) requires the Council to adopt a code of ethics. It seems to me that the Council is free to amend its code of ethics (Chapter 13) in order to authorize the City Administrator to issue a policy similar to that found in Information Technology Policy — 7. Put more bluntly, if it is good enough for the state, it should be good enough for the city. The actual ordinance language could appear as follows: 13.45. Use of City Property. Subdivisionl. A city employee shall not use or allow the use of city time, supplies or city -owned or leased property and equipment for the employee's private interests or any other use not in the city's interest, except as provided by law. Subd. 2. A city employee may use city time, property or equipment P to communicate electronically with other persons including, but not limited to, elected officials, the employer, or an exclusive bargaining representative under Minn. Stat. Chapter 179A, provided this use, including the value of the time spent, results in no incremental cost to the city or results in an incremental cost that is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively impracticable. Subd. 3. The city administrator shall issue a citywide policy on the use of electronic mail and other forms of electronic communications by city employees. The policy shall permit city employees to make reasonable use of state time, property and equipment for personal communications and shall address issues of privacy, content of communications, and the definition of reasonable use as well as other issues the city administrator deems to be necessary and relevant. I realize this policy goes beyond the topic of personal use of city equipment, such as a cell phone. But, there is currently nothing in the City's code of ethics which addresses the use of city property. Perhaps there should be. And as part of the ordinance regulating the personal use of city property, you can include the language authorizing the city administrator to issue a policy similar to Information Technology Policy — 7. Finally, the beauty of the above ordinance draft is that the ordinance language is nearly identical to the state law covering the same exact subject for state employees. In any event, if you wish to pursue this topic, I am of the opinion that there is appropriate and existing legal authority to go forward. 1 hope this helps. N Memo To: Terr L. Adkins From: Stevan E. Kvenvold Date: March 6, 2ooi Subject: Cellular Phone Usage Policy I received a telephone call from Lea Speeter on February 28, 2001 in response to my attached letter of 2/7/01. She indicated that the State Auditor's office had consulted with their legal counsel concerning the State of Minnesota Information Technology Policy - 7 and that the enabling legislation, Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 43A.38, applies only to state employees and not local government employees. Would you please review this statute and advise me of whether the City should seek additional legal advice on this matter. to February 7, 2001 Lea DeSouza Speeter, Director Special Investigations Office of the State Auditor Suite 400 525 Park Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55103-2139 The City of Rochester received a letter from you dated October 19, 2000 in which you addressed the use of City owned cellular phones by employees and recommended that the City "adopt and implement a written policy regarding employee use of City owned cellular telephones, specifically prohibiting any personal calls, except in case of an emergency." We have recently become aware of an Information Technology Policy-7 issued by the State of Minnesota - Department of Employee Relations dated April 23, 1999 which addresses State employee usage of electronic tools such as telephones, computers, facsimile machines, pagers, e-mail, etc. This policy states that "Limited and reasonable use of these tools for occasional employee personal purpose that does not result in any additional costs of loss of time or resources for their intended business purpose is permitted." (copy of policy is attached) The City of Rochester is presently in the process of preparing a policy on the usage of cellular telephones and I would like to clarify if State employees are allowed a limited usage of electronic tools such as cell phones for personal purposes as stated in State policy referenced above, would not City employees be allowed the same limited personal usage? Sincerely, Stevan E. Kvenvold City Administrator 1-'0111puter Usage Policy([TP . 7) Page -c+;�/ State o`� V"taeaoea )epartment of Employee Relations information Scrvices Division Computer Usage Policy Information Technology Policy - 7 (ITP-7) April 23, 1999 Title: Computer Usage Audience: All employees of the Department of Employee Relations Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the employees of the Department of Employee Relations understand the allowable usage of computer technology purchased with state funds. Policy: Minnesota Statutes declare that the computer equipment and software purchased with state funds are restricted in usage. Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 43A.38, subdivision 4: Subd. 4. Use of state property. (a) An employee shall not use or allow the use of state time, supplies or state-owned or leased property and equipment for the employee's private interests or any other use not in the interest of the state, except as provided by law. (b) An employee may use state time, property, or equipment to communicate electronically with other persons including, but not limited to, elected officials, the employer, or an exclusive bargaining representative under chapter 179A, provided this use, including the value of the time spent, results in no incremental cost to the state or results in an incremental cost that is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively impracticable. (c) The commissioners of administration and employee relations shall issue a statewide policy on the use of electronic mail and other forms of electronic communications by executive branch state employees. The policy is not subject to the provisions of chapter 14 or 179A. Appointing authorities in the legislative and judicial branches shall issue policies on these issues for their employees. The policies shall permit state employees to make reasonable use of state time, property, and equipment for personal communications and shall address issues of privacy, content of communications, and the definition of reasonable use as well as other issues the commissioners and appointing authorities identify as necessary and relevant. The Commissioners of Administration and Employee Relations issued a statewide policy, as directed in part (c) of the statute above. This policy, "Statewide Electronic Communication and Technology Ethics", was 'slued on November 15, 1997. It is re -printed here for the convenience of the reader. STATEWIDE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONAND TECHNOLOGY ETHICS httn://www.doer.state.mn.us/it-uolcv/itn-07.htm 02/01/2001 '1k Usage Policy (ITP - 7) PaSe 2 of 4 Effective November 15, 1997 Policy: The State of Minnesota provides a variety of electronic tools such as telephones, computers, facsimile machines, pagers, electronic mail (e-mail) systems, Internet access and a browser for employees whosejob performance would be enhanced by the technology. The State faces the challenge of making maximum use of the benefits of such tools, meeting legal requirements for access to information, and providing adequate protection for proprietary information. This policy memorandum governs access to and the appropriate use of this technology during time periods before and after work and during break periods by State employees in the executive branch. Employee access to and use of electronic tools such as e-mail and the Internet is intended for business -related purposes. Limited and reasonable use of these tools for occasional employee personal purpose that does not result in any additional costs of loss of time or resources for their intended business purpose is permitted. Department Head Responsibility: Appointing authorities are encouraged to use this policy as a framework for issuing their own departmental policies. Modifications may be made to accommodate individual departmental needs so long as they do not enlarge or diminish what the statutes allow. Employee Responsibility: Executive branch employees are responsible for appropriate use of e-mail and Internet access. They are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards when conducting State business and to follow the Code of Ethics and related State statutes applicable to executive branch employees. For example: Minn. Stat. §43A.38, Subd. 4 provides: "Use of state property. (a) An employee shall not use or allow the use of state time, supplies, or state owned or leased property and equipment for the employee's private interest or any other use not in the interest of the state, except as provided by law. (b) An employee may use state time, property, or equipment to communicate electronically with other persons including, but not limited to, elected officials, the employer, or an exclusive bargaining representative under chapter 179A, provided this use, including the value of time spent, results in no incremental cost to the state or results in an incremental cost that is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or administratively impracticable." Minn. Stat. §43A.39, Subd. 2 provides: "Noncompliance. Any employee who intentionally fails to comply with the provisions of Chapter 43A shall be subject to disciplinary action and action pursuant to Chapter 609." Managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring the appropriate use of all electronic tools, including e- mail and Internet access through training, supervising, coaching and taking disciplinary action, when necessary. Each agency is responsible for establishing internal policies regarding password management, encryption, data practices, monitoring access, records retention, and the like, and for communicating those policies to staff. Each agency will ensure that the responsible authorities within their agencies know who can access what, using what technology, and under what conditions. Appropriate Use: State employees need to use good judgment in Internet access and e-mail use. They are expected to ensure that e-mail messages are appropriate in both the types of e-mail messages created and the tone and content of those messages. Employee use of e-mail and the Internet must be able to withstand public http://www.doer.state.mn.us/it-polcy/itp-07.htm 02/01/2001 0111puter Usage Policy (ITP - 7) Pag scrutiny without embarrassment to the agency or the State of Minnesota. Examples of inappropriate use include, but are not limited to: • Illegal activities • Wagering, betting, or selling • Harassment and illegal discrimination . Fund-raising for any purpose unless agency sanctioned . Commercial activities, e.g., personal for -profit business activities • Promotion of political or religious positions or activities . Receipt, storage or transmission of offensive, racist, sexist, obscene or pornographic information . Downloading software (including games, wallpaper, and screen savers) from the Internet unless agency -sanctioned. • Non -State employee use The traditional communication rules of reasonableness, respect, courtesy, conunon sense, and legal requirements also apply to electronic communication. For example, actions that are considered illegal such as gambling and harassment are not up to the discretion of individual agencies or individual managers or supervisors: these actions break the law whether the behavior is conducted on e-mail or by another means of communication, and they may subject the employee to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. Employees should be aware that they may receive inappropriate and unsolicited e-mail messages. Any such messages should be reported immediately to the employee's supervisor and any other designated official within the employee's agency. While employees may make personal use of State technology such as e-mail and Internet access, the amount of use during working hours is expected to be limited to incidental use or emergency situations. Excessive time spent on such personal activities during working hours will subject the employee to disciplinary action. Union Use: In the interest of maintaining effective labor-management relationships and efficient use of State time and resources, State e-mail systems may be used by employee representatives of the union for certain union activities. Approved uses include posting of meeting notices, investigation and administration of grievances, contract interpretation questions, union election results, and notification of arbitration and unit determination decisions. State owned property or services including the e-mail system may not be used for political activities, fund- raising, campaigning for union office, union organizing activities, or solicitation of employees for union membership. Union use of electronic communication technology is subject to the same conditions as employee use of such technology, as set forth in this Policy Memorandum. This includes the conditions set forth in the paragraph below entitled, "Monitoring." Monitoring: Electronic communication devices such as telephones, facsimile machines, pagers, State e-mail systems and Internet access are State property. Like other State resources, they are intended to be used for State business and other agency -sanctioned activities. The State reserves the right to monitor all use of e-mail and Internet resources at the time of use, during routine post -use audits, and during investigations. Data that agencies maintain electronically are government data and, as such, are subject to classification and access under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Employees should understand that electronic data are not completely secure. For example, e-mail messages can be altered by a recipient and re -transmitted as if from the original sender, or data can be illegally accessed. They http://www.doer.state.mn.us/it-polcy/itp-07.htm 02/01/2001 Auter Usage Policy (ITP - 7 ) Page 4 of 4 old also understand that e-mail messages and Internet transactions, including those they delete or erase from their own files, may be backed up or recorded and stored centrally for system security and investigative purposes. They may be retrieved and viewed by someone else with proper authority at a later date. It is the user's responsibility to use care in communicating information not meant for public viewing. Because the e-mail and Internet systems are not secure, employees should not send any data classified as not public (private or confidential data on individuals or nonpublic or protected nonpublic data not on individuals) over the e-mail or Internet systems unless the data are encrypted or encoded. Record Retention Schedules: Record retention schedules are the same regardless of the medium used to create or store the record. See Minn. Stat. § 138.17. As a result, some e-mail messages may be official records of the agency and must be retained in accordance with the agency's record retention schedule appropriate for the type, nature and content of the record. Improper disposal may subject the employee and the agency to legal sanctions and other administrative or legal consequences. This policy memorandum was developed with the assistance of State human resources managers and information technology and policy managers under the auspices of the departments of Employee Relations and Administration. It will be updated and revised as needed. Ifyou have questions, please contact your agency human resources office or the designated official in your agency. Karen Carpenter, Commissioner Elaine Hansen, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Employee Relations Minnesota Department of Administration OER Back to the Information Technology Policy Index Page [HOME] [SEARCH] [LIBRARY] [SEND E-MAIL] [HOT LINKS] [SITE MAP] http://www.doer.state.mn.us/it-polcy/itp-07.htm 02/01/2001 15 D R.a FT Cite of Rochester Policy on Cellular Phone Usagc Purpose A cellular phone may be assigned to enhance the productiveness and effectiveness of City of Rochester employees while on duty. Safety considerations need to be incorporated in to the use of a cellular phone while operating a City of Rochester vehicle. Policy Cellular phones may be issued to City of Rochester employees based upon the approval of the City Administrator or Department Head. Each department must maintain a list of employees to whom the department has issued cellular phones. A copy of the list including updates to the list must be forwarded to the Finance Department on a quarterly basis for record -keeping purposes. Employees should not use personal cellular phones to make personal calls on work time except in emergency circumstances. Procedure Employees may have occasion to use a City -issued cellular phone to maintain contact with supervisor(s)or coworkers in order to perform their work responsibilities. Brief conversations should be the norm. Cellular phone users should assess the traffic situation before placing or receiving calls, making sure the\ are fully aware of road and vehicle distractions. If the employee anticipates a long or intense conversation, he/she may drive to the shoulder of the road or otherwise park the vehicle safely while completing the conversation. Personal conversations on city -issued or personal cellular phones are not acceptable while on the job, except for short conversations to inform family members of a change in work location or hours that have been extended because of workload. Employees may be subject to disciplinary action if they are found to be using a city -issued or personal cell phone for non -work conversations while on the job. J_ 11 MEMORANDUM Rochester Police Department Administration DATE: October 25, 2000 TO: Stevan Kvenvold FROM: Roger Peterson SUBJECT: Cell Phone Usage Attached is a list of cell phones utilized by the Police Department. Since we assign cell phones by position instead of a specific individual, they are listed according to their area of assignment. For example, a cell phone assigned to a squad car would be used by all four officers assigned to that car. If you would like a listing of specific individuals that have access to these phones at any given time, please let me know and we will develop one. While we continue to discourage the use of cell phones for personal calls, I do have a concern regarding what may be considered an "emergency" from the standpoint of city policy. We purchase airtime for cell phones on several plans that include varying amounts of usage before additional expenses are incurred. An example would be a $50.00 charge for 500 minutes of airtime with no additional cost unless 500 minutes per month is exceeded. Assuming we are not over limit, a phone call does not result in any cost. However, if an officer is required to find a phone other than the cellular phone in his or her squad car in order to call their spouse to tell them they will be late coming home, we will incur significant expense in lost time while the officer performs this task. Likewise, if a family member is required to call the dispatch center in order to request an officer to call home, we will be wasting even more time. I believe the realities of cell phone communications would call for a policy allowing the use of cell phones for personal use when circumstances would reasonably suggest that such use would result in less overall expense to the City. i7 FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 13, 1995 TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator FROM: Dale Martinson, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Cellular Phone Usage Policy I have reviewed Olmsted County's policy on cellular phone usage and offer the following comments: 1) We have a policy in the form of a memo issued by you on August 16, 1994 as found attached. It discourages personal calls, but does not prohibit them as Olmsted County does. It also requires that personal calls be documented on the monthly listing and appropriate reimbursement be submitted. 2) Would I'prefer our policy prohibit personal use? Yes. Is it practical? I don't know. The departments that use them could more appropriately answer the second question. However, reasons to prohibit personal use include: a) Tax exemption. As stated in Olmsted County's memo and my memo to Chief Kaplar dated September 30, 1994, our exclusion from paying taxes on these calls makes it impossible for employees to appropriately reimburse. b) Audits of these bills are nearly impossible. Different plans have differing amounts of "free" usage in the base monthly charge. Employees do not know how to reimburse for these calls. The police department seems to have an honor system in which the bills are distributed to the Captains and officers submit payment for personal usage. In a little over a year of use by this department, reimbursements have totalled $541. Because of the even dollar amounts of reimbursements however, (eg, $5.00, 10.00, $50.00) 1 get the feeling they are mostly estimating their personal usage. Finance does not currently audit any department's phone bill. 3) The separate expenditure code of 12012 has been established for all departments to use if they have cellular phones. I have attached a listing of inception -to -date charges and reimbursements coded to this account. It may be useful to remind all department heads of this code in case additional departments are adding these phones, I suggest this item be added to the agenda for the meeting of department heads scheduled for April 19, 1995. We could obtain greater insight to the effect of strictly prohibiting personal use at that time. Attachments 1 � / r-i� Li-c i To: Designated=ndividua1s Ric'.^.ard Devlin, Ad�ninistratort� Robert M. Bendzick, C_O�� Date: Sentember29' ject: CeAu0?0Pj wne3s v AFs7 sM Cellular phones have become so widely distributed among County staff that a few issues need to be discussed and staff need to be rezinded of certain County policies. First, as you all know, we are charged for every second that a cellular phone or WATS (bulk long-distance) line is used. Because of the excise tax exemptions the County uses in the purchase of these services and/or the bookkeeping problems involved, it is not possible for you to use these services and reimburse the County for personal use. It is illegal for County personnel or the public to y funds. Therefore, it is illegal to make personal use of Count use of County cellular phones or WATS lines. ma" personal vo persona'_ incoming or outgoing calls may be made on cellular phones. You cannot call home, make personal business calls, receive personal calls or in any other way use cellular connect ti-e for personal use. You will have to resort to regular phones for perscnal calls. You must instruct staff, -friends, and family to not call you on County cellular phones unless it is County business :elated. ro .,t *andle routine or mundane conversations on a cellular phone because a' the cast. There is no reason to handle "what went on at z`je o'fice today?" questions or .hat does my calendar look like?" is costing more lar Calls an�aoc long-distance aphon wcen on a cellular service. Cellular phones. companies charge an extraordinary premium for long-distance calls. Stop and use your telephone credit card and you will substantially reduce your costs. Finally, from a risk management stand point, we have to caution against using cellular phones while driving. Cellular phones are distracting because their operation is more complex than that of a two way radio. Distractions can lead to accidents. Two recent, local, fatal, accidents were caused by the drivers' attention to adjusting their stereos. There is no reason' to believe that dialing or holding a cellular phone is any different in its ability to distract. Please pull over and stop your vehicle when you must use a cellular phone. Please call us if you have questions sto how se policies affect you or your staff. Thank y Your prompt ntion to these concerns. P-i9 Z Memo To: Terry Adkins Audrey Betcher Ron Boose Richard Freese Linda Gilsrud Dave Kapler Larry Koshire Dale Martinson Roger Peterson u y Scher Steve Schmidt Roy Sutherland Phil Wheeler / � From: Stevan E. Kvenvold,(1� Date: October 23, 2000 Subject: Personal Usage of Cellular Phones /D1Z111O a 5t eZa'& dcuz c>FGi66 e '4t 900aa_';6) clay The Office of the State Auditor had received a complaint about the personal usage of cellular telephones by employees of the City of Rochester. The Office of the State Auditor recommends that the City of Rochester take the following actions: 1. Determine exactly how many cellular telephones the City owns and keep an accurate record of whom they are assigned to; 2. Draft and implement a written policy regarding employee use of City -owned cellular telephones, specifically prohibiting any personal calls except in case of emergency; and 3. Provide a copy of the written policy to all departments and City employees that currently have City -owned cellular telephones, and to all employees and departments that subsequently are provided with City -owned cellular telephones at the time they are assigned. ao r pu (507)280-1601 E-mail: Ikoshire@rpu.org DATE: February 1, 2001 TO: Steve Kvenvold, City Administrator General Manager's Office MEMORANDUM FROM: Larry Koshire, General Manager hwti'J SUBJECT: Cellular Phone Use Recent discussions and a proposal to develop a citywide policy on cell phone use have prompted internal review at RPU of cell phone use issues and potential personal use. I have also reviewed your previous correspondence and understand that this subject will be on the February 8 department head agenda. These memos highlight the fact that costs for cell phones and their use have reduced dramatically, and that technology has improved to the point where cell phones have become an integral part of many businesses. A number of different job classifications at RPU are assigned cell phones, and because of the nature of the work, some personal usage has been allowed. However, the employee reimburses RPU for personal long distance calls. Some specific examples of company cell phone use follow. In one area, the Technical Services area, cell phones are assigned to the individual technicians. They spend the greater share of their day in the field working with equipment or on substations where use of the cell phone, for a variety of business purposes, has become a very efficient way to operate. In addition to the efficiency cell phones bring during the day, these technicians carry the phone with them essentially 24 hours a day. Because of the small number of highly skilled individuals in this classification, it is important that they be in contact for system outages or emergencies that only they can correct. Therefore, in essence, these classifications are on stand- by whether at home or on vacation out of the area. We have documented many instances of problems being solved by the individual technician being able to be contacted wherever he may be. This has a cost benefit to RPU and the citizen ratepayers, as well as improved system reliability. In another instance, one of the job classifications has his number published in the phone book. When he is not at his desk, his phone is forwarded to the cell phone so that he may respond in a. timely manner. Sometime this includes some after hours responses, which again places this individual in an on -call position. In this situation, personal use of the cell phone is allowed. In another section, employees are involved in conducting meetings, events, and other activities either in the evenings or on weekends. These are personnel that do not get paid overtime, and Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 facsimile 507.280.1542 website www.rpu.orc Steve Kvenvold February 1, 2001 Page 2 because of the evening and weekend activity, it is understood that there may be some need for either incoming or outgoing personal calls to be made. In another job classification, employees use their own personal cell phones. They also spend an extensive amount of time in the field, and as a result conduct business over their personal cell phones. Because it is hard to monitor in a small amount, RPU reimburses these individuals a small amount per month for business use of their personal cell phone. Finally, power plant supervisory and technical staff are issued cell phones. Since this includes only a few employees, they become a critical link to reliable plant operation. Again, local incoming and outgoing calls are allowed. As you can see, cell phones have become very integrated into our operation, and have proven to be an extremely efficient tool, especially for those who are away from the office or work station, for either safety or business purposes. In addition, the staff is willing to accept the ability to be contacted on a 24-hour basis, with the understanding that personal usage of the cell phone is allowed. The alternative of paying a stand-by charge, or using some other method of communication, would not be as efficient. We hope that whatever future policy is implemented would take the factors of declining cell phone costs, future technological changes that will possibly have the cell phone replace the existing land line on our desk, and especially the efficiency and safety concerns that cell phones seem to address, into consideration. c: Walt Lorber, Director of Operations LJK: kaw 02r a2 uV u.J R.VN D L-`! December 15, 1993 TO: Stevan RVenvOld, city Administrator FROM: Bruce Atkinson, Assistant Finance Director RE: Police Cellular Phone Contributions and Personal Use The City has received $7,500 of the expected $18,000 in contributions to be used to buy cellular phones for the Police Department and provide for their operation. Chief Farrell has requested that $4,000 be appropriated to 4110- 15300 to fund the acquisition of the cellular phones. He has also asked that the balance of the donation be used to fund the operating costs of these phones, and that a new minor object code be assigned to account for these costs. Since we do not yet know the operating costs for these units, it is recommended that the funds be recorded as deferred revenue, and be recognized as revenue at the level needed to fund the operating costs for the cellular phones. A new minor object code will be assigned to account for cellular phone operating costs. —j Personal use of cellular phones and all phones should be limited because the City is exempt from federal excise tax. We also recommend review of monthly phone bills for personal calls and that long distance calls be documented. Although some personal use does take place now, it is not a material amount. Reimbursement for personal calls should be made through the cash receipt system at the department level, not forwarded to the Finance Department. The reimbursed amounts are not appropriated, but are credited to the minor object code for cellular phones, as is true with regular phone call reimbursement. Will your office of Chief Farrell be preparing an RCA to accept the donation for this purpose? Please let me know if additional information is required. c: Chief Farrell Internal audit Accounting staff 41lo budget file n:\fln enca\brute\wpdoe\plcdlph REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a3 ' DATE: 6/18/01 A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM DESCRIPTION: THE INITIATIVE FUND FUNDING D-3 PREPARED BY: S.KVENVOLD In August of 1998, the City Council, meeting as a Committee of the Whole, approved a three year funding pledge of $77,740 to the SE Minnesota Initiative Fund to be paid over a three year period in 1999, 2000 and 2001. The 2001 payment of $25,914 is now due to be paid. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Request a motion transferring $25,914 from the 2001 Contingency Account to be paid to the SE MN Initiative Fund. or �A�t( McC ; COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second aj The Initiative Fund of southeast and south central Minnesota May 31, 2001 Bill To: Stevan Kvenvold City of Rochester 201 4th Street SE Rochester, MN 55904-3708 INVOICE Due Date Amount Due Paid to Date Total Pledge Amount 06/01/2001 $259913 $.00 $259913 'e-D x a S, Thank you for your continued support of The Initiative Fund's efforts to help improve the quality of life here in southern Minnesota. A foundation providing the tools to build strong communities and businesses Phone 507-455-3215 525 Florence Avenue PO Box 695 Owatonna MN 55060-0695 Fax 507-455-2098 E-mail: semif@semif.org Website: www.semif.org 0 k 0 © .} § ( ' . § § -- � PIN U AN5% 0 §) z ƒ7 §. k k� 2 !I} to &}7 \��\ LU &§in °k ƒ v kU.00z \c \� ` ` .§W�` �k/ 0§z «u �a � B\ / t/ 0 y \ #\) » \ !!§ / \ 2 . \]( - v' ) LLJ I Eh( LL— ^ ` L; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6-RI DATE: 6/18/01 A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA I City Administration D`f for Diversity T. Spaeth At the May 21, 2001 Committee of the Whole meeting, representatives from the 21st Century Partnership presented a cultural diversity plan for Rochester and Olmsted County. The demographics of the community have changed dramatically in the last decade and the economic and social health of this region is dependent upon being able to educate, attract and retain an able workforce. In order to maintain that economic and social health it must be recognized that all residents of the Rochester — Olmsted community must be valued for their unique contributions, be treated with dignity, fairness and respect. The attached Resolution of Support advocates these values. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Adopt Resolution of Support for Rochester — Olmsted Community Strategic Plan for Diversity COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: WHEREAS, the demographics of the Rochester -Olmsted community have changed dramatically in the last decade, creating more cultural and ethnic diversity in our region, and WHEREAS, the newcomers to our region have come in search of opportunity and a better life for themselves and their families through education, employment and participation in other community activities, and WHEREAS, the economic and social health of our region depends on our ability to educate, attract and retain an able workforce, and WHEREAS, all residents of the Rochester -Olmsted community must be valued for their unique contributions, treated with dignity, fairness and respect, and WHEREAS, a commitment to the value diversity brings can only be sustained through education programs that promote and facilitate positive relationships among community members, and WHEREAS, the 2I" Century Partnership long-range planning process was supported by local government, businesses and non-profit organizations, and included a broad cross section of over 800 Olmsted County residents who worked together on a community -wide vision that values: • justice, safety, fairness and respect for all people, • a healthy and economically viable urban and rural environment, • a highly skilled, enterprising, and continually learning labor force, • neighborhoods that are diverse, welcoming, and cohesive, made up of informed, involved, and caring citizens • an efficient and responsive government. WHEREAS, community leaders and elected officials are responsible for honoring the public's trust, managing resources wisely, setting the standard for behavior and monitoring accountability, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Rochester: ➢ Fully endorses the 2151 Century Partnership Rochester -Olmsted Community Strategic Plan for Diversity. ➢ Pledges to identify and implement strategies in the plan that are appropriate to the mission and goals of the City of Rochester and ➢ Commits itself to working collaboratively with other units of local government, businesses and community groups to implement the goals and objectives outlined in the plan. Date Chuck Canfield, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/01 er_FNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Administration D_ 5 ITEM DESCRIPTION: River's Edge PREPARED BY: Doug Knott; The City has been working closely with the HRA on the development of the River's Edge apartment project at the site of the former Silver Lake Motel in the 1300 block of North Broadway. The HRA did not receive approval of its application for financial assistance for the project from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency this spring. The HRA was encouraged by MHFA to re -apply in July for a funding commitment this fall. If approved, construction could start in the spring of 2002. As part of its application package, the HRA needs to provide MHFA with evidence of site control. The City entered into a purchase agreement with the HRA in January of 2001. That purchase agreement contained several provisions that need to be revised to reflect the current status of the project. Council Action Requested 1) Amend Paragraph 4 of the January 4, 2001 purchase agreement to read "... but in no event shall closing occur prior to Buyer receiving a commitment from Minnesota Housing Finance Authority for a portion of the project financing". Amend Paragraph 7 of the January 4, 2001 purchase agreement between the City of Rochester and the Olmsted County Housing and Redevelopment Authority to read..."Buyer shall begin construction of the rental housing project by no later than May 1, 2002, and shall complete construction within one year. Buyer shall convey the property back to the Seller free and clear of any liens and other encumbrances if construction has not commenced by September 1, 2002." 2) Authorization for the Mayor and Clerk to sign the amended purchase agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/1 ," --'IDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: SKYWAY BRIDGE PAINTING ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM NO. V_ D. KNOTT The original skyway bridges were constructed in 1988 and 1989 as part of the Centerplace project. The bridges are in need of exterior repainting. City staff requested proposals from WHKS and HGA for inspection and testing services, preparation of plans and specifications, bid phase services, contract administration and construction observation and testing. The initial inspection and testing, plans and specifications, etc. were quoted on a lump sum basis. Construction observation services were quoted on an hourly rate basis. Both firms appear to be equally qualified to do the work. The fee proposal from WHKS's for basic services is $11,900. Their fee for construction observation is estimated at $11,340 based on 180 hours at $63/hr. HGA quoted a fee of $14,000 and estimated construction observation fees at $10,000 based upon 120 hours at $75 to $90/hr. If HGA is selected, I suggest the hourly rate for inspection services be capped at $83.00 per hour for the 120 hours of time. The City will be billed for construction observation services based on the actual number of hours spent on the project. WHKS outlined a schedule with a September 5`b bid opening. HGA proposed a more aggressive schedule for the project with a bid opening on August 81h. The painting work is temperature sensitive. Given the late start time, this is critical. For this reason, I am recommending HGA for the project. Design services will be paid from available tax increments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorization to enter into a professional services agreement with HGA in a lump sum amount of $14,000 with construction observation to be provided at an hourly rate of $83.00 per hour. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second • 7.1111- � .. ;w c ✓� r rt � r� .IN I rlu .M ~{ MY Yry } 0 0 CIVIC CENTER N CIIL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING :55 / DATE: 6/18/01 ".GENOA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Rochester International Airport D _ /, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bid award to Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. to build a new General PREPARED BY: Aviation Arrival/Departure Building. Steven W. Legve The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Accept the Base Bid plus Alternates #1, 2, and 3 from Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. to build a new General Aviation Arrival/Departure Building pending receipt of MN/Dot — Office of Aeronautics funding. (J6965) Base Bid Plus Alternates #1, 2, and 3: $1,559,000 Engineer's Estimate: $1,206,296 Along with the bid tabulations, there is some information attached indicating some possible reasons why the actual bids were higher than the engineer's estimate. This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 60% State 40% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract with Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. and othf documents related to this project pending receipt of MN/Dot — Office of Aeronautics funding. COUNCIL ACTION: Motionby; sewnd 3q REVIEW OF ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE, SUMMARY OF BIDS GENERAL AVIATION, ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES BUILDING On June 13, 2001, @ 2PM, bids were opened for new construction of a general aviation, arrivals and departures building. Base bids ranged from $1,489,500 to $1,581,700. The Engineer's base bid estimate prepared for the project was $1,206,296. Considering all of the Contractors' bids were close, within 6% of each other, Rochester International Airport requested a review of the Engineer's estimate to determine omissions or understated items that caused the 20% error. A review of the Engineer's estimate provided the following comments: 1. Only one omission from the Engineer's estimate was noted, a price was not included for the airside and landside entrance canopies. Estimated value, $30,000. Excavation, soils correction and utility construction was under estimated on the Engineer's estimate. The geotechnical report for the project indicates that problem soils will be encountered and dewatering will be required. The Engineer's estimate reflects normal excavation procedures for a shallow spread footing foundation. Estimated value, $42,000. Window costs were under estimated on the Engineer's estimate. Discussions with regional contractor's indicates that metal windows for light commercial constrution are up 10% to 15% from last year. Estimated value, $8,000. 4. Interior finishes for this project were estimated at $38.00/s.f.. Comments from contractors indicate that the upscale level of interior finishes would raise finishing costs to approximately $43.00/s.f. Estimated value, $64,000. 5. The bituminous parking and drives were expanded during the course of design. The Engineer's estimate did not include the additional bituminous areas. Estimated value, $38,000. 6. Labor and materials for the exterior wall finishes was under estimated on the Engineer's estimate. The exterior wall system includes masonry, EIFS, and aluminum panels. A shortage in the western states has significantly raised aluminum prices. Labor to finish exterior walls was higher than anticipated. Estimated value, $68,000. No other omissions or discrepancies were noted during the review. These items account for approximately 90% of the deviations between the Engineer's estimate and the submitted bids. z 35- + \ LLJ Ln / f § f & < d ; _ � 2 � v < _ v = m § / LO m A CT r \ \ } 2 ® * w E ) \ } \ F- Cl)- Cl)� m 22 < 04 /\ }\ ® 0 k k 2 < / f �LLJg < « \} ( 7 w �C ( 0 \ / §§ § ) w b » 5 S « = c� o < @ 2 } ) S §§ !7 )# }} w< ; bk U® < Km it LLJ \} < /% 2 § ƒ G / \\ z )5 g REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 431 DATE: 6/18/01 "^NDA SECTII Consent ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bid award to passenger gates 3 and 4 in the Terminal Building. Rochester International Airport to expand lower The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: D-8 PREPARED BY: Steven W. Legve Accept the Base Bid plus Alternate #1 from Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. to expand lower level passenger gates 3 and 4 in the Terminal Building. (J6970) Base Bid Plus Alternate 41 $1,241,500 Engineer's Estimate: $1,214,393 Alvin E. Benike was the apparent low bidder but after consulting the City Attorney, their bid was deemed unresponsive due to their modification of the base bid. Bid tabulations attached. This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 90% Federal 10% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract with Schroeder-Leverington, Inc. and other documents related to this project. COUNCIL ACTION: Motionby: Second 3v OV 0 Q O O O m m O m O + O V w Q N co co CN CNI ¢ CN m M O 0 N N F v N N N m o Cl) J g ❑ 0 0 m O m V r- C6 M ¢ z ❑ o a ro 0 J m O W 01 N Cl Q z (14 0 O 00 to J V V v 7 N a Q m O N O Q N O J F '7 N V V M Z Q O A O A n O 0 0 LO J O Cl) N m Q O v O v to v W F Z N coO O O 0 m F rn O m O O W J v v v N Q v v w x # 0 v 0 0 0 0 m 0 D Lf) m r, m r O m Q v v v v r v w x Z O d ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 in- N m V O O O O Z _ NU) C IL W to t`m m X Z m W Z O 2 Z F w Y m Z ,,��, W O Z QU Z O Y m O O m ❑ Z OU Z Lu = W m N 2 m m to J tri W U m a m z_ to z O O 0 ~ N 7 F a L U W LL Q Z Z O if to W J O ¢ F m W 7 ❑ > a F Z m a O w m IL m LU of m = z o m x W to O Z O O 0 U = Z D ❑ W {W m co Z U rn x zi o0 O Z to o w m of m z O 0 m O O Q O m x U U ~ N LU U Y LL rn w O F m LU U Q Z o < w w LL W J Q 3: ¢ w Ow W ❑ U to Z LLIW U J m O O W O z n. ¢ LU o d N M V REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18101 AG onsent ITEM DESCRIPTION: Rochester International Airport for bids for a new regional jet to be attached to Terminal Building in the new gate area being constructed this summer. The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: D -9 Steven W. Legve Advertise for bids for a new regional jet bridge to be attached to the Terminal Building in the new gate area being constructed this summer. This jet bridge will work with most regional jet and commuter aircraft. This project is in the current CIP. Project Funding: 90% FAA 10% Local COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/ 18/01 AGFunA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NABY: onsent ---TRochester International Airport i1 _ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order #1 with ACSG/Architectural Alliance for Terminal PREPA Building Addition. Steven The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Execute Change Order #1 with ACSG/Architectural Alliance for Terminal Building Addition. (J6970) This change order involves additional design services and bid documents to install a regional jet bridge on the new portion of the terminal. This change order also involves additional design and engineering services related to the Kalwall roof system, the curved window storefront/exterior sheet metal design, additional geo- technical evaluation and schematic review as required. This change order will result in a cost of $37,300.00 A copy of the change order is attached. Project Funding: 90% FAA 10% Local CG�,.CIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Change Order #1 documents. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING AA DATE: 6/18/01 ;onsent ITEM DESCRIPTION: C improvements. ORIGINATING DEPT: Rochester International Airport with Alvin E. Benike Inc. for The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to: Steven W. Legve Execute Change Order # 10 with Alvin E. Benike Inc. for Terminal Building improvements. (J6942) This change order involves additional work to install two roof drains needed to properly drain the roof area over the entrance vestibules. This change order will result in a cost of $6,384.00 A copy of the change order is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Change Order #10 documents. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/01 `NIDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK D _ ABY�: ITEM DESCRIPTION:LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPAREDONNAJ 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. FIREWORKS Rochester Golf & Country Club 3100 W Country Club Rd Rochester, Mn 55902 Fireworks at Country Club 7/4/01 Rochester Honker, McLeod & KTTC-TV 10 Fireworks at Mayo Field 8/6/01 403 East Center St. Rochester, Mn 55904 GAMBLING — TEMPORARY RAFFLE Senior Citizens Services, Inc. 121 N. Bdwy. Rochester, Mn. 55906 Raffle at Rochester Mayo civic Center — 9/19/01 30 Civic Center Dr SE Rochester, Mo. 55904 SOUND AMPLIFICATION McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 P Ave SE Rochester, Mn. 55903 Company Picnic Amplified Music East Silver Lake Park (Please Waive 8:00 Time Period) 7/20/01 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM SE Settlers Neighborhood Association Second Saturdays at Slatternly Park Rochester, Mn. 55904 (Please Waive 8:00 Time Period) (Prior Anorovals for 619/01— J Mc COUNCIL ACTION: Motion C 46 LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE 2 JUNE 18, 2001 Famous Dave's Restaurant 431 16`h Ave NW Rochester, Mn 55901 Live Music on Patio I" Monday of June, July, August & September 5:00 PM to 10:00 PM (Please Waive 8:00 Time Period) Lupus Foundation 275 Market St 4C-19 Minneapolis, Mo. 55405 Fundraiser Walk with 3 Piece Band 9/15/01 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Silver Lake East Pavilion MISCELLANEOUS Lupus Foundation 275 Market St #C-19 Minneapolis, Mn. 55405 Fundraiser Walk with 3 Piece Band 9/15/01 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM Silver Lake East Pavilion American Cancer Society Fundraising Walk 2 PM (7/13/01 ) until 12:00 Noon (7/14/01) University Center Rochester, Mn. 55904 Salvation Army 20 1" Ave NE Rochester, Mn 55906 Car Wash, Food Stand & "Hit a Car" 6/23/01 5:30 PM to 8:50 PM Downtown Business Association Annual Sidewalk Sale Days July 26`h thru July 29th Rochester, Mn. 55901 Motor Maids, Inc. 2608 3151. Ave NE St. Anthony, Mn. 55418 Parade for Convention 7/12/01 16`h St SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses and miscellaneous activities. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NASCHO CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK ITEM DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPA DONNA The following ADDENDUM licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING — TEMPORARY RAFFLE Ducks Unlimited PO Box 475 Rochester, Mn. 55903 Golf Event 7/9/01 Willow Creek Golf Course 1240 40d' St SW Rochester, Mn 55902 (Please Waive 30 Day holding Period) Church of the Resurrection 1600 11d' Ave SE Rochester, Mn. 66904 Raffle 7/29/01 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above ADDENDUM permits. i I COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 1 DATE: 6/18/01 A SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Consent Agenda I Finance Department Approval of Accounts Payable Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable (submitted separately) in the amount of $1,226,913.77. Less: Any exceptions COUNCIL ACTION: Matto by: second by: ta: ITEM NO. D-(3 PREPARED BY: Dale Martinson REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION N DA SECTI Consent ITEM DESCRIPTION: Labor Agreement for 2001-2003 IATSE ORIGINATING DEPT: Human Resources MEETING T 'L1 DATE: 6/18/01 ITEM NO. D _II+ PREPARED BY: Linda GHsrud An agreement has been reached between the City of Rochester and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Pictures Technicians, Artists, and Allied Crafts, Local #416 (IATSE) bargaining group for the years 2001 — 2003. - Added holiday pay provision for six identified holidays - Modified language in regarding to riggers' pay scale, definition of journeyman, employee input in regard to safety decisions, and operation of stationary sound systems -Added language regarding calling in stagehands in order to seek to reduce the cost of overtime -Pay rates were established 1. Probationary stagehands will receive no increase in the first year, ten cents/hour increase in the second year and ten cents/hour increase in the third year of the agreement 2. Apprentice stagehands will receive 30 cents/hour increase in the first year of the agreement, 25 cents/hour increase in the second year of the agreement, and 25 cents/hour increase in the third year of the agreement 3. Journeyman stagehands will receive 40 cents/hour increase in the first year of the agreement, 40 cents/hour increase in the second year of the agreement and 40 cents/hour increase in the third year of the agreement 4. The working steward definition was added indicating that a journeyman stagehand appointed as a working steward when there are at least ten or more stagehands per call under his/her leadership will receive $1.00/hour over his/her regular hourly rate. Council Action Requested: Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/01 0ASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Resources ITEM NO. Consent Human PREPAREA,,,\ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Reclassifications Linda Gil The Personnel Advisory Committee reviewed two requests to reclassify positions on June 13, 2001. - Reclassify Senior Clerk Typist in City Clerk's Office to Deputy City Clerk and change the pay grade from AFSCME, Grade 3 to RPEA, Management 1, Grade 1 - Reclassify Senior Clerk Typist in Civic Music to Operations Coordinator and change the pay grade from AFSCME, Grade 3 to RPEA, Operations Support, Grade 2 The Personnel Advisory Committee recommends approval of these requests. Council Action Requested: -,quest a motion reclassifying the positions stated above as approved by the Personnel Advisory Committee Ma ALLAAIERICA CITY ROCHESTER �i,�zrte.�ata MEMORANDUM JUDY SCHERR, CMC city clerk City Clerk's Office 201 4th Street SE, Room 135 Rochester, MN 55904-3742 (507) 285-8086 FAX #(507) 285-8256 Date: June 12, 2001 To: Steve Kvenvold, City Administrator From: Judy Scherr, City Clerk Subject: Reclassification of Deputy City Clerk Position We have talked many times in the past, and I have talked with Linda Gilsrud as well, regarding the reclassification of the Deputy City Clerk position. If you will remember, the position was lowered at the time that I became City Clerk with the thought that many of the functions of the Clerk would remain with the Clerk and not the Deputy as in the past. It is evident over the past two years that this is not the case. The Deputy City Clerk position has re -assumed many responsibilities previously in the position and assumed more at the same time. The position has grown in professional and supervisory roles that need to be present during and in the absence of the City Clerk. The Deputy assumes an active part of the daily supervision of the other personnel in the department. She has assumed an active part in the development, planning and implementation of various functions and responsibilities in the office. In the absence of the City Clerk, the Deputy must carry out all functions within that role, including signature authority. The use of overtime should not be an issue with this position as it currently is. I am requesting that you reclassify the Deputy City Clerk position into a management position in the RPEA to allow for the growth of the department, the supervisory need, and the daily operations of the office. If you desire further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. An E.yualoppartunity Emp(uyer 53 ' May 4, 2001 To: Steve Schmidt From: Linda Gilsrud Catherine and I have reviewed the job description that you prepared for Operations Coordinator, Civic Music. We will be recommending to Stevan Kvenvold and the Personnel Advisory Committee that the position be placed at Operations Support, Grade 2. The Decision Band method of Job Content Evaluation shows Band B, Grade 3, Sub -grade 1, with seven (7) work points. AF'-5c4,ti_ Ss..� CSz.e"9a Z �n Cc: Catherine Moran � r c , a" t `A to i O Amy Dwyer R PEl-\- Deb Coyle + s s�� n a Terese Farr 31,�5� +3.7,9S �qX1 :116 u Gilsrud, Linda From: Schmidt, Steve Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 10:48 AM To: Gilsrud, Linda Cc: Kvenvold, Steve; Don Paulson (E-mail) Among Civic Music's goals is to "Maintain the administrative resources required to support a program of RCM's scope and magnitude." Civic Music's staff is stretched beyond its capabilities to cope with the number of events and support services the Department currently provides. Moreover, returning to a more traditional programming calendar during the second half of FY 2001 will place an added burden on staff handle ticket sales, clerical, and reception duties. The purpose of this e-mail is to request that Civic Music's current Senior Clerk -Typist be reclassified to the position of Operations Coordinator and that a full-time Clerk/Typist//Receptionist be added to the staffing table effective January 1, 2001. The justification for this request is as follows: • The Senior Clerk -Typist is clearly working out of job family classification and grade when she is called upon to perform certain production -related duties, e.g., move, load -in, operate and load -out sound reinforcement equipment and musical instruments. • Additional quality clerical support is critical if Civic Music is to compete successfully for contributions the future. This is especially true with the number of capital and endowment campaigns other non-profi organizations will be mounting in the next few years. Qualifying prospects, capturing and manipulating data, and prospect/donor follow-up is very labor-intensive work and current staff does not have time to adequately attend to these matters. • The City is not getting the most "bang for its buck" when the Department Head and Assistant General Manager spend an inordinate amount of time performing clerical tasks. • On occasion, the Civic Music Office must be closed during regular office hours because the staff is in the field supporting various programming, marketing, and fund development functions. • Staff lacks the time required to properly support the Music Library function. The volunteers available for this purpose lack the proper knowledge and skill to perform the tasks required. • The Senior Clerk -Typist continues to accumulate comp -time because of the amount of overtime she is required to provide, which exacerbates the office coverage (ticket sales, reception, clerical support, etc.) challenge. Reclassification of the current Senior Clerk -Typist to the position of Production Coordinator and the addition of a full-time Clerk/Typist/Receptionist to the staffing table will alleviate this situation. The department's ability to make good on the City's commitment to provide quality customer service will also be enhanced with the addition of a full-time Clerk/Typist/Receptionist to the staff. Attached please find proposed position descriptions. If you have questions regarding this matter, or if I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. 5s Gilsrud, Linda -om: Schmidt, Steve Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:43 AM To: Gilsrud, Linda Subject: Senior Clerk -Typist Reclassification Attached please find a first draft of a new position description for Music Operations Coordinator's job, the position Deana Carr currently holds. (1 have not yet shown the position description to Deana, but would like to get her input AFTER your staff takes a run at it.) It is my recommendation that the position be placed in the Operations Support Grade 2 band. Thanks, Steve operaliana Coordmta .d. Steven J. Schmidt, General Manager Rochester Civic Music 201 4th St., SE Suite #170 Rochester, MN 55904-3778 Telephone: (507) 281-6005 FAX: 507) 285.8256 E-mail: sschmidt@ci.rochester.mn.us Web Page: www.ei.rochester.mn.us/music/ M Gilsrud, Linda From: Gilsrud, Linda Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 2:24 PM To; Schmidt, Steve Cc: Moran, Catherine; Dwyer, Amy; Coyle, Deb; Farr, Terese Subject: Operations Coord Civic Music, RPEA Deana Carr's position has been renamed Operations Coordinator based on a recommendation to be forwarded to Steve Kvenvold and the Personnel Advisory Committee. The position is exempt based on the professional test and will be included in the RPEA bargaining group (see attached memo). IR DOM-Op Co, Cmc Music.0oc CITY OF ROCHESTER OPERATIONS COORDINATOR CIVIC MUSIC This is professional production and administrative work of moderate diversity and complexity in the field of arts management. Responsibilities include production, presenting, producing ensemble, music library, box office, and accounting functions. Performs related duties as required. Positions at this level exercise increased independence in program task completion and decision making while reporting directly to and receiving administrative direction from the General Manager. 1) Serve as Production Coordinator/Stage Manager for all programs. a) Provide and/or supervise load -in, set-up, production/re-set, strike, and load -out functions for all rehearsal, concert, and education/community outreach program services. b) Prepare magic/cue sheets, lead production meetings, and call shows as required. c) Operate sound and lighting equipment as required. 2) Support the presenting function. a) Perform certain clerical and research tasks as assigned. b) Review and implement requirements of technical riders. c) Arrange guest artist transportation, accommodations, logistical, and back line requirements. d) Provide local ground transportation as required. e) Implements the A-I-S and Youth Concert programs, including marketing to schools. 3) Support the producing function. a) Assist ensemble directors with recruiting musicians, maintain musician database, issue employment agreements, process and verify musician payroll, and prepare related reports. b) Coordinate the small ensembles program. 4) Coordinate the box office function. a) Build events on the TicketMaster system, place tickets on and off sale, process ticket sales revenue, and generate related reports. b) Establish and maintain season ticket accounts. c) Provide customer service using TicketMaster system in the absence of Clerk/Typist. 5) Coordinate office accounting, bookkeeping and related business functions. a) Expenditures -- Prepare for approval and process purchase orders, vouchers, inter -departmental transfers, check requests, invoices, etc., and generate related reports. b) Revenue -- Process revenue, generates receipts, and prepares cash summaries. Execute bank deposits. Generate and provide to General Manager related reports. 6) Administer the music library function and musical instrument rental program a) Implement music acquisition, rental, conservation, repair, and cataloging tasks. b) Prepare and assemble music folders for distribution. c) Monitor departmental compliance with licensing requirements and prepare and file required reports. 7) Perform other duties as assigned. M OPERATIONS COORDINATOR PAGE 2 ... MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Education and Experience Minimum qualifications include a bachelor's degree in arts management or related academic discipline. A master's degree in arts administration or related academic discipline is preferred. Formal musical training is required. A minimum of two (2) years experience in music library operations, musician personnel management or concert production is preferred. An appropriate combination of education and experience as determined by the General Manager of Music may be substituted for the above qualifications. KNOWLEDGE. ABILITIES AND SKILLS Knowledge of customer relations skills Knowledge of concert production. Knowledge of musical materials acquisition and music library functions. Ability to read music. Ability to communicate effectively and persuasively both orally and in writing. Skill in budget administration Skill in interpersonal relations Skill in the use of personalcomputers and integrated data base/word processing and spreadsheet programs/applications Skill in music manuscripting/copying IN COMPLIANCE W/THE AMERICANS WIDISABILITIES ACT THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS This position requires a majority of the workday spent standing and sitting with some walking required. Some lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling of objects is required. Weight of objects may exceed seventy- five (75) pounds. Climbing of objects such as stairs and ladders is often required. Rarely is this position required to perform awkward movements such as bending, stooping, kneeling or crouching. Simultaneous and often repetitive use of the hands, wrists and fingers is often required. Audio, visual and verbal functions are vital aspects to performing this position. The majority of the workday is spent indoors with little exposure to adverse working conditions. (A breakdown of the physical and environmental demands is available on the "Job Analysis of Physical and Environmental Demands" form in Human Resources.) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6 r DATE: 6/18/01 ercNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Organizational/Consent Human Resources D _/(0 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointments - Police Officer - Police Department PREPARED BY: L. Gilsrudt The City of Rochester Police Department received approval through the Universal Hiring Grant to hire six (6) new Police Officers. Five of the positions were filled in December 2000. One position remains to be filled. The resignation of Officer Don Kullot, effective November 13, 2000, the retirement of Lieutenant Donald Hodkinson, effective January 19, 2001, the retirement of Lieutenant Ronald Wegman, effective January 22, 2001, and the retirement of Officer Michael Clark effective February 28, 2001, created four (4) vacancies for the position of Police Officer. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED Section 9.00 of the Rochester Home Rule Charter states that the Mayor appoints all members of the Rochester Police Department. Pursuant to that authority, the Mayor has appointed John Sherwin, Thomas Faudskar, Samuel Higgins, Patrick Hoult and Tracy Ncpper to the position of Police Officer in the Rochester Police Department effective June 18, 2001. This information is given to the Council so that Council members are aware of the appointments. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6:3 / DATE: 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITFM NO CONSENT AGENDA Public Works C> /1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: MnDOT Traffic Control Signal Agreement PREPARED B)entrance R. FreesThe Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) will be modifying the northbound TH 52 e.�it an ramps at 39'1"Street NW and 41" Street NW this summer. The project will improve the level of service (LOS) of these two interchanges over the current operation. Currently northbound TH 52 traffic can exit TH 52 at both 37"' Street and at 41" Street NW. However, northbound traffic can only enter TH 52 through the 41" Street NW intersection. Traffic from 37d' Street must move through the 41" Street interchange to access northbound TH 52. Traffic exiting northbound TH 52 at41" Street desiring to travel east on 41" Street must then contend with all the northbound traffic from 371h Street desiring to go north on TH 52 or west on 41" Street. The major operational problem that exists today are these weaving conflicts between 371h Street and 41" Street on the east frontage road. MnDOT, Olmsted County and City staff have agreed on the proposed modifications to these two interchanges. The planned modifications will eliminate the existing northbound TH 52 exit to 41" Street N W. Northbound TH 52 traffic wishing to access 41" Street NW will need to exit TH 52 at 371h Street NW. In addition a new on -ramp will be constructed at 371h Street NW for northbound TH 52 traffic. Both the 37 Street and 41" Street ramp intersections will be reconstructed to improve the intersection geometrics with additional lanes. The new northbound on tamp at 37 h Street NW will remove the exiting northbound TH 52 traffic from the 41" Street NW interchange. The configuration for these intersections and ramps on the east side of TH 52 will mirror the existing configuration on the west side of TH 52 at these two interchanges. In addition the planned improvements should reduce the amount of westbound traffic on 41" Street NW that currently cutovers from 37°i Street at West River Road to travel west on 41" Street to get onto northbound TH 52. The more direct route to TH 52 for westbound 37`h Street traffic should reduce traffic on 41" Street NW between West River Road and TH 52. MnDOT and the City have an existing agreement for the maintenance and operation of the existing traffic control signals at the TH 52 / 41" Street interchange. The planned modification to the exit / entrance ramps will require modifications to the existing signal system. MnDOT estimates the City's share of the 41" Street NW signal modifications to be $10,800, The City Engineer has reviewed the Traffic Signal Control Agreement # 81995R between the State of Minnesota and the City of Rochester that covers the above described 37'h Street / 41" Street NW interchange modification project and recommends the City Council approve the Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Traffic Control Signal Agreement # 81995R with MnDOT for an estimated City share of $10,800. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE G' 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING ❑FPT` ITFM NO CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D - r g ITEM DESCRIPTION: MnDOT Agreement for Federal Participation in the Advance PREPARED BY: 11 Construction of 50th Avenue NW R. Freese The City has received $1,350,000 in Federal TEA 21 Funds to aid in the funding of the reconstruc[ion of 50' Avenue NW from 65°i Street to 55°' Street NW. The funding is an obligation in Federal Fiscal Year 1003 (10/2002 — 9/2003 ). The City Council established this project as a high priority during discussions last year with owners of the undeveloped property along 50°i Avenue NW. The Public Works staff has been working with the project design consultant FIR Green, Inc. to complete the design as expeditiously as possible. The project design is 90% complelc with an anticipated construction letting date of September 2001. The Minnesota Department of Transportation administers the Federal TEA-21 funds received by the State of Minnesota. MnDOT requires that agencies that "advance construct" projects prior to the federal funds being available (our construction schedule is one year in advance of the federal dollars being available) enter into an agreement with MnDOT that addresses the procedures and policy for "advance constructing" these projects. The City will not be able to receive reimbursement for project construction costs until after October I, 2002, The City Engineer has reviewed the Federal Participation In Advance Construction Agreement # 81998 prepared by MnDOT and recommends the City Council authorize its execution. The Finance Director has also reviewed the Agreement and indicates that sufficient funds are available to cover the City's costs for amstrnictiun of the project until the federal funds are received. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City to execute and enter into an Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of federal aid participation for the reconstruction of 50`' Avenue NW from 651h Street to 551h Street NW as defined by Agency Agreement tt 81998. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE G? ' 6118/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT-. ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Real Estate — 16thAvenue NW PREPARED BY: M Nigbur The City previously acquired a portion of the Gary Mattison Property for the 16t' Avenue NW project from Civic Center Drive to 7th Street NW. As part of that process the City paid Mr. Mattison for the land area acquired. To minimize his tax liability he has now asked the City to execute some documents which allow Mr. Mattision to take advantage of a real estate transaction process called a "1031 Tax Deferred Exchange." Had these documents been brought forward at the time of the City's acquisition staff would have included them in the previous council action. Staff would request the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the documents needed for the 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange for Mr. Mattision as it relates to the City's acquisition of the right of way for the 16" Avenue Project. j^4, QL J COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the documents needed for the 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange for Mr. Mattision as it relates to the City's acquisition of the right of way for the 16'" Avenue Project. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (p� DATE: 6/1 101 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENTAGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement— North ORIGINATING DEPT: ITFM NO Public Works D — aQ PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur The Owner/Developer of the North Park area and City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts of the development of the remaining lands in the approved General Development Plan 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 the development. • Dedication of right of way. • Traffic Improvements including traffic calming and signage. • 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. i ': 65th Street COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the North Park Development with Leslie Lurken. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ' DATE: 6/1 B/01 ArrNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D _ a' ITEM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Ridgeview Manor PREPARED BY: �, J M. Nigbur The Owner/Developer of the Ridgeview Manor area, located along 50th Avenue NW, and City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts of the development of the remaining lands in the approved General Development Plan 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. • Traffic Improvements including access control and signage. • Construction of off -site improvements needed for the development of the property. • 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. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Ridgeview Manor Development with BBB Development. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING .13 r DATE: 6118/01 AcgNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D _ o22 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Basic Construction in Century Hills Fifth PREPARED BY: Subdivision (J9759) M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Payne Company (Owner) & Jech Excavating, Inc. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9759 consisting of "Basic Construction in Century Hills Fifth Subdivision". 4 2 { jl�`sF,tft,�¢aSutadtvtston iR31Rk 1 �}$ .,{is{S .� � !''4k v 3}y k.i • .�P a ,�}} I COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9759 "Basic Construction in Century Hills Fifth Subdivision" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 175, 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION- ORIGINATING DEPT- ITFM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -2 3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Sanitary Sewer Extension to Serve Lots 1 — 5, PREPARED BY: Olson's Subdivision J9804 F M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Bill Keehn (Owner) & Fraser Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9804 consisting of "Sanitary Sewer Extension to Serve Lots 1 — 5, Olson's Subdivision" m 3 JkY iY' . j Lots kE Olspti"B`SybdiYi9l. City -Ow rCtlbtliacl J8804=', COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9804 "Sanitary Sewer Extension to Serve Lots 1 — 5, Olson's Subdivision". COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1/ DATE: 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION- ORIGINATING DEPT, ITEM NO CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p —a'( ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract— Watermain Extension / Relocation to Serve PREPARED BY: Slumberland (J9721) F M. Baker Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Leslie E. Nelson (Owner) & Bob Braaten Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract J9721 consisting of "Watermain Extension / Relocation to Serve Slumberland". a rewrcw 8 4 'lu�tbeiland Ite;i Clty-Owner Co t(a t.J 721 t a F) F COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9721 "Watermain Extension / Relocation to Serve Slumberland" COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 19 ' DATE: 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT, ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D-2C ITEM DESCRIPTION: AMENDMENT to Owner Contract — Watermain to Serve the PREPAREDAE3r.Autumn Woods RV Park (J9701) F M Bak Background: • A City -Owner Contract was executed by the City on December 12, 2000, whereby construction of the project entitled "Watermain to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park — J9701", was approved. • The Owner has requested that the Contract be amended to include construction of a turn lane to serve this property, in addition to the public watermain included in the original Contract. Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council: Galen Youngkrantz & Patricia Youngkrantz (Owners) & Mick's Backhoe Service (Contractor) are requesting an AMENDMENT to City / Owner Contract J9701. The title of the Contract, as AMENDED reads "Watermain & Turn Lane to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park". COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the AMENDED City / Owner Contract for J9701 "Watermain & Turn Lane to Serve the Autumn Woods RV Park" COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING bt DATE: 6118101 Ar;FNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway Approach Agreement — [ & Julie K. Draayer (2654 Oak Hills Dr SW Property) ITEM NO D ;?(a 'ARED BY�:� M. Baker "JR Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility & Driveway Approach Agreement for consideration by the Council Duane & Julie Draayer are the Owners of land platted as the East '/2 of the South '/s, Lot 28, Oak Hills, with a residence at 2654 Oak Hills Dr SW. The Owners have requested that a Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway Approach Agreement be approved to address the their obligation for providing a five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk along the entire frontage of the Property abutting Oak Hills Dr SW, and their obligations related to the design and construct of its driveway and approach to meet standard City. specifications. N�g E D'4I` 01 orva¢ COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities & Driveway Approach Agreement with Duane A. Draayer & Julie K. Draayer for the East'/z, South '/2, Lot 28 Oak Hills (address of 2654 Oak Hills Dr SW), COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING g3 / DATE: 6/18/01 AnPNDA SECTION- ORIGINATING ❑EPT, CONSENT AGENDA Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Pedestrian Facility Agreement — Pemstar, Inc. 1, Rochester Technology Park) ITEM NO. D-2 'ARED BY: M.Baker A Staff would offer the following Pedestrian Facility Agreement for consideration by the Council. Pemstar, Inc., is the Owner of land platted as Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Rochester Technology 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 Technology Dr NW. Lots 1 & 2, Rochester Technology Ps Pemstar, Inc. Pedestrlan Facilities Agreement 6-01 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement with Pemstar, Inc., for Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Rochester Technology Park. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 66' DATE 6/18101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT, ITFM NO CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D—a$ ITEM DESCRIPTION: Execute Professional Services Agreement for an Alternative PREPARED BY: Urban Areawide Review in Portions of Marion Township B. Hubertyj The City initiative to extend public sanitary sewer and water into a portion of Marion Township (the Water Quality Protection Project, or WQPP) was undertaken to mitigate the negative water quality impacts from hundreds of existing failing and substandard septic systems located on small, developed lots in an area with near -surface groundwater. During the permitting phase of this project, the City agreed to complete an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) as a condition of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) construction permit for the sanitary sewer extensions The AUAR approach was selected by the MPCA instead of the more traditional, project -specific Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) because of the need to assess the cumulative environmental impacts of growth that would be facilitated by the sewer extension. The purpose of the AUAR process is to identify potential environmental impacts from future urban development in the portion of Marion Township that will be served by the Marion Road trunk sanitary sewer extensions (see the attached project area map). Once identified, a mitigation plan will be prepared that identifies mechanisms by which potential environmental impacts will be avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated. Anticipated urban development addressed by an AUAR includes only residential, commercial, warehousing, and light industrial development and its associated infrastructure (roadways, sanitary sewer, water, storm water, schools, and parks/open space). The development scenario that will be evaluated during the AUAR will be consistent with existing City and County Land Use Plans that have been previously adopted. That is, only development activities that would have been allowed even without the AUAR process will be considered. A benefit of the comprehensive AUAR process is the evaluation of environmental impacts over a broad area that may not have been identified in independent, development -by -development EAWs. If future development is in keeping with the mitigation plan, developers may avoid the cost of completing independent EAWs and streamline the approval process. he Project Area, which is divided into two phases, consists of approximately 5,600 acres, of which 41 % is already platted. Of the remaining 59% that is not platted, only 41% appears to be developable. The developed portions of the platted acres contain a mix of residential and commercial development. Orderly Annexation Agreements have been executed for the majority of the Phase I area. The Phase I area resides within the 25-year Rochester Urban Service Area while the Phase II area currently spans portions of the 25-year Urban Service Area, the 50-year Urban Reserve Area and the Suburban Development Area. Given the existing water quality and geologic constraints in the WQPP area, the sewer pipe was sized to accommodate employment sector -driven growth in both the Phase I and Phase II areas. In addition to being the environmentally responsible approach, it was also the most cost-effective way to anticipate future service needs. The AUAR process is a public process whereby interested stakeholders and the general public will have opportunities to share their environmental concerns. An AUAR is independent of annexation or utility connection issues. Anticipated stakeholders will include residents, landowners, developers, local elected and appointed officials, and local and state agency staff. Development of the public process and schedule will be one of the first tasks after the contract is awarded. After completing a thorough consultant selection process, the consultant team led by Earth Tech, Inc. was chosen as the team to whom a professional services agreement would be offered. The complete team (and their expertise) includes. Earth Tech (environmental and natural resource issues), the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (land use issues), HR Green (civil engineering and transportation issues), Richardson Richter (communications), and The 106 Group (cultural resource inventories). We recommend that the Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Earth Tech to perform Alternative Urban Areawide Review services in an amount not to exceed $166,477.40 as funded in the 2001-2006 Capital Program (Project No. M1-14, J9772). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Earth Tech to perform Alternative �p Jrban Areawide Review servic s in an amount not to exceed $166,477,40 as funded in the 2001-206 Ca it I Program Project No. M1-14, J9772). — �[* xRCA '` ' Cllll ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ■-1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE M 06/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D -;Z9 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J4941) PREPARED BY: Construct Bike Trail along West Circle Drive from 2nd St SW to CSAH 8 D. Nelson This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Project Number 7503-20-00 (J4941) S.P. 159-020-05 Project Name Construct Bike Trail along West Circle Drive from 2nd St SW to CSAH 8 Project Background The existing County road, CSAH 22, from 2nd St SW south to CSAH 8, was constructed without pedestrian facilities. A bituminous path along the east side of the road will allow connection to other City trail facilities. $350,000 in Federal Enhancement funds are available to fund 80% of the construction costs for this project. This project is included in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Program (item #9, page 40). The Project Memorandum, Plans and Specifications have been prepared and subsequently approved by Minnesota Department of Transportation. rs h 1f Project Ci Location t q COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening upon approval from Minnesota Department of Transportation. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING S9 DATE: 6/ 18/01 AGENDA SECTION! ORIGINATING ❑EPT- ITEM Nn. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works p - 3o ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: Bike Trail Project on 2nd Street SW from 23rd Avenue SW to West Circle Drive (J-4950) PREPARED Il D. Nelson This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Project Number 6202-3-98 (J-4950) Project Name Bituminous Bike Trail Project on 2nd Street SW from 23`d Ave to West Circle Drive Project Background This bike trail project will be along the south side of 2"d Street SW from 23rd Avenue to West Circle Drive within the the Right of Way of 2" Street SW and will connect to other City of Rochester Trail facilities. This project is included in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Program (item #11, page 40) and will be funded with tax levy and Department of Natural Resources "Cooperative Trail Grant" funds. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening. COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to. S�1 MIPI11111111mm FIM21131MA5111 1111111101111 1 N N O u CL N _T L C F^ v v O m b � C � W U I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 DATE. 06/1 &01 l AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS ITEM DESCRIPTION: ADVERTISE FOR BIDS: (J2465) "Bamber Lake Area Pond / Storm Sewer Improvements" This is a request for a resolution to advertise for bids for the following project: Project Number S W-MO05 Protect Name "Bamber Lake Area Pond / Storm Sewer Improvements" ITEM NO. D-31 D. Nelson Project Background This project will divert the surface water flows from the Bamber lake / Salem Sound area by channeling it into the existing County Pond on the corner of CSAH 22 and CSAH 25. Work will include enhancements to the pond, piping of the outflow to the west and south to the Zumbro river. Funding for the project will be from City Storm Water Management Funds, County funding, and Salem Sound / Point Association funding. I Q N Project Location s COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A resolution should be adopted authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids and conduct a bid opening on July 11, 2001 at 11:00 A.M. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: / 6/18/01 A^- NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works D- 3A ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Services Contract for Design Services for Bridges on PREPARED BY: the Douglas Trail at 50th Ave NW & at 55In Street NW. (J-9578) Ilk J. Wellner V71. The City has approved General Development Plans for the various residential development �rojects located along 55th Street NW west of the Douglas Trail and along 501h Ave NW between 55` St NW and 651h St NW. These development projects will increase the traffic on both the roadways and on the pedestrian facilities such as the Douglas Trail. Users of the Douglas Trail cross both 55" Street NW and 50th Avenue NW at at -grade crossings. The City has received $800,000 in Federal TEA-21 Enhancement Funds to assist in the reconstruction of the at -grade crossings to grade separated bridge crossings for the Douglas Trail over 50"' Avenue and 55th Street NW. The City has also applied for $571,000 in Park Road Account Funds (DNR & MN/DOT) to assist in the construction of these bridges. The procurement of federal and state funds involves an extended level of effort in the preparation of Project reports, plans and specifications. In order for the City to deliver this project in a timely manner, concurrent with the proposed 50th Avenue NW improvements, the Public Works Department recommends the execution of professional engineering services. This is a proposal by Howard R. Green Company to provide engineering services for the following local improvement project: "Construction of Grade Separation Bridges for the Douglas Trail at 55th Street" & 50"' Avenue NW J-9578 Howard R. Green Company has the ability to provide the reports and design for grade separation bridges. The negotiated professional fees are as follows: Preliminary Project Memorandum: $ 11,200 Design: for grade separation bridges and approach work $73,650 Total: $ 84,850 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an Engineering Service Agreement with Howard R. Green Company for the design of grade separation bridge on the Douglas Trail at 55th Street NW and at 50th Avenue NW in an amount not to exceed $ 84,850. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION i, MEETING Gt DATE: 6/18/01 AccNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT Public Works b -33 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ANNEXATION/UTILITY CONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR PREPARED BY:A.� PROPERTY LOCATED IN MARION TOWNSHIP �jyj. Loehr V Mr. Danny G. Gilbertson is the owner of an undeveloped property located in the 4550-1gth Street SE, in Marion Township. Mr. Gilbertson intends to construct a single-family residential structure on the property. The owner requests permission from the City to connect the property to the water system that is located within the Sandy Slopes Subdivision that is owned by Rochester Public Utilities. Since the property is located within the City Urban Service Area and the property will be connected to the City water system, Mr. Gilbertson is required to enter into an Annexation/Utility Connection Agreement with the City as a condition of connecting his property to the public water system. An Annexation/Utility Connection Agreement has been prepared between the City and Mr. Gilbertson. The Agreement requires the owner to consent to future annexation of the property and connection of the property to the public sanitary sewer system when that becomes available. Mr. Gilbertson has reviewed and signed the Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Annexation/Utility Connection Agreement. 2. Order the City Clerk to record the Agreement with the County Recorder's office. Aft: Annexation/Utility Connection Agreement COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: Gilbertson Property SE PIN 37971 SANDY WOOD CT Exhibit "A" BEAR CT BEM CT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9*7 06/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA I PUBLIC WORKS D-3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J9724) PREPARED BY: Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1 st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE R. Kelm flif- Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., June 6, 2001 for the following local improvement project: Project Number 6201-2-00 (J9724) Project Name Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE Project Background The project feasibility report and assessments were approved during the December 11, 2000, City Council meeting. The project, engineering and construction will be funded with Special Assessments and General Street Resurfacing funds (J-2200). The existing street was constructed with concrete curbing in 1955. The age and deterioration of the concrete curb and gutter dictate replacement. This project will involve the placement of concrete curb/gutter, bituminous street construction, storm sewer modifications, and associated sidewalk repairs. The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Rochester Sand & Gravel $ 71,288.70 2. Road Constructors $ 86,849.40 Engineers Estimate $ 76,600.55 Prolect Recommendation: The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. Project Location rl .,.Rot L!J ■ � '> I! a 8oehdslw , I C •, - . Oe.tiomlfM1rtltute Led t7 §+a ar rnu nity Llos ilal Y t Y y ' 1 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopted a resolution awarding the contract, " Curb, Gutter & Overlay on 1st St SE from 13th Ave SE to 15th Ave SE ++ (J9724) to Rochester Sand & Gravel. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 06/18/01 ■ NOW • . I ymo -. . • • • .1 . . . . • • . . . - I too Eli- J.• ZEE _ -1�••yl�"•''j'l iily iirnr e 1 dw4 \ o„a m I •, a , iIpG1i•'i:..n�r 1 lifl g� . �•6 i p •i. - " �I !k',31c !1'S LIL�iI iSgi. 1111111111� • • 11 i• � m w�� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-18-01 -f- NDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 0AGECONSENT Public Works D-3(, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Northern Heights Drive Traffic Petition PREPARED BY: 0 D. Rossmar The City has received a petition from residents along Northern Heights Drive requesting the installation of "Children at Play" signs, "Speed Limit" signs and "Stop" signs" The attached Report has been prepared by the Transportation Engineer in response to the petition. The findings of the report suggest the following actions: 1. Do not install the 4-Way Stop. The intersection at Northern Heights / Wilshire does not meet any of the Mn MUTCD warrants for a 4-Way Stop. 2. Convene a Neighborhood Committee to review Traffic Calming Measures along Northern Heights Drive similar to the North Park Study and the Fox Valley Study. The committee would look at Traffic Calming Measures at selected locations such as: a) Edge Stripes. b) Intersection Narrowing. c) Chicanes. 3. Recount the intersection when Northern Valley Drive is constructed and during the school year to see • if traffic volumes meet the warrants 4. Four Speed Limit sign are currently posted along Northern Heights Drive. Additional signs are not warranted. 5. Children at Play Signs have not been previously authorized by the City Council or recommended by staff because this sign creates a false sense of security for the youngest children. These signs are a direct and open suggestion to small children that it is safe to play along or in the street. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Public Works staff to convene a Neighborhood Committee to review Traffic Calming Measures along Northern Heights Drive and provide recommendations to the City Council by October 1, 2001. ue 4Z Gin �l %�n UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: (0- T R A F F I C D I V I S I O N M E M O R A N D U M DATE: Friday, June 15, 2001 TO: Richard Freese, Director FROM: Dave Rossman, Transportation Engineer RE: Council Member Mac Evans Petition on Northern Heights Drive NE This petition for Stop Signs, Children at Play Signs and Sneed Limit Signs has been reviewed. A map of the area is attached with house numbers. Council member Evans requested the location for a Stop Sign is at Wilshire Drive. The house numbers circled on the map represent the signers of the petition. Residents of 74 of the homes fronting on Northern Heights Drive signed the petition representing 54% of the homes. 18 other signatures are on the petition from people who do not live on the Drive. The traffic speeds and volumes have been measured on this street. The important data has been summarized in the following chart. Additional speed data is needed in the 1200 block. Location date / volume / Ave. 85% # time direction Speed speed vehicles traveling > 35mph 700 block 4-26-99 1199 WB 30 mph 33.8 mph 138 (48hr) 12%) 700 block 4-26-99 1093 EB 31.6 mph 34.8 mph 211 ( 48hr) (20%) Observations: 1) Speed Limit: The present speed limit on Northern Heights Drive is 30 MPH. This is governed by Minnesota Statute 169.14, which establishes 30 mph in urban zones. Speed limits within the City Limits do not need to be posted unless there are different than the Statutory 30 MPH. However, there are certain locations on major roads that the limit may be posted where a driver is turning from a higher speed road onto a lower speed roadway. Therefore the speed limit is posted for eastbound traffic at Broadway and also at 5' Avenue. For westbound traffic it is posted at Northern Valley Drive. An Advisory sign of 25 mph is posted at 7' Avenue for westbound traffic approaching the downgrade. Additional Speed Limit Signs are not needed. 2) Geometric Data: The street is 44' wide. The length is 6,150 feet. There are curves along the roadway that are all 30 MPH or greater. 3) Volumes: The sum of eastbound & westbound volumes is in the range of 2,300 vehicles per day, which is less than the capacity of a street of this nature. Volumes most likely will not increase too much more in the future now that the access to Viola Road is available. Some change may occur when Northern Valley Drive is connected in the near future. The petition came in the same week as school closed for the summer. Therefore the counts listed below are for a sum condition. Also listed are 1998 MSA Counts which are adjusted for the seasonal variation. 1 o3 4) Speeds: Speeds were measured with portable recording devices that remove any interference due to enforcement vehicles, thus ensuring accurate data. Speeds are influenced by the hill and by the curves of the roadway. Eastbound speed in the 700 block was slightly higher than westbound. The 85% speeds of both directions are between 33 and 35 mph. Some vehicles (15%) were measured with speeds greater than 35mph. This is the lower level of where enforcement could be effective. 5) Stop Sign request at Wilshire Drive: This intersection has been reviewed as to meeting the warrants for an ALL - WAY STOP. a) Accident History: There are three recorded traffic accidents at this intersection in the past 5 years. Acc. # date day time/ light cond. # vehicles # injured # fatal acc. type 3691 3-21-97 Thursday 7:50 Light 2 0 0 Sideswipe 6130 5-10-98 Saturday 18:34 Lt. 2 0 0 Rt. angle 46629 7-17-00 Tuesday 13:04 Lt 2 0 0 Rt. angle The accident rate at this intersection is within an acceptable rate compared to all non -signalized intersections Cit wide. b) Geometries: The intersection is at a 90-degree angle, which is normal c) Visibility: There are no visibility issues at the intersection. d) Streetlights: There is one streetlight provided on the SW corner. This is adequate to meet the City of Rochester's street light standards. e) Sidewalks: Sidewalks are provided on both sides of all approaches. f) Traffic Volumes: The existing traffic volumes are shown on the following chart. Direction & North South Subtotal East West subtotal Total Year bound bound bound bound 2001 521 403 924 1,029 782 1,810 2,734 (34%) (66%) g) Attached is the 4WAY STOP Analysis. The intersection fails to meet the minimum traffic volumes associated with a 4-way stop. Traffic volumes would need to increase 250% to meet the required values. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Do not install the 4-Way Stop. The intersection at Northern Heights / Wilshire does not meet any of the Mn MUTCD warrants for a 4-Way Stop. 2. Convene a Neighborhood Committee to review Traffic Calming Measures along Northern Heights Drive similar to the North Park Study and the Fox Valley Study. The committee would look at Traffic Calming Measures at selected locations such as: a) Edge Stripes. b) Intersection Narrowing. c) Chicanes. Recount the intersection when Northern Valley Drive is constructed and during the school year to see if traffic volumes meet the warrants. 164' CITY OF ROCHESTER MINNESOTA Traffic Engineering Department 4—WAY STOP WARRANTS (Highest 8 hours of an Average Day) Intersection: N Heights Drive & Wilshire Dr 14-Jun-01 HOUR Street Minor Street Total EB WB Total NB SB Total average Average EB + WB Average Average NB+SB 11am-noo 65 59 124 31 22 53 177 noon-1 pm 76 47 123 41 18 59 182 1pm-2pm 58 54 112 45 26 71 183 3pm-4pm 79 60 139 42 18 60 199 4pm-5pm 94 64 158 48 32 80 238 5pm-6pm 108 63 171 38 33 71 242 6pm-7pm 81 54 135 31 30 61 196 7pm-8pm 81 50 131 31 19 50 181 Total 642 451 1093 307 198 505 1598 average 137 38 25 63 200 Required 200(32%) 500 (40%j pass or fail FAIL FAIL i / 1� N REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 6-801 ' DATE AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC WORKS ITEM NO. Q'?j% CONSENTAGENDA ITEM CHANGES TO DESIGNATED BUS LOADING AREAS IN THE PREPARED BYIn"L". DOWNTOWN A KNAUER This is a recommendation to update the "Comprehensive Parking and Traffic Resolutiono to reflect all the permanent bus stop areas at the downtown bus. The update encompasses the areas used for commuter bus loading. (Approximately 1,000 individuals per weekday use the commuter buses that serve communities in southeastern Minnesota. ) Exhibit "A" provides a map of the bus stop areas. In addition the City has received a request to allow after hour parking at these loading areas by private vehicles. This request has been discussed with Mayo Clinic and a consensus has been reached to allow parking at some of the areas between 6:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. weekdays and at all times on Saturdays and Sundays. This will accommodate the commuter bus schedule and street maintenance activities. Following is a description of the additional areas currently used for commuter buses that need to be amended to Section C, Zone D "Bus Stops" of the "Comprehensive Parking and Traffic Resolutions Book". Changes are shown in italics. (The times when no parking will be enforced is shown in parentheses. Bus stop areas not listed will continue to no parking at all times.) 1. Downtown Bus Stop Area is amended to include: e.) The east side of the 200 block of 2nd Avenue SW from the alley south to 3`d Street with exception of supply and maintenance vehicles servicing the Franklin Station. (No parking 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays only.) f.) The west side of the 200 block of 2nd Avenue SW between 2nd Street and 3rd Street. (No parking 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays only.) g.) The north side of the 200 block of 3'd Street SW from 3' Avenue SW to a point approximately 150' east. (No parking 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays only.) h.) The east side of the 200 block of 3'd Avenue SW from Yd Street SW to a point approximately 150' north. (No parking 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays only.) I) The south side of the 300 block of 2"d Street SW between 3'd Avenue SW and 4' Avenue SW (No parking 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays only.) REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt the prepared resolution amending Paragraph 1 of Section C, Zone D "Bus Stops" of the "Comprehensive Parking and Traffic Resolutions Book" per the above description. ��JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: ❑ ❑ C D 1 A z0) ❑ ❑ C� 0 - Lx m z m F 0 cl 3RD AVE SW JI I cn 0 0 w c g z 0 C) m z m m 1ST AVE SW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING I( ( DATE: 6/18/2001 ;ENDA SECTION: nsent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Water Reclamation Plant ITEM NO: D — 3� rrEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Service Contract Amendment PREPARED BY: Black & Veatch Engineers Lyle J. Zimmerma The Rochester Fire Department has determined that the Water Reclamation Plant Chlorine Building no longer meets current fire codes and modifications will be required. Chlorine is a hazardous chemical and if a major leak occurred, a very dangerous situation would be created for plant operators, fire fighters responding to the emergency, and citizens in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Black & Veatch Engineers have completed a review of the codes and a preliminary screening of alternative solutions. A detailed review of alternatives is now necessary prior to selecting and designing the required improvements. Council Action Requested: Approval of an Engineering Services Agreement with Black & Veatch to evaluated alternatives for bringing the Water Reclamation Plant Chlorine Building into compliance with current fire codes for a cost not to exceed $52,000, COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION! ORIGINATING DEPT- ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works *t) �sp 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Change Order #1, Project 6204-3-00 (J2197) PREPARED BY:1t4 Concrete Pavement Rehablitation 4`" St. S.W. � M. Easley " The plans provide for the rehabilitation of concrete pavement on 4tn St. S.W. from 2"d Ave. to 6" Ave. S.W. Rehabilitation work on the concrete pavement was recently completed in accordance with the provisions of the contract. During the course of work, pavement deterioration and distresses were found to be significantly in excess of what was anticipated from surface inspections at the time of plans preparation. Therefore, the actual amount of work accomplished to bring the pavement back in service substantially overran. Overruns of this nature frequently occur on projects of this type. Funds for this contract, including the overrun, are reimbursable from State Aid accounts. The Engineer has prepared change Order #1, Project 6204-3-00 (J2197) in the amount of $61,887.51 to cover the cost of: 1. Contract overrun of numerous concrete pavement rehab items. Costs associated with this work are extensions of the contract unit prices, as allowed by specification. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a resolution authorizing payment of Change Order #1; In the amount of $61,887.51; Project 6204-3-00 (J2197) 4 St. S.W. t,OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to O o 0 0 o m p Oa�yM00(Cj OiO V CS, C14 mi��00o0 too p �L6 ico V5 m c9 I,. IVO cn m CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 r N 0 h i O OI.N aV CD ON Nap. O Lf) N M M 00] r y N O N O W N �- FJ C� U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 10 � n Mon�ocpm(+i���� N x 0} z x Z Z t~L(~L LLL LLLI Qi00a00Zzzzj W:y a w a a J J J J I ooc CD 0o d 0 cNn V 0 0 NM N E N ►1 T i 0000(�( Oo+i� OO CJ�O Qi N Of�rnCn C. 0161 co O OOIIIo O00 Of O O itn O O O Ch tp .,0 C N LO LO N '.,NON a- o 0 o0 0 0 0 0 o ui (nnN F- LL LL LLLL LL ILL: LL zzZ!ZzZIz J J J1J M J _l 00 00 0 0 0 00�0 o 0 co CD LO M aO6 �i(O N O co N I r_ N Cn N N I c Iv mi7t wwmmMN4 <C?QIQQQ F- , =mwwxxxxUwwZxQw >>?w � Q w zzzza0�Owa it it z zrowmmV-=W�00000w0 U 2 CL Q 00 x d Q Q J J JIJ',J LQ IQ di w W LL S W md Q Q QIQIQ a_ w > Z F- Q w w w Z Z Z�z'z U!W X; CL W Z Q W 0 010 0 d= Y Q Q W op CS op D(AIF-U wm < 0UUrF-H,F-H zQ mz 0uwi~z�x�zzz!zzzOU zOW �z00 UUOOOOI0iz U0 -a0 IO 0 z D ZZi W CO N N''It V' Q V' V V�V V V 'IT 'V.V C -IT'T, rn''C) W C)!(D� O N to O OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O'O:p iO'O'O O Oi0'O O (O O CO O CO (D O O (O O (O (O 0 CO O , O I (D CC! (O (P - CO I O : t0 li t0 (D cjl O O O O O O O O O O O O'O O O OO O (D O OIOIO 0iCO M co m m (n (n (n cn M co M I M Cn M m (n M Cn CO) CO) Cn M : M Cn L CO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ,N N N N N N '.N N ,N N N CO O O CO O O N�C'i d'.CO O r`'O CA O �-!N co y�CO(p'r` �,. NIN'N N N N,N'NI i I O M N P. N OI d 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1' DATE 6-18-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS — Continued Item PLANNING 9-1 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-17 to be known as Rose Harbor Estates I PREPARED BY: Brent Svenby, Second vta „rr June 14,2001 The City Council held a public hearing on this item on June 4, 2001. The item was continued so that the applicant could work with the City Public Works Department on the issue of sidewalks. At the time the RCA was written, the sidewalk issue was not resolved. Staff is anticipating more information at the Council meeting. Pianning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated May 31, 2001. The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of cash ($3,200) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. Payment of parkland dedication fee is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents. 2. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. Construction of pedestrian facilities are required along the public road frontages including Outlot A concurrent with the development. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. RecordingrTreasurer/Auditor's Statement 3. Recording Fee 4. Title Opinion 5. 1 Original Plat Mylar 6. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachment: d �� Staff Report dated May 31, 2001. Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Planning Department — GIS 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday. June 18, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. McGhie & Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Ivol on by: second by: to: Final Plat #01-17 Rose Harbor Estates Second 500' Notification Distance Ward 4 Stobaugh 05/ 10/01 J O LLI ¢ O O��R(OOkO _ O_ >O S F� 1LU �ir O _> Y 6 ST O ¢ 0 Y ¢OAKLEAFL OAK I[ERoRACE COR w U) w M N uj T SE F- U 0- — 1 W 0. I Low grti' 2 of —_ E I -- sce ,R .199w N 11y—r3 APR 3 0 2001 i II ROC•STER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPAPMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 CC U N, Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner 11nri� ������.v�� �c�r�� LL�E ��{ il1iiyll,ir,r �p,meq��psnrl��� ' 'I. DATE: May 31, 2001 RE: Final Plat #01-17 to be known as Rose Harbor Estates Second Planninq Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Plat Data: Western Walls, Inc. 604 111h Avenue NW Rochester, MN 55901 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3r° Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 1. Park and Recreation Department 2. Fire Department 3. RPU Water Division 4. Rochester Public Works Department 1. Location Map 2. Copy of Final Plat 3. Referral Comments (4 Letters) Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of Park Street SE, west of Rose Avenue SE and south of Eastwood Road SE. Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This proposal is a replat of part of Rose Harbor 41h Addition, a plat originally approved in Marion Township. This 7.01 acres property currently contains 16 lots that were never built on. The develop is proposing to replat these suburban sized lots into 29 urban sized lots and one outlot for a detention pond. Streets: Since this proposal is a replat, there are no new public streets to be dedicated as part of this plat. The vacation of a portion of Harbor Parkway (Knollwood Drive SE) right-of-wav is currently being conaidemd BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING20NING 5D7/265.8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER rtda. • • 1 Page 2 Rose Harbor Estates Second May 31, 2001 Sidewalks: In accordance with current City policy, pedestrian facilities are required concurrent along both sides of all of the streets within the subdivision. Drainage: The site generally drains to the south. Grading and drainage plans have been approved by the City. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. These maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this site. Public Utilities: Water and sewer can be extended from their present ends to serve this property. A 10-foot utility easement is shown on the front of each lot. Spillover Parking: The spillover parking requirements for this development would be 35 parking spaces. The platted roadways can accommodate the required spillover spaces. Additional spillover spaces will likely be accommodated within the driveways. Parkland Dedication: There is no parkland included within the boundaries of this plat. The Rochester Park and Recreation Department has stated that parkland dedication should only be required for the increase in the number of dwelling units as a result of replatting. They recommend that this dedication be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $3,200. Payment is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents. General Development Plan: As this is an old, unbuilt County subdivision, there is no General Development Plan for this areas. Preliminary Plat: No preliminary plat is required since this is a replat of an existing subdivision in which no new roads are being platted. The old lots are being reconfigured for a size designed for individual septic systems to a size designed for City services. Thus, the plat is going from 16 lots to 29 lots. Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: llPage 3 Rose Harbor Estates Second May 31, 2001 1. The applicant agrees that this subdivision will have an impact upon the City's needs for parkland and that dedication of cash ($3,200) in lieu of land will fulfill the dedication obligation of this plat. Payment of parkland dedication fee is required prior to the recording of the final plat documents. 2. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 3. Construction of pedestrian facilities are required along the public road frontages including Outlot A concurrent with the development. ROCHESTER /Y/innedota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 5/24/01 16 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-2B7-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #01-17 on the Rose Harbor Estates Second property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 2. Construction of Pedestrian Facilities are required concurrent along the public road frontages within this subdivision. 3. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of the public street & utilities within this subdivision. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the executed Development Agreement , with the exception of: 8• Contribution for First Seal Coat @ $0.45 per square yard of public roadway . surface. 4- Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: NONE CMemp\FP01-17 Rose Harbor Estates 2nd.doc ao . ROCHESTER PARK AND AREATION DEPARTMENT rochester 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Final Plat #01-17 Rose Harbor Estates 2nd Number of dwelling units' ............................................. 13 units' Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... .32 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. $10,000/acre ' Applicant is only responsible for dedication for the increase in the number of dwelling units as a result of replatting of previously platted lot. The original plat had 16 lots and the replat has 29 lots. The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $3,200 (.32 acres X $10,000) with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. Applicant: Western Walls 604 11 Ave NW 0:\DSTOTZ\2001\DEDICATION\SE 2595\ROSE HARBOUR EST 2ND.DOC AGENDA SECTION: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION R.W.VDITIM ORIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #01-02 initiated by the Rochester Common Council to establish Special District # 5, the History Center Campus Special District. June 14, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation MEETING +�1 DATE: 6-18-01 I ITEM NO,' PREPARED BY: Phil Wheeler, AICP Planning Director On May 23, 2001, the City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider establishing a Special District to control development of the History Center Property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Salem Road SW and West Circle Drive. A summary of the testimony is provided in the attached minutes. After closing the public hearing, the Commission voted 8-0 to approve the requested Special District with the following findings: 1. The land area and the existing land use and events at the Historic Campus provide the opportunity to communicate the prehistory and history of the communities and agricultural heritage of Olmsted County. 2. The land area under the ownership of the Olmsted County Historical Society provides adequate space to buffer neighbors from potential adverse impacts of noise, traffic, and congestion. 3. The structures and activities on the site are proposed to be confined to an area removed from the boundaries of the site. The physical configurations of and interrelationships among the structures and activities are not anticipated to adversely impact adjacent property owners. v. Given the unique nature of the Olmsted County Historical Society's operations and the size and arrangement of its site, it is desirable to devise a unique zoning district with specific regulations that will accommodate the singular requirements of the Historic Campus and adequately guide the expansion of its activities and facilities. Doing so will permit the Olmsted County Historical Society to confidently plan for future investment and growth in Rochester. Similarly, the City will be able to confidently program its long-range capital investment in the area based on agreed -upon plans. Planning Staff Recommendation See attached memo dated May 16, 2001. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Council's 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. ;OUNCIL Motion By: Seconded By: Action: YAGGY CC)LBY nssounns °o �o— tf1 ' rune-' ___•-.._- .._.-- �,�J B L R a ttLMAOM3 xuwsiunwrtew s A Mom-` OLMSTED COUNTY HISTORY CENTER MASTER PLAN ROCHESTER, MN 10'-0" 21'-0' 2 LINES OF _8 INCH CHANGEABLE COPY 24" 5HKOUD PROJECT VRIU. UAII PYLON 03/27/01 REV. DATE CUSTOMER OLM5TED CO. HISTORY CENTER 04124/01 ry STATE SALES REP. CHE5TER MN 5TEVE M. SCALE DRAWING / REVISION 1/1 FONTS USED: BRUSH 455 B7 -- DROADWA ROUTED ALUMINUM FACE PAINTED BURGUNDY BACKED BY IVORY PLEX ACCENTS PAINTED TO METALLIC GOLD FLAT ALUMINUM PAINTED BURGUNOYw/ METALLIC GOLD VINYL BURGUNDY VINYL DRAWN 6V I I FILE NAME DARRIN SM-000916.CDR CUSTOMER APPROVAL -- ALGERIAN 13A5 D THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERIT Ur #$0`rs10 3Z MINNESOTA AVE. N. 1610 E. CLIFF RD ORONOCO, MN 3W60 BURNSVILLE, MN PHONE / 507.367 -2631 PHONE / 932.894.242 FAX / 307-367,2633 FAX 1952.894-2747 10'-0" 21'-O" 2 LINES OF 8 INCH CHANGEABLE COPY 24" 5HROUD ROUTED ALUMINUM E PAINTED 6URGUNDI BACKED BY IVORY FLEX ACCENTS PAINTED TO METALLIC GOLD FLAT ALUMINUM PAINTED BURGUNDY w/ METALLIC GOLD VINYL 5URGUNDY VINYL PROJECT PYLON ORIG. DATE 03/27/01 REV. DATE DRAWN BY FILE NAME PARKIN 5M-000916.CDR CUSTOMER CUSTOMER APPROVAL OLMSTED CO. H15TOKY CENTER 04/24/Ot CITY STATE SALES REP. ROCHE5TER MN STEVE M. 1/1 THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF t#Af#r�r� 325 MINNESOTA AVE. N. 1610 E. RD. ORONOCO, MN 55960 BURNSVILLE '533 PHONE / 507367 -2631 PHONE / 95- _.242' FAX / 507-367,2633 FAX / 952894-V41 -- BROADWAY BT -- ALGERIAN • • lad ROCHESTER - OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE, ROCHESTER, MN, 55904-4744 PH: (507) 285-8232 FAX: (507) 287-2275 To: Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission From: Philip H. Wheeler, AICP, Planning Director Date: May 16, 2001 Re: Special District to be known as the Historic Campus Special District SD-5 Background and Summary: In order to permit a more flexible means of new land development and redevelopment, the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual includes regulations necessary to permit the creation of special districts. These regulations are found within Section 62.900 of the Land Development Manual and are attached for your information. Section 60.327 identifies existing special districts and will be amended as part of this application to include the Historic Campus Special District. The applicant is the Rochester Common Council, on behalf of the Olmsted County Historical Society. The Historical Society is proposing a special district modeled after the Medical Institutional Campus Special District. As with the Medical Institutional Campus Special District (MIC), the Historic Campus Special District establishes a master planning process for delineating land uses, building masses, and appearance controls that differ from the R-1 standards. Also patterned after the NEC, the Historic Campus Special District sets forth a requirement for an Operations Plan that establishes the intensity of operations and the customary and special hours of operation. Included with the Special District application, and attached for your review, is a draft Ordinance. The Ordinance provides findings for the adoption of the Special District and includes the purpose and intent of the District. Detailed standards are also provided limiting floor area ratio, building siie, impervious surface, and building height; establishing requirements for signage, parking, and landscaping; and restricting uses. Required exhibits have been prepared and are attached that identify locations for signs, parking, strucutres, and activity areas. Findings: The attached Ordinance includes findings for the establishment of the Special District as follows: (a) The land area and the existing land use and events at the Historic Campus provide the opportunity to communicate the prehistory and history of the communities and agricultural heritage of Olmsted County. Op 0 • (b) The land area under the ownership of the Olmsted County Historical Society provides adequate space to buffer neighbors from potential adverse impacts of noise, traffic, and congestion. (c) The structures and activities on the site are proposed to be confined to an area removed from the boundaries of the site. The physical configurations of and interrelationships among the structures and activities are not anticipated to adversely impact adjacent property owners. (d) Given the unique nature of the Olmsted County Historical Society's operations and the size and arrangement of its site, it is desirable to devise a unique zoning district with specific regulations that will accommodate the singular requirements of the Historic Campus and adequately guide the expansion of its activities and facilities. Doing so will permit the Olmsted County Historical Society to confidently plan for future investment and growth in Rochester. Similarly, the City will be able to confidently program its long-range capital investment in the area based on agreed -upon plans. Action Needed: The Planning Commission will need to hold a public hearing to consider the establishment of this Special District and make a recommendation to the City Council. Following the Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to the City Council, a public hearing will be scheduled with the City Council for consideration of the Special District. Recommendation: The Special District meets the purposes set forth in the Land Development Manual Section 62.900, protects neighboring properties from adverse impacts of proposed land uses, and proposes land uses in keeping with the unique character of the existing property. I therefore recommend approval of the Special District. • • ,a? 62.900 SPECIAL DISTRICTS In order to permit a more flexible means of new land development and redevelopment, the City of Rochester finds that regulations are necessary to permit the creation of special districts. Such regulations shall promote the public health, safety and general welfare and shall be substantially in accord with and promote the purposes and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 62.901 Purposes: The further specific purposes and conditions supporting the establishment of a special district are: 1) The existence of a special and substantial public interest in protecting the existing or proposed character of an area or unique geological, ecological, archeological or social characteristics of an area; or 2) The existence of a special and substantial public interest in protecting areas surrounding an individual building, group of buildings or man-made features and their environs; or 3) The need to establish modifications to or to supplement existing zoning regulations to accomplish a special public purpose. 62.902 Effect: The effect of a special district designation shall be as an overlay district. The regulations established in special district legislation shall supersede the regulations of the underlying zoning district. To the extend they are not inconsistent with the special district regulations, the underlying zoning district requirements shall remain in effect. 62,903 Submission Criteria: The petition for establishment of a Special District shall be accompanied by two (2) copies of the proposed ordinance language, a summary of the intent and effect of the proposed modification, and a map indicating the boundary of the district and the boundary of the underlying zoning districts. An application fee as required in Paragraph 60.175 shall accompany the petition. 62.904 Procedure: An application for a Special District shall be processed under the Type III Review Procedure, with a Phase II Hearing Process utilized. 62.905 Notifications: Notifications for Comprehensive Special Districts shall be sent to all owners within the area proposed for rezoning and all owners owning land wholly or partially within 350 feet of the exterior boundaries of the area proposed for rezoning. For Single Purpose Special Districts, notifications shall be sent to all owners of land within the defined area of the proposed Single Purpose Special District. 62.906 The ordinance establishing a particular Special District shall contain a statement of intent setting forth the nature of the special and substantial public interest involved and the objectives to be promoted by special regulations or procedures within the district. 0 0 • 62.910 COMPREHENSIVE SPECIAL DISTRICT A comprehensive Special District may be initiated in the following manner: 1) One or more landowners may petition the Council to adopt Special District Regulations when all lands are under the ownership of the applicant(s); 2) One or more landowners shall request the Council or Commission to initiate a Special District proposal where all properties within the proposed zoning district are not under the sole ownership of those requesting the initiating action. 62.911 A Comprehensive Special District may include regulations modifying any or all of the general zoning district, lot development, or site development standards applicable in the underlying zoning district. 62.920 SINGLE PURPOSE SPECIAL DISTRICT Owners of sixty percent (60%) or more of the land within any defined area may petition the Council for creation of a single purpose Special District. 62.921 The proposed Special District may be established for the purpose of modifying any of the Lot Development Standards found in Chapter 63 of the ordinance on an area -wide basis. E • 14 CHAPTER HISTORIC CAMPUS SPECIAL DISTRICT .100 FINDINGS AND DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Subdivision 1. Findings. It is the finding of the Council that the lands described in Subdivision 3 herein which define the property under the ownership and control of the Olmsted County Olmsted County Historical Society are of special and substantial significance to the City of Rochester. In a desire to effectively and efficiently achieve community goals, to assist and encourage the development of history_ oriented land uses preserving and communicating the heritage of the City of Rochester and Olmsted County for current and future generations, and to enable the City and the Olmsted County Historical Society to effectively plan for future public capital and private investment, the Common Council hereby creates a special zoning district as provided in Chapter 62 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances to be known as the Historic Campus Special District. This determination is based upon the following specific findings: (a) The land area and the existing land use and events at the Historic Campus provide the opportunity to communicate the prehistory and history of the communities and agricultural heritage of Olmsted County. (b) The land area under the ownership of the Olmsted County Historical Society provides adequate space to buffer neighbors from potential adverse impacts of noise, traffic, and congestion. (c) The structures and activities on the site are proposed to be confined to an area removed from the boundaries of the site. The physical configurations of and interrelationships among the structures and activities are not anticipated to adversely impact adjacent property owners. (d) Given the unique nature of the Olmsted County Historical Society's operations and the size and arrangement of its site, it is desirable to devise a unique zoning district with specific regulations that will accommodate the singular requirements of the Historic Campus and adequately guide the expansion of its activities and facilities. Doing so will permit the Olmsted County Historical Society to confidently plan for future investment and growth in Rochester. Similarly, the City will be able to confidently program its long-range capital investment in the area based on agreed - upon plans. Subdivision 2. Intent. It is the intent of this ordinance to Version 05/16/01 (SO • assist and encourage the development of history -oriented land uses and activities in a campus setting by creating special zoning approaches. All of the structures and uses of land are intended, directly or indirectly, to further the purpose of communicating information about the prehistory and history of Olmsted County. These zoning approaches are applicable to institutions which have ownership of the lands described below. Subdivision 3. Descri tion of Lands Contained Herein. The regulation herein after established by this ordinance shall have effect in the following lands in the City of Rochester, County of Olmsted, State of Minnesota, consisting of three parcels described as follows: ; the three parcels comprising a total of roughly 47 acres. 200 EFFECT OF REGULATIONS Subdivision 1. Applicability. The Special District established by this ordinance shall be an The zoning district with unique development standards and procedures applicable to development on the properties defined as the Historic Campus which are those properties within the district boundaries. Unless otherwise specified within these regulations all other standards and requirements of the Rochester Zoning Code remain in effect. All uses in the Historic Campus Special District are considered nonresidential uses. Subdivision 3. Zoning Map. The boundary of the Historic Campus Special District shall be identified on the official Zoning Map as "SD- ". .300 HISTORIC CAMPUS SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Subdivision 1 Planning Documents. Permitted land use and zoning controls within the special district are based upon the concept of site -wide operations and inter -relationships. Specific documents are adopted by resolution of the Common Council as part of this special district which reflect this planning concept. These documents will be the specific guide to land uses and activities within the boundaries of the special district. The specific documents are described as follows: (a) A Master Plan which shall include a statement of mission and purpose, proposed land use areas including core activity areas and fringe areas, general locations and separation distances for structures, plans for parking areas and accesses, plans for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, plans for lighting, and landscape and open space plans and which shall describe how the Master Plan promotes the purpose of the Rochester Comprehensive Plan; Page 2, version 05/16/01 • 151 (b) An Operations Plan which shall specify customary intensity of activity and hours of operation and which shall indicate the number and duration of special events which exceed customary hours of operation and intensity of activity. Subdivision 2. Apporoyall and Amendment Processes. The Master Plan and Operations Plan documents, and any amendments thereto, shall be processed under the provisions and criteria for Incentive Developments, (pursuant to Section 62.600), but shall include only the Final Plan phase (Section 62.600(2)). Both the initial approval and subsequent amendment of plans shall be processed according to the Type III Phase 2 process. Subdivision 3 Plan Document Updates. At least every 10 years following the adoption the Olmsted County Historical Society shall document the status of all planning documents and the anticipated development in the following ten year period. The Olmsted County Historical Society shall make a presentation of plans to the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission and the Rochester Common Council. .400 SPECIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Subdivision 1. permitted Land Uses. a) The following principal land uses, along with the sale of goods and services generated in carrying out these uses, are permitted as of right in the Historic Campus Special District: 1. Uses of land and structures related to re-enact of of pre -historical and historical activities typical Native American societies and early European settlement, except that no hunting shall be permitted. Associated temporary camping for periods of up to one week is permitted. 2. Uses of land and structures related to horticulture, agriculture, and forestry as it has been practiced in Olmsted County from the time of Native American settlement until the present time, except that no permanent feedlot shall be permitted of over 20 animal units and temporary animal shows constituting a feedlot by definition of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency shall be limited to not more than ten consecutive days and shall not occur more than twice during any twelve consecutive months. 3. Uses of land and structures related to representing hi non-agricultural uses relevant to the history of the technology and culture of Olmsted Countyoods and services 4. Uses of land and structures providing g sery to the general public using and demonstrating practices and technologies no longer currently in use, including Page 3, version 05/16/01 INS but not limited to blacksmith shops, bookmaking, cabinet-makers, coopers, farriers, flour mills, livery stables, and lumber mills, printing, tinsmiths, woodworking shops, handicrafts, and similar uses. b) The following land uses which are incidental to the principal use of the site are permitted in the Historic Campus Special District when within a building housing a principal land use described in .500 Subd. la; and occupying less than 50 percent of the total floor area of the building. 1. Offices related to the operation of the Historic Campus. 2. Restaurants, coffee shops, cafeterias, and similar uses. 3. Souvenir shops, book stores, and similar uses. 4. Photographers' studios. c) The following accessory uses may occupy 100% of a free- standing structure: a) A use which 1) is clearly incidental to and customarily found in conjunction with a principal use, building, structure, or campus; 2) is subordinate to and serves a principal use, building, structure, or campus; 3) is subordinate in area, extent or purpose to the principal use or campus; 4) contributes to the comfort, convenience, or is of necessity to occupants of the campus. d) Automobile parking lots and parking structures accessory to uses and activities located at the Historic Campus. e) Transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities serving the campus and neighborhood. f) Stormwater detention and retention facilities serving the campus and neighborhood. 2. a) The floor area ratio for the Historic Campus Special District shall not exceed .25. b) The proportion of impervious surface created by structures and paved areas shall not exceed 25%. c) The setback along any street shall be 40 feet from the property line. The setback area may be used for access, pedestrian ways, bikeways, and drainage but not for parking. Existing structures and parking areas located within required setbacks are permitted to remain. d) A setback of 100 feet shall be required along the exterior property lines of the Special District Campus where the Special District boundary abuts a residential zoning district not within the Special District boundary with no intervening street right of way. The setback area may be used for access Page 4, version 05/16/01 � • f33 but not for parking. Existing structures and parking areas located within required setback areas are permitted to remain. e) No additional bufferyard landscaping beyond the landscaping of setback areas shall be required. f) Except for structures related to agriculture, no new structure in designated fringe areas shall exceed a height of 45 feet or a floor area of 5,000 square feet. The design modification procedure, Section 60.424(b), may be applied in this district. g) Except for structures related to agriculture, no new structure or structure expansion in designated core areas shall exceed a height of 45 feet or a floor area of 22,000 square feet. The design modification procedure, Section 60.424(b), may be applied in this district. Subdivision 3. Landscaping a) All new permanent parking spaces within required setbacks must be screened by walls, fences, berms and/or landscape plantings to a height of at least 40 inches. b) All setback areas shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscape plan element of the Master Plan. Landscaping of setback areas may include forestry, cropland, pasture, and/or prairie grasses in place of or in addition to conventional landscaping materials. Notwithstanding other provisions of City ordinances, the Historic Campus Special District is exempt from limits on the height of native or ornamental tall grasses, native or ornamental forbs, and shrubs. c) Landscaping requirements shall become effective when the cumulative value of improvements exceeds $100,000 following adoption of this special district. Subdivision 4 Parking and Loading The number of permanent off-street parking and loading spaces required for any new building expansion in the Historic Campus Special District shall be determined b thegoals specialand standards may be the Master Plan. Temporary parking crop andat he location unpaved of such areas lushall be ding r indicated cpasture, at d on the Master Plan. Subdivision 5. Signs For the purposes of this Special District, signs related to the interpretation, re-enactment, or replication of historic activity are classified as works of art and are exempt from sign controls. Temporary signs advertising special events shall meet the standards for temporary signs applying in the B-4 District. Signs not meeting these definitions shall be specified in the Master Plan, with information detailing the number, height, area, design, location, and placement of signs and with elevation drawings of Page 5, version 05/16/01 each sign. Subdivision 6 Hours of Operation Customary hours of operation shall be set forth in the Operations Plan, along with the number and duration of special events which exceed customary hours of operation and intensity of activity. _.500 PERMIT ADMINISTRATION In addition to the requirements of 61.200 of the Zoning Code, every application for a zoning certificate within the Historic Campus shall be accompanied by a complete and up-to-date document which describes the existing number of parking spaces available within the Special District and which certifies that the cumulative total of land uses and structures, including those for which the zoning certificate is sought, do not exceed Special District standards for floor area and impervious surface coverage. In order to issue a zoning certificate within the Historic Campus, the Zoning Administrator must determine if all development standards are met and the proposed use of buildings or structures is consistent with the Special District documents. _.600 VARIANCE AND APPEALS The Rochester Common Council shall be designated as the Zoning Board of Appeals and assume the duties of the Board to hear and decide appeals of any decision made by the Zoning Administrator in the administration and enforcement of this special district and hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this special district. _.700 RESCINDING APPROVAL The Rochester Common Council may without liability rescind the provisions of this Special District and return the property to its underlying zoning district at the time of adoption or to another zoning district. Rescinding this overlay zoning district shall follow the procedures set forth in Section 60.330 of the Rochester Land'Development Manual. Page 6, version 05/16/01 • • I35� OLMSTED COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY GENERAL YEARLY OPERATIONS PLAN The 47 acres that is the Historical society property at 1195 West Circle Drive has a core function site, which is the History Center itself and fringe sites, the two farms plus the Dee Log Cabin and the Hadley Valley Schoolhouse. Our hours of operation are Tuesday to Saturday 9:OOAM to S:OOPM. Some special events run later in the summer. The following programs take place at the core function site, the History Center building: Our daily and monthly schedule consists of daily visitors, tourists and researchers. We have 2' Grade, 3'" Grade and 61h Grade Programs at various times throughout the year. Community Education classes are taught on a regular basis and we are finding a lot of interest among the Home School parents and children. Some of these classes use outlying buildings such as the Hadley Valley School House, Mayowood and the Dee Log Cabin. Also various maintenance on properties is ongoing We have instituted a new program "Coffee at the Princess Cafe" which brings approximately 30 people to the center once a month at 9:00 AM. A pilot program, "A Passage to Diversity", will bring students and teachers to the History Center five evenings in March and April. We have three Partners in History groups that meet at the Center once a month, the Mechanical History Roundtable, the Civil War Roundtable and the Genealogical Society. These meetings are generally from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM Two new exhibits are in progress at this time. The St. Mary's Hospital Room exhibit will open at the Center in April and it is our hope that an exhibit on Fraternal Organizations will be finished in the Fall. A exhibit on the Korean War is expected to be finished by the end of March. Exhibits in the Center will change periodically, these should not affect normal hours of operation. As a general rule, groups at evening meetings are less than 25 people and finish by 10:00 PM Our annual meeting is the second Tuesday in May each year. We also plan and hold various activities off site. The History Lecture Series at the Rochester Public Library. The Cemetery walk during Rochesterfest and various activities at Mayowood which is also the Historical Society's responsibility but is not part of this Historic Special District Plan These functions take place at the fringe areas of the site, the farms and fields: Days of Yesteryear is held on the grounds the end of July or 1° week in August. The Three Rivers Rendezvous is generally a four day event in September. A Family Fun event takes place the last Saturday in January and we have a Fall Festival in October. The Roosters 1860's Baseball team plays on the grounds periodically We are in the process of restoring the George Stoppel farmstead. The barn has been re - roofed with sawn cedar shingles and we are accumulating funds for a historic Structure Report on the entire farmstead. We have chosen River Architects from LaCrosse to do the $15,000 study. We have $13,000 committed at this time and anticipate having the ability to let the contract by June 1, 2001. It is our intention to restore the farm for educational purposes and to allow the community to tour the site as we restore it and after completion. Use of the restored site should not change hours of operation. EA Olmsted County Historical Society Conceptual Master plan The mission statement of the Olmsted County Historical Society is "to interpret the past to enrich the future." The Society carries out this mission by collecting, preserving, and interpreting the history of Olmsted County. The Olmsted County Historical Society will collect and preserve objects and documents dealing with that history. It will provide the environment to allow present and future generations to enjoy and learn so their lives are enhanced with knowledge of the past. The Olmsted County Historical Society has been in existence since January 25, 1926. The Society has owned the present site since 1972. The historical collections of the Society and its mission are of substantial significance to the County and the City of Rochester as evidenced by their 75 years of support. This plan and the Historic District will assist the Society in effectively and efficiently achieving the community goal of the development of history -oriented land uses. This site will preserve and communicate the heritage of the City of Rochester and Olmsted County for current and future generations, and enable the Olmsted County Historical Society to effectively plan for future public capital and private investment. The accompanying map shows the existing and proposed land use areas. It also gives the general locations of existing buildings and a general location of future buildings to promote the historical farming and educational mission of the Society. Parking areas are shown and interior roadways are the anticipated walking areas. There are no bike trails planned on this side of Co. #22 at this time on City or County long range plans. The site is abutted on the east, south and west by roads or highways and on the north by a wooded hillside. The only lighting is security lighting similar to a farmyard security light. Th City of Rochester and the Olmsted County Historical Society have a strong interest in 0 enhancing the city's environment. As the City continues to expand, public and private open spaces, and landscaped green spaces are going to become more and more important to the community quality of life. This plan shows where the Historic Campus is headed and also shows a very large area of green space that people will have the ability to visit. Our site will be unique in Rochester. The contrast as you drive either Salem Road or Co. #22 of seeing a wooded hillside to the north a pond in the southeast corner and agricultural farm land in a urban setting is striking in its natural beauty. The events that the Society offers to the public as outlined in the Operations Plan takes advantage of this unique site and offers all people an opportunity to revisit their roots and to share their memories with coming generations who may have no other opportunity to see and learn of past lifestyles in the County. /tJel eAe) d /77 -f //,/� S-a - o ff 11 Page 2 14 / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 23, 2001 VACATION PETITION: Ms. Petersson explained that the meeting, indicating that the applii changes and recommended apt ed a revised memo from staff, prior to the petition and that staff approved of the Ms. Rivas moved to recqMmend approval of Vaca n Petition #01.05 by Western Walls, Inc. Mr. Burke secon d the motion. The motion c led 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Special District #5 initiated by the Rochester Common Council to rezone approximately 47 acres from the R 1 (Mixed Single Family) zoning district to a Special Historic District to be known as the Historic Campus Special District. The property Is located north of Salem Road and west of West Circle Drive. Mr. Phil Wheeler presented the staff report, dated May 16, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Wheeler explained that a neighborhood meeting was held and that the neighbors did not express any concerns regarding the proposal. He explained that the special district was designed based on the Medical Campus Special District with requirements based on a Master Plan for the Campus. Discussion ensued regarding what procedure the History Center would need to go through to put up a building. Mr. Wheeler explained that, if the History Center wants to do anything that is not in the current proposal, they would need to amend the master plan. Mr. John Hunziker, of 2828 Mayowood Common Street SW, addressed the Commission. He explained that the proposal is designed after the Mayo Clinic's Medical Campus Special District. He stated that the proposal would make it easier for the History Center to bring in a building to turn it into a historic building for educational and historic recreation purposes. Discussion ensued regarding impervious surface and what parking is available on site. Ms. Rivas asked if a warehouse facility for storing historical artifacts would be allowed on the site. 0age 43 Pity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: May 23, 2001 Mr. Wheeler responded that it would be allowed if it were consistent with the limitations on structure size. Mr. Staver asked why Subsection 600, with regard to variances and appeals, states that they would bring requests directly to the City Council, instead of using the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Wheeler responded that he followed the procedure that is in the Medical Institutional Special District. He explained that, since the requirements are spelled out in the Special District itself, a change could create the need to make an amendment to the Ordinance. He stated that the Design Modification approach still applied. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Special District #5 initiated by the Rochester Common Council, with staff -recommended findings. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 8-0. FINDINGS: a. The land area and the existing land use and events at the Historic Campus provide the opportunity to communicate the prehistory and history of the communities and agricultural heritage of Olmsted County. b. The land area under the ownership of the Olmsted County Historical Society provides adequate space to buffer neighbors from potential adverse impacts of noise, traffic, and congestion. . c. The structures and activities on the site are proposed to be confined to an area removed from the boundaries of the site. The physical configurations of and interrelationships among the structures and activities are not anticipated to adversely impact adjacent property owners. d. Given the unique nature of the Olmsted County Historical Society's operations and the size and arrangement of its site, it is desirable to devise a unique zoning district with specific regulations that will accommodate the singular requirements of the Historic Campus and adequately guide the expansion of its activities and facilities. Doing so will permit the Olmsted County Historical Society to confidently plan for future investment and growth in Rochester. Similarly, the City will be able to confidently program its long-range capital investment in the area based on agreed -upon plans. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. No discussion items werep(ought forward. AGENDA S REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION PUBLIC HEARING RIGINATING DEPT: PLANNING MEETING I(l� 6-18-01 T ITEM NO. e--3 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-22 to be known as Hindermann Fitzgerald PREPARED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, First Replat. June 13, 2001 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $9,400, per the June 6, 2001 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. 2. Prior to development within this subdivision, record of an access easement to this property from an existing public road must be provided to the Planning Department or, development of the property cannot occur until a new roadway is constructed along the east frontage of this Plat as part of the T.H. 52 reconstruction project. Council Action Needed: If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Attachment: Staff Report dated June 13, 2001 Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 18, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. McGhie & Betts, Inc. J M- COUNCIL ACTION: Moeonby: second EMIL/ MF AIM 9 0 ZS *ON ) tVA DH4 ?IN Z11 HMS _`.—n-mitisuyh � 3n m3 Y, 1 0 7 S n 0 3 .BS.nso S M ,A, ,L 0 7 .L n 0 h O N alel� e�� 3P 3a3ii 14 ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 c o u NY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: June 13, 2001 RE: Final Plat #01-22 to be known Hindermann First Replat. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Surveyors/Engineers: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Plat Data: William Fitzgerald 2505 Lenox Ct. SW Rochester, MN 55902 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 1. See attached 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Afefw��un�1'� "ff"Syplo-agn1 � �ii�ii, F Location of Property: This plat is located north of 2nd St. NW, west of T.H. 52. Zoning: This property was recently zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Proposed Development: This plat proposes to re -subdivide Lot 4, Block 1 Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision into two lots for multi -family development. A Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning District Amendment and General Development Plan were recently approved for this property to permit multi -family development. Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. This parcel will have access to the existing, and new, frontage road. MnDOT will be granting access after the property is platted. — BUILDING CODE 507/285-5213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/267-2275 �� AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 June 13, 2001 iq9 Drainage: The applicant may need to obtain approval of new grading plans, along with site development plans, for lot development in the future. An overall grading plan had previously been approved that included this property. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does indicate hydric soils within this Plat, which had previously been addressed. Public Utilities: Utilities are available to serve this property. Spillover Parking: Parking requirements for this property will be reviewed at the time specific development is proposed. Parkland Dedication: Rochester Park and Recreation recommends that parkland dedication for this development be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $9,400. General Development Plan: A Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning District Amendment and General Development Plan were recently approved for this property to permit multi- family development. This Plat is consistent with the approved General Development Plan, which identified two lots to be developed with apartment buildings. Preliminary Plat: There was not a preliminary plat for this property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated with this Plat and there is not a need to provide connections through this plat to adjacent properties. Therefore, the preliminary plat was not required. Pianninq Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Parkland dedication for this plat shall be met via cash in lieu of land in the amount of $9,400, per the June 6, 2001 memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. 2. Prior to development within this subdivision, record of an access easement to this property from an existing public road must be provided to the Planning Department or, development of the property cannot occur until a new roadway is constructed along the east frontage of this Plat as part of the T.H. 52 reconstruction project. REMINDER TO APPLICANT: Parkland Dedication fee must be paid prior to recording the final plat documents (mylars). 0 ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 6/13/01 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 Final Plat #01-22 on the Hindermann Fitzgerald First Replat (split of Lot 4 Block 1 Hindermann Fitzgerald Subdivision) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Grading & Drainage Plan was approved for this property at the time it was platted. Stormwater Management will be provided by the detention pond planned for this subdivision. 2. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. 3. The owner shall provide a copy of the access easement(s), for the proposed access locations to the existing frontage road, or across Quarry Ridge. 4. Individual lot development will require Site Development Plan approval. 5. A Sanitary Sewer Frontage Connection Charge will apply if connection is made to the north trunkline sanitary sewer. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be addressed in the Development Agreement, and include: Sanitary Sewer Availability (SAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre Water Availability Charge (WAC) @ $1653.67 per developable acre Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge, if connection is taken to the north. Substandard Street Reconstruction Charge @ $30.90 per foot of frontage along the existing Frontage Road. Contribution for Pedestrian Facility along the Frontage Road @ $10.00 per foot of frontage. Since this property will be developing residential, vs. the original proposed commercial use, a Park Land Dedication fee will apply. C:Vemp\FP01.22 Hindermann Fitzgerald First Replat.doc 40 ROCHESTER PARK AND R&REATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE 149 ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Hindermann Fitzgerald First Replat Final Plat #01-22 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 2.1 acres 30 units Number of dwelling units ............................................. 14 28 units/acre Dwelling unit density ..............................................•••• 58 Density factor............................................................ .47 acres Dedication............................................................... $20,000 Fair market value of land ............................................. The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $9,400 (.47a x $20,000/2) with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. Applicant: Willmar Investments 4105 East River Road NE 0:\DST0TZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\NM 2898\11INDERMAN REPLAT.DOC M WETLAND COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Application Number:iv.n� _ No hydric soils exist on the site based on the Soil Survey / Hydric soils exist on the site according to the Soil Survey. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands on the property and submitting the information as part of this application. _ A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department _ A wetland delineation is on file with the Planning Department and a No - loss, Exemption, or Replacement Plan has been submitted to the Planning Department. A wetland related application has been approved by the City. This plan incorporates the approved wetland plan. No hydric soils exist on the property based on the Soil Survey. However, due to the location in the landscape the property owner should examine the site for wetlands. The property owner is responsible for identifying wetlands. Other or Explanation From John Harford Wetlands LGU Representative REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 06-18-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 3LIC HEARINGS PLANNING S ITEM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase I Final Plat #01-04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons PREPARED BY: Enterprises, Inc. to be known as Kingsbury Hills Second. The plat proposes to subdivide Theresa Fogarty, approximately 20.59 acres into 77 lots for single family development and one outlot. The Plat Planner also includes the dedication of right-of-way for five public roadways including 55th Street NW. The property is located south of 55th Street NW, west of the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision and Wedgewood Hills Development. June 13,2001 Planning Department Review: The Developer has executed a Development Agreement, addressing the "temporary secondary access" and the extension of the public watermain system, with the City for this Plat. Therefore, staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. A temporary tum-around easement at the southerly extent of "King Arthur Drive NW" must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. 2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of$25,380 with payment due prior to recording the final plat, per the attached memo from Rochester Park and Recreation Department, dated June 6, 2001. 3. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways including the road frontage of Outlot A. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A shall be built concurrent with the construction work of this plat. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the Applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording Statement 3. Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 4. Recording Fee 5. Title Opinion 6. 1 Original Plat Mylar 7. 2 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachments: 1. Staff report dated, June 13, 2001. Distributions 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2001 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center. 7. McGhie 8 Betts, Inc. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: rI 65TM 5T w Final Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills 2nd 1,800' Notification Distance Ward 3 McConnell 06/05/01 9 wp "CIO In -- -- -- cat <Zia "UDR-U�m ri.AMVIIIU Uzrl. i U11Y ULLI(K 10002/003 RocHESTER-O�MSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT �DQ.VyocllESTER. ri 2122 Campus �•e SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 tea,: Aa U' e O U V T I o.Igo N.mw.Dlmsledcounty.com/planning io., RAp •..., .....••"S.T� R4 TED•AU. ..G115T• TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: June 18, 2001 RE: Item E-4, Kingsbury Hills Second Subdivision Final Plat #01-04 The applicant submitted a revised final plat reducing the number of residential lots proposed, by one. A copy of the revised plat is included with the Request for Council Action. Planning staff sent out referral comments on the revised plat. The following referral comment received from the Rochester Park and Recreation department regarding Parkland Dedication: Parkland Dedication shall be raet via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $24,030 with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. Staff is also suggesting the following Condition be added with approval of this final plat: At the time, the applicant submits the mylars for this final plat, the legal description shall be changed to reflect the total acreage of this plat for the 76 lots. BUILDING CODE 507/265-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSINCi/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 ..,....,... PLANNING/ZONING S07/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 5071287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFI RMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER ............ �., u<ro nuuu-ul.n ri,n:viviivu vLrl. -> L1111 l:LtHr, Ipj UU3/UU3 0 ROCHESTER PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Kingsbury Hills 2Id Final #01-04 *REVISED JUNE 18 Acreageof plat.......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density ................................................... Density factor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 20.59 acres 73 units* 3.54 units/acre .0244 1.78 acres $13,500 / acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: * Lots 15-16 Block 2 and Lot 1 Block 4 are replatted lots from Kingsbury Hills 151 and dedication for these lots was met with the approval of that plat. No additional dedication is due for these three lots. Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $24,030 with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. Applicant Joel Bigelow 6 sons 706 County Road 3 NW Byron, MN 55920 C:\temp\RINGSBURY HILLS 2ND.DDC U) 1 1 a 1 , - I I ' � � 1 , r 1 1 1flj I P Ip I z I I 1 � , M 1 Irr` , I 1 .o b �M ,.c e I Il I Iyi Q mw I � I I I U a W I Iq m I I pl iq �I I 1 b' b t�l O r I W I I 3 A0,10s 8 a r� r a N mx� N � mxl W N S w 18r r b b • y yN 4 N' w • WY g .,.YY W 9 N y 1 � ail I I I xt pB I n �yI Y.na II I ' L ■W "Mus �p � rs`t+rusr� r _ I � N ' i W r � Y.Iim x 4�3�Lr—--- R I71 "Utzs AW f=LF = tl R Yo /89�4 s Y199 t p .SLMIIY �:Y M1S Y3F5 I 11 I I JUN 1 3 2001 L' " REVISED F ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COUNTY OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: June 13, 2001 RE: Final Plat #01- 04 by Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. to be known as Kingsbury Hills Second. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 20.59 acres into 76 lots for single family development and one outlot. The Plat also includes the dedication of right-of-way for five public roadways including 55th Street NW. The property is located south of 55th Street NW, west of the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision and Wedgewood Hills Development. Plannino Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Joel Bigelow and Sons Enterprises, Inc. 706 County Road 3 NW Byron, MN 55920 Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester. MN 55904 Referral Comments: Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Rochester Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments ( 4 letters) 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat Development Review: WON Location of Property: The property is located south of 55t° Street NW, west of the Kingsbury Hills Subdivision and Wedgewood Hills Development. Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 - WELL/SEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 T`d AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 Final Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second June 13, 2001 Proposed Development: Roadways: This development consists of 20.59 acres of land to be subdivided into 76 lots for single family development and one outlot. This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for the continuation of two roadways and four new roadways. The plat proposes to dedicate 60' of right-of-way for "55'h Street NW" and identifies controlled access along the entire frontage of "551h Street NW". The second roadway labeled "Kingsbury Street NW" is designed with 60' right-of-way and is a continuation from the east to the west intersecting "King Arthur Drive NW". The third roadway labeled "King Arthur Drive NW" is designed with a 60' right-of-way. This roadway continues off of "Kingsbury Street NW" in a southerly direction. A easement for a temporary turn -around is required at the southerly extent of "King Arthur Drive NW". The fourth roadway labeled "Castleview Street NW" is designed with a 60' right-of-way and intersects to the west off of "King Arthur Drive NW". The fifth roadway labeled "Kingsbury Place NW" is designed with a 56' right-of-way and intersects off of "Kingsbury Street NW" to the south and "King Arthur Drive NW" to the east and continues in a northerly direction. A Development Agreement and an Amended Development Agreement, addressing the temporary access to this site during the reconstruction of "55`h Street NW" has been executed for this property. The Amended Development Agreement also addresses the "temporary second access" to be provided by the owner for this development until a public street is platted, constructed and accepted by the City of Rochester which links this property to another public roadway in the adjacent Wedgewood Subdivision. The 33' "temporary second access" is located across Lots 8 and 9, Block 2, Kingsbury Hills Second Subdivision. The City Public Works will be reviewinqhthe site distance of the temporary access to 55 Street NW and will work with the Developer addressing any concerns that may Pedestrian Facilities: In accordance with current City policy Pedestrian Facilities are required for this development along both sides of all new public roads including along the road frontage of Outlot A . ram' 1 P Page 3 Final Plat#01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second June 13,2001 Outlot A provides a mid -block pedestrian connection to the east, as previously approved by the City Council. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A shall be built concurrent with construction work through the City - Owner Contract. Drainage: This property currently drains to the east and the west. No on -site detention facilities are proposed with this development. At the GDP stage, the applicant informed staff that it is their intent to voluntarily participate in the City's Storm Water Management Plan and contribute toward a regional storm water facilities. Concurrent with GDP approval for this property, the applicant received approval for a Substantial Land Alteration Permit to alter the grades on the property by 10' or more. Grading and drainage plans have been approved by the City Public Works Department . Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. A wetland delineation has been carried out for the property and is on file with the Planning Department. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. The Amended Development Agreement addresses the extension of sanitary sewer. Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential development must provide spillover parking for service vehicles and visitors. This development requires 92 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $25,380. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. General Development Plan: This property is included within the Kingsbury Hills General Development Plan (GDP), approved June 6, 2000. i Page 4 l6 / Final Plat #01-04 Kingsbury Hills Second June 13, 2001 Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation: A preliminary plat for this area was approved by the Council on March 19, 2001. The approval of the preliminary plat was subject to five (5) conditions: The conditions are listed below: 1. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways including along the road frontage of Outlot A. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A shall be built concurrent with construction work of this plat. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. 2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: cash in lieu of land per the attached memo from Rochester Park and Recreation Department, dated February 16, 2001. 3, The Developer shall, prior to Final Plat submittal, execute an amended Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that addresses, in part, temporary access to the site during reconstruction of 55�h Street NW, extension of sanitary sewer from the Wedgewood Hills property and construction of a secondary access to serve this development. 4. Approval must be received by the Fire Prevention Bureau regarding the temporary condition of flow for fire protection being below the minimum allowed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. 5. A temporary turn -a -round easement at the southerly extent of "King Arthur Drive NW" must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. Planning Staff Review and Recommendation: The Developer has executed an Amended Development Agreement, addressing the "temporary secondary access" and the extension of public watermain system, with the City for this Plat. Therefore, Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications: 1. A temporary turn -around easement at the southerly extent of "King Arthur Drive NW" must be executed with the City prior to recording the final plat documents. 2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $25,380 with payment due prior to recording of the final plat, per the attached memo from Rochester Park and Recreation Department, dated June 6, 2001. 3. Pedestrian facilities are required along both sides of all new public roadways including the road frontage of Outlot A. Pedestrian facilities on Outiot A shall be built concurrent with the construction work of this plat. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City. Reminder to Applicant., Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City/Owner Contract for the construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. * ROCHESTER PARK AND FAREATION DEPARTMEUT' 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Kingsbury Hills 2nd Final #01-04 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 20.59 acres Number of dwelling units ............................................. 77 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 3.74 units/acre Densityfactor............................................................ .0244 Dedication............................................................... 1.88 acres Fair market value of land ............................................. $13,500 / acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Cash in lieu of land in the amount of $25,380 with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat. Applicant: Joel Bigelow & Sons 706 County Road 3 NW Byron, MN 55920 0:\➢STGTZ\2001\➢EDICATI0N\NW 2898\KINGSBURY HILLS 2ND.DDC 1p ROCHESTER kinne3ota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 65904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 6/13/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 41h 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 Final Plat #01-04,on the Kingsbury Hills Second Subdivision (P/O GDP#146) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. A Development Agreement, and Amendment have been executed for this property. 2. A temporary turn -around is required at the southerly extent of King Arthur Dr NW. 3. Pedestrian facilities on Outlot A should be built concurrent with construction work through the City -Owner Contract. 4. Public Works will be reviewing the site distance of the temporary access to 55'' ST NW, and will work with the Developer to address any concerns that are a result of our review. This may include reducing the speed on 55`b St. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the current development agreement, with the exception of: -& Contribution for First Seal Coat @ $0.45 per square yard of roadway surface. Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 8 Street Name Signs 1 Street Ends Sign i C:\1emp\FP07-04 Kingsbury Hills 2nd.doc REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 / DATE 6-18-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING e 5 ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #0045 to be known as Century Hills Fifth PREPARED BY: Subdivision. Brent Svenby, June 14, 2001 Planning Department Review: See attached Staff Report dated June 14, 2001. At this time staff would recommend that the City Council table this final plat until the applicant has constructed a secondary access that is suitable to be used by the residents of the Century Hills Development and not just construction traffic. The City has 120-days to act on the application. This plat will need to be acted on before the 120-days expires. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the plat. 2. The Council should include a motion to adopt findings to support either approval or denial of the proposed Substantial Land Alteration Activity. Enclosures: (To be submitted separately to the City Clerk by the Planning Staff upon receipt from the applicant) 1. City Clerk's Copy of Applications 2. Recording/Treasurer/Auditor's Statement 3. Recording Fee 4. Title Opinion 5. 1 Original Plat Mylar 6. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat Attachment: Staff Report dated June 14, 2001, Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Planning Department —GIS 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. Yaggy Colby Associates OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: 143 ' jIN z .'• �! �iia .I is s z , fill 1.. hb ba rnoa A3 TNA M Z > o 0 w . - ........ �w ,... ...............OF Q,AKA w �AK« i J O mw� V� 9a'xi 2z�A!?i a$A$� a p�.iA Z E7 C Cn:Rk a y jRR•.R y e:• ._�^ale:%%333A =CE JOr' lGK,`R I � I JAK« Y N m 2 ! Z. N 3 N.n.'t KKN� nlx I9 .rAK« Z na �g U�• 7� '�wKI ^Ntn ,•�k y `n / M .7. i.Lt.9ii mN1�b r'-'l h� b 4' 17• � 9 ~i �OKVU "p4v yJS 7.N a aST$Fi Aan,aN3 a3uvldNn Iq 0 • SORY EYOARS A CHITECT5 June 5, 2001 Ms. Mitzi Baker Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department 2122 SE Campus Drive Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Substantial Land Alteration Century Hills 51n Subdivision Rochester, Minnesota Dear Ms. Baker: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS This letter is to serve as a request for substantial land alteration approval for the above referenced final plat. The existing agricultural land will be regraded to be suitable for residential applications. Generally, the ravine will be filled to match existing grades on either side of the ravine. All graded materials will stay on -site. The grading would be completed in summer 2001 as well as the street and utilities. Generally, the site will be graded to seven percent (7%) slopes or less, except for 3:1 slopes as noted on the plan, which will be stabilized with wood fiber blanket when seeded. Please call Denny Christopherson or me if you have any questions. Sincerely, YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES oaei�_OA ( Wade DuMond, ASLA Department Head of Land Development WD YCA 47161 LD2 Attachment: Grading Plan with 10' cuts and fills marked Cross-section n 4 '�_•,— ��C? f iI lei 1i JUN a 2001 PLANNERS ROCHESTER OFFII 717 Third Avenue Rochester, MN 55S 507-288-64 Fa) 98-51 MASON CITY OFF] 641-424-6: DELAFIELD OFFI 262-646-61 Equal Oppo#uniry Employer yaggy Corn POO u J, 4 1 m z 0 4 PA ROCHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT o�.aoctaEsrea. /� / 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 Rochester, AN 55904-4744 �`.•'''•to C o U ".„ „V 0 ,� www.olmstedcounly.com/planning �'•. x' [d7ifDf�GW Gkno'•• 0•UGU.. •'..rJ R'1 TEA ST" TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: June 14, 2001 RE: Final Plat #00-45 to be known as Century Hills Fifth Subdivision. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Payne Company 1700 Northwood Drive NE Rochester, MN 55906 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. Park and Recreation Department 2. Planning Department - Wetland LGU 3. Planning Department - Addressing 4. RPU Operations Division 5. RPU Water Division 6. Rochester Public Works Department Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (4 Letters) 2. Approved GDP 3. Copy of Final Plat 4. SLA Map 5. Land Development Manual Excerpts 6. Photos of Secondary Access Plat Data: Location of Property: The property is located east of East Circle Drive and south of Century Hills Lane NE and Century Hills 3`d and 41h Subdivisions. Zoning: This property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) district in the City of Rochester. Proposed Development: This development consists of 13.66 acres of land to be subdivided into 34 lots for single family development. Streets: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for three new roadways. The first would be a southerly extension of "Century BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GB/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 ,.�...,. PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-6345 FAX 5071287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER �6g Page 2 Century Hills 5th Subdivision June 14, 2001 Sidewalks: Hills Drive NE". This roadway is designed with a 66' right-of-way. Execution of a temporary turn -around easement is required for the proposed turn -around at the southerly end of "Century Hills Drive NE". The second roadway is an easterly extension of "Oakview Drive NE". This roadway is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The third roadway known as "Century Valley Road NE" intersects into "Oakview Drive NE". This roadway is designed with a 60" right-of-way. According to the approved Development Agreement Amendment #1 with the City and as required by the Land Development Manual, Section 64.127, Paragraph 10, the owner is required and has agreed to provide a secondary access suitable to serve the development by June 15, 2001. Staff is of the opinion that the secondary access is not suitable to serve the development. Please see the attached pictures, which were taken on Wednesday, June 13, 2001. In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the streets in the subdivision. Drainage: The topography of this plat indicates natural drainage to the southwest. The elevations range from about 1,240' on the northeastern portion of the plat to about 1,156' on the southwestern end. Grading and drainage plans do address all of the comments expressed by the Public Works Department and will be approved if the Substantial Land Alteration is approved. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this property. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. The public improvement plans are approved for this development. Spillover Parking: The proposed roadway appears to be adequate to accommodate the required spillover spaces. Additional spillover spaces will likely be accommodated within the driveways. Parkland Dedication: The owner of this proposed plat will be required to dedicate .83 acres of vacant land for dedication of parkland. The City Park & Recreation recommends 11 11 Page 3 rGi7 Century Hills 51h Subdivision June 14, 2001 that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at the future site of the neighborhood park located south of this plat. General Development Plan: The proposed final plat is consistent with the approved Century Hills GDP. Substantial Land Alteration The applicant is also requesting approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 62.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alternation as part of a Type III application, such as a final plat, subject to making findings established in Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM. ➢ This development includes a proposal for fill work which involves a grade change of 10-feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The attached map labeled SLA Map identifies the areas on the site where the existing grades are proposed to be altered by 10-foot or more. This includes two areas of fill greater than 10 feet on lots 3 & 4 and Lots 9 & 10, Block 4. The attached letter from Wade DuMond of Yaggy Colby Associates has identified the location were the SLA is taking place. All graded materials will stay on -site and the grading work will be completed this summer. Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached Staff Suggested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alternation, staff recommends the following findings to Sections 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land Development Manual., 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The slopes will be designed with a maximum slope of 3:1. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading and drainage plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. All materials will be used to fill in two low areas of the site. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized in grading the roadways in the subdivision. All excess material will be used on the site so no additional trucks will be necessary for the excavation work. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and surface water quality. 5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester. There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. The natural topography of the area will be re -graded to provide adequate slopes for dwellings, roads and drainage. Iqo Page 4 Century Hills 51h Subdivision June 14, 2001 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for development that is consistent with the land use plan. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed this year. 8) The grading activity will only take place during the construction of the roadways and buildings pads that are planned for the site. The grading is expected to be completed this year. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater management will be provided for the development. The grading of these areas will help provide the adequate drainage for the property. 11) The areas of grading does not contain sinkholes or wetlands and should not effect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed during the first phase of development, which should be completed this year. The duration seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner contract process for this development. If grading is to happen prior to the Owner Contract, a separate means of surety will need to be provided. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: 1) Not applicable 2) Not applicable 3) Not applicable 4) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 5) Not applicable 6) Not applicable 7) Not applicable Page 5 Century Hills 51" Subdivision June 14, 2001 8) Not applicable Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat for this property was approved by the City Council on December 11, 2000 with the following conditions: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. Providing an additional utility easement along the north side of Lot 3, Block 5 according to the memo from Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division, dated November 2, 2000. 2. Dedication of parkland be met via cash in lieu of land, with payment due prior to recording the final plat, as recommended by the City Park & Recreation Department in the attached memo, dated October 24, 2000. 3. Temporary turn -a -rounds and associated easements shall be provided for the proposed turn -around at the southerly end of Century Hills Drive NE prior to recording the Final Plat documents. 4. Stormwater Management must provided. 5. Prior to the approval of the final plat of Century Hills Fifth Subdivision, the secondary access must be passable for the residents of Century Hills. Planning Staff and Recommendation: A condition placed on the preliminary plat states that the secondary access must be passable for the residents of Century Hills prior to the approval of the final plat of Century Hills Fifth Subdivision. This condition on the preliminary has not been met. Also in the Agreement Amendment # 1 to the Development Agreement for Century Hills the owner's obligations included completion of the secondary access to serve the development by June 15, 2001. Staff took pictures of the secondary access on Wednesday June 13, 2001 and finds that the access does not appear to be suitable for the use by the residents of Century Hills and does not meet the intent of the ordinance (pictures are attached). Also a sign posted at the entrance states that it's to be used by construction traffic only. According to Section 64.127, Paragraph 10 of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual a secondary access is required for any low density residential development that is projected to generate more than 500 average daily trips. Where secondary access is not constructed as part of the initial phase of development, the secondary access shall be provided before the City authorizes any construction that would be projected to generate traffic in excess of 1,200 average daily trips. So far the permitted development of Century Hills is broken-down like this: Subdivision Name Number of Lots Average Daily Trips Century Hills First 23 230 10 trips/lot) Century Hills Second 20 200 Century Hills Third 47 470 i Page Century Hills 5'" Subdivision June 14, 2001 Century Hills Fourth 27 270 Century Hills Townhomes 16 120 7.5 trips/lot) Century Hills Townhome Supplemental 20 150 Century Hills Townhomes Second 12 90 Century Hills Townhomes Third 20 150 185 total # of lots 1,680 average daily trips from the development At this time staff would recommend that the City Council table this final plat until the applicant has constructed a secondary access that is suitable to be used by the residents of the Century Hills Development and not just construction traffic. The City has 120-days to act on the application. This plat will need to be acted on before the 120-days expires. Page 7 Century Hills 5" Subdivision June 14, 2001 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 62.1100 EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES & SUBSTANTIAL LAND ALTERATION 62.1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; (13 +i q Page 8 Century Hills 5" Subdivision June 14, 2001 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose Page 9 Century Hills 5`h Subdivision June 14,2001 undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase II site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146. / NVII1N3WdOl3/\3O YLO53NNIW'UISN •it' 13.:44::4 :6 slli�i � SIIIH A21f11N / l p.i3 .xi '',�,�\ � �Fj� L"�f'r�•'i!-�-5�+4r#. /i T. t 7 i a'rt3�s: t`�'L � �'._ Ktf.'i�i� �f i tr..f I/+` R/ ♦ J � { /Ytt }i�:'.t 14 lZN -3, �1. '. 14 r f��i'�� >f�j. •. 1 :,_•! t.ff's T.,I Ll y, Tf21i ® •rS T ( ✓ d 1 // + . • - �� pf s q I 1 tJ r<9 11+ F eJ #1 i1�+aY 11..5dr�'"'7`� iflf4t ♦\ 1 i g � W I ROCHESTER Minne9ota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 6/13101 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4In Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7600 FAX — 507-261-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat #00-45 on the Century Hills Fifth Subdivision (Payne Company) property. The following are the Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. There is an executed Development Agreement for this property. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the Development Agreement, and include: •:• Trunkline Sanitary Sewer (J9218) @ $1403.17 per acre (no interest based on prepaid contribution). S• High Level Water Tower in Northern Heights Area (J9288) @ $1021.46 per acre plus interest @ 7.5% from May 4, 1998 :• A Stormwater Management Fee @ $2043.01 per acre (rate through 7/31 /01), for any area of this property that does not drain toward a detention facility, constructed by the Owner, to serve this property. •:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division: 4 Street name Signs 1 Street Ends Sign 4 Stop Signs C:\tennp\FP00-45 Century Hills 5th.doc rp- - -11 . _. we pledge, we deliver June 8, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted • • tO CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Final Plat #00-45 and a Substantial Land Alteration Permit by Payne Company to be known as Century Hills Fifth. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced final plat and substantial land alteration permit is complete and we have no objections. The final utility plans have been approved. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06-JA WM&' 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 WROCHESTER PARK AND FWEATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6, 2001 TO: Jennifer Gayness Planning RE: Century Hills 5th Final Plat #00-45 Acreage of plat.......................................................... 13.66 acres Number of dwelling units ............................................. 34 units Dwelling unit density ................................................... 2.49 units/acre Densityfactor .0244 ............................................................ Dedication............................................................... .83 units Fair market value of land ............................................. $14,000/acre The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication. Land to be dedicated at site of neighborhood park / open space located south of this plat and identified on the GDP as open space. Applicant: Payne Company 170C Jorthwood Drive NE 0:\DST0TZ\2000\DEDICATI0N\NE 2996\CEN HILLS STH.DOC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 1 p5 6-18-01 ( O AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING (� _ (o „"A DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-23 to be known as Cascade Ridge Second PREPARED JBY:Subdivision. Mitzi A. B Senior Planne June 14, 2001 Staff Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of this plat, with the exception of the existing driveway access. 2. A Driveway and Garage Easement Declaration shall be recorded concurrent with the final plat documents which addresses long term use and maintenance of the access, garages and parking located within Outlot ,a„ Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution approving the plat can be adopted. Attachment. 1. Staff Report dated June 14, 2001 Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 18, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. 5. YaggyColby Associates L JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: IZ Vat 1 ailSt°' 4�3 i$ 5 c�}Let¢ LL • �Sy �jiip ��it : � !. � i, is -�- I O till', LL€ All I3ig ilIs fig dde ,1$51 i! °l, It { EA ES Z z o i7r ° Hi 5 J n ' I ii ,. o °$+� s pig m s i can 9 f w Q i{`§ iF1 ,�i �51 131 Ln 91i� i5 i aE a C7 0 � a n W Q yY Y€ §3 ��� [otisF .zF,§o.oet 1Y�' €13y $y$y33JJSStt Q S pill N/ I L M ma., U+� I ?nAn e 1 /N iy e A 1f N � LTIA.a •d. io�lno P.1 in' 3 tF� i to FF9ppYY6i I „ nr--_— +i z C Ia a 1 g ° �ietnL— MII +L+� j 9 Al• r.[ Irin AIL M s r.w..ia..m �vwu-uw m�. w.x...rv.wwa w.aiw+uvw J l " ROCHESTER-OLNfSTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 COUNTY o, www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: Rochester Common Council FROM: Mitzi A. Baker, Planner DATE: June 14, 2001 RE: Final Plat #01-22 to be known Hindermann First Replat. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: James R. Alker 5898 NW 121" Ave. Rochester, MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates 717 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Referral Comments: 1. See attached Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments 2. Location Map 3. Copy of Final Plat Plat Data: Im=...��\'t�w�! ���6811, Location of Property: This plat is located along the north side of 551h St. NW between 261h Ave. NW and 281h Ave. NW. Zoning: This property is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Proposed Development: This plat proposes to re -subdivide Lots 32, 33, and 34, Block 1, Cascade Ridge Subdivision. Streets: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this Plat. Drainage: This property is already developed with four-plexes. New grading and drainage plans were not required for this subdivision. Wetlands- Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 - GIS/AODRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 PLANNINGIZONING 5071285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC S071285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYJAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 June 14, 2001 Public Utilities: Spillover Parking: Parkland Dedication: General Development Plan: Preliminary Plat: be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. Utilities are available to serve this property. The property is already developed Parking requirements for this property were reviewed at the time the property was developed. Parkland dedication is not required for the re - subdivision of these lots. There is no General Development Plan for this property. The Zoning Administrator determined that a General Development Plan would not be require for this re -subdivision, per the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. There was not a preliminary plat for this property. No new right-of-way is being dedicated with this Plat and there is not a need to provide connections through this plat to adjacent properties. Therefore, the preliminary plat was not required. Planning Staff and Recommendation: The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat shall be revised to dedicate controlled access along the entire frontage of this plat, with the exception of the existing driveway access. 2. A Driveway and Garage Easement Declaration shall be recorded concurrent with the final plat documents which addresses long term use and maintenance of the access, garages and parking located within Outlot "A". «y lqo ROCHESTER Winne9ola TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 6/13/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507.281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #01-23 on the Cascade Ridge Second Subdivision (Replat of Lots 32, 33, 34, Cascade Ridge Subd) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Controlled Access should be dedicated on the plat, along the entire frontage, with the exception of the existing driveway access. C:\temp\FP01-23 Cascade Ridge Second Subd.doc ROCHESTER PARK AND ACREATION DEPARTMENT rvcheater /� MEMORANDUM t DATE: June 7, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness SUBJECT: Replat Lots 32, 33, 34 Cascade Ridge No parkland dedication is required for the re -platting of the three lots. 1473 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6-18-0 AGENDA SECTION: CONTINUED - PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ITEM DESCRIPTION: Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #01-11 by Olmsted County HRA to construct a garage for the purpose of storing maintenance equipment to be used for maintaining HRA properties. June 13, 2001 ITEM NO. 7i " I REPAIRED BY: Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner The City Council held a public hearing on this item on June 4, 2001. The item was continued to receive additional information related to playground equipment that would be removed from the site. Enclosed is a memorandum from Mona Hoeft, Olmsted County HRA, addressing the playground equipment. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On May 9, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request and recommended approval subject to the following conditions. The motion carried 7-0. 1. Vehicles, equipment and materials shall be stored inside the garage when not in use. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, equipment or materials. z. Stormwater Management must a provided, and a Stormwater Management fee may apply for any additional impervious surface resulting from this project, if onsite detention is not provided. Council Action Needed: A. If the Council wishes to proceed, the Council should adopt a resolution, with findings and conditions, approving the project. B. The applicant is requesting waiver of the Final Plan phase, consistent with Section 60.532, 6 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The Council will need to consider the findings necessary to waive the final plan (see attached). If the Council wishes to waive the final plan phase, this waiver should be included in the motion. Distribution: ' 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached 4. Planning Department File 5, Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. p.m. on Monday June 18, 2001 in the Council I Board COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: Page 2 (1 RCA June 13, 200 60.532 Phase II Hearing Process: The Phase II Procedure shall be as set forth below: 6) The Council shall have the power to waive subsequent review phases in a multi -phase review process if requested by the applicant upon findings that: a) The information considered during the Phase II Hearing Process is sufficient in nature to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements set forth in this ordinance. b) That waiver of the subsequent review phases will not interfere with the purposes and intent of this ordinance. c) That the applicant has provided assurance that all conditions or modifications attached to approval of the project will be met. This assurance shall include, but shall not be limited to, the filing of revised plans, the provision of necessary bonds or other surety to cover the completion of projects, or the filing of necessary legal documents. Houeing& Redevelopment Authority RENTAL A5515TANCE • REHA51LITATION • HOME OWNER5HIP TO: Rochester City Council FROM: Mona Hoeft, Olmsted County HRA DATE: May 6, 2001 RE: Conditional Use Permit for Garage at 1716 8 Yz St SE At the Council meeting on May 5« an issue regarding removal of playground equipment was discussed and the conditional use permit approval was tabled. The Council should be aware that the playground equipment that will be removed is only one of two playgrounds located on the property. The HRA maintains an additional playground on the west side of the property. 2122 Campus Drive S.E., Suite 100 •Rochester, MN 55904.4744 PHONE: 507-255-8224 • FAX: 507-257-2275 EQUAL HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (qb me TO: FROM: RouHESTER-OLMSTED PLANNING DEPnn.MENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C o U MTV O F www.olmstedcounty.com/planning City Planning & Zoning Commission Mitzi A. Baker, Senior Planner pser�+Pwrrre+� /Lsglf sac?:1 IN I �4 6OR DATE: May 3, 2001 RE: Restricted Development Conditional Use Permit #01-11 by Olmsted County HRA to construct a garage for the purpose of storing maintenance equipment to be used for maintaining HRA properties. Plannino Department Review Applicant: Olmsted County Housing & Redevelopment Authority(OCHRA) Attn: Mona Hoeft 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Property Location: 1716 81/2 Street SE Zoning: The property is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) on City of Rochester Zoning map. Adjacent Zoning: This property abuts land on the west, south and east that is zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and abuts 8 % Street to the north. Summary of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' by 36' garage to be used for storing maintenance equipment and vehicles used for maintaining HRA properties. Referral Agency Comments: Rochester Public Works, See attached Attachments: Location Map Site Map BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 - GISIADDRESSING/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 EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCEDURE: The applicant is proposing to construct a 24' by 36' garage to be used for storing maintenance equipment and vehicles used for maintaining HRA properties. Since the equipment will be used off -site, as well as on -site, the use is defined as a contractors yard which is not a permitted use in the R-3 zoning District. The Restricted Development allows certain mixtures of land uses which are not allowed within a given zoning district on a permitted or conditional basis can, if regulated, serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standard zoning regulations. The regulations of this article recognize and provide encouragement for innovation and experimentation in the development of land that would otherwise not be possible under the zoning district regulations established by this ordinance. CRITERIA & ANALYSIS: Sections 62.706 and 62.708 (1) of the Zoning Ordinance set forth the standards upon which a Restricted Development Preliminary Plan is to be evaluated. The Council shall approve a preliminary plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied all of the applicable criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the final plan. Please see the attached excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual for the applicable criteria. The staff suggests the following findings for each of the 11 criteria on which the Preliminary Development Plan is to be evaluated: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: City sewer and water, and other utilities currently serve the site. b) Geologic Hazards: There are no known geologic hazards on the property. c) Natural Features: There are no unique natural features on the property that have been identified. d) Residential Traffic Report: Access to the garage will be provided via the driveway serving Homestead Green apartments, which has access to 8 % Street SE. The additional traffic will be minimal, approximately 2-8 trips/day. Equipment stored on site would also be used to maintain the grounds of the property where it is stored. e) Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic will not cause the capacity of the adjacent streets to be exceeded. i Height Impacts: This development should not impact the adjacent properties. There is an existing fence along the south and east property lines of this development. The garage is proposed to be approximately 14 feet in height. 1q% 3 I g) Setbacks: The garage is proposed to be setback 20 feet from the south property line and 27 feet from the east property line. The building appears similar to a standard residential garage. The proposed setbacks are similar to, or in excess of, those that would apply to a primary structure on the property. h) Internal Site Design: Access to the garage will be provided via the driveway serving the Homestead Green apartments. 1) Screening and Buffering: There is an existing fence along the south and east property lines, adjacent to the proposed garage location. j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas k) General Compatibility: The proposed use of the site does not significantly change the appearance of the property. The character of the surrounding neighborhood should not be affected by this proposed use. Equipment stored in the building will be used on -site as well as off -site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with the applicable standards and provisions, as included in this report. Based upon staff review and the analysis included above, staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions: Vehicles, equipment and materials shall be stored inside the garage when not in use. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, equipment or materials. 2. Stormwater Management must a provided, and a Stormwater Management fee may apply for any additional impervious surface resulting from this project, if onsite detention is not provided. Note - Waiver of Final Plan application Section 60.532, 6 of the LDM allows the City Council to waive subsequent review phases in a multi -phase review process if requested by the applicant, and upon making findings consistent with that Section of the Ordinance. The applicant has requested that the City Council waive the requirement for the Final Plan review for this project to expedite construction of the project. • • 01 Excerpt from the Rochester Zoning Ordinance & Land Development Manual 62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or a modification for unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712. 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: 1) Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: a) Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. b) Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase II plans. c) Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. d) Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1) Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2) Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3) Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; e) Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. f) Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: a6D5 0 1) Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; 2) Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. g) Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. h) Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. j) ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. k) General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. got Housing 6 Redevelopment Authority RENTAL A5515TANCE • REHABILITATION HOME OWNER5HIP April 10, 2001 Mitzi Baker Olmsted County Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester MN 55904 Dear Mitzi: Enclosed you will find an application for a Type III Development Application along with nine site plans and architect drawings. The HRA is asking that the final approval be waived on this project in order to expedite construction. If you have any questions, please contact me at 287-1367. Sincerely, JW& Mona Hoeft . Rental Assistance Technician pp1� U FAR ' 2 2001 .' 2122 Campus Drive S.E., Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 EQUAL HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PHONE: 507-285-8224 0 FAX: 507-287-2275 M ROCHESTER i'N/inneeola TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 4/25/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4"' Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 Public Works has reviewed the requested Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #01-11 on the Olmsted County HRA (1716 8Yz St SE) property. The following are Public Works Comments on the proposal: 1. Separate Grading Plan approval is required if grading for this project will involve movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material. 2. Stormwater Management must be provided, and a Stormwater Management Fee will apply for any additional impervious surface resulting from this project, if onsite detention is not provided. 3. The Owner should contact Public Works to inspect the existing public pedestrian facilities and curb abutting this property. Any needed repair work should be completed concurrent with construction for this application. The following charges/fees are applicable for the development of this property: A Storm Water Management charge TBD, for any additional impervious surface, if on - site detention is not provided. SI& STREET S.E. PROPOSED SOUM EASTERN ENGINEERING INC. .!( $ _ ID COUNTY RA .'•"••�•". —'_ w °ms et. ns ems o we.�., a eeaw 11 � w° §� — / �� d E�. # \ \d f )� /2---- � ! ! ,§§ . §<. � \ \f \ � \ )2 w45 ! |°/ \/�r* | \ } * AGENDA SECTION: ARINGS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY ADMINISTRATION MEETING DATE: 06-18-01 ITEM NO. S "8 0 ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: Amend the 1998 Action Plan for the City of Rochester's Community Development Theresa Fogarty, Block Grant (CDBG) Program CDBG Administrator June 11, 2001 The City of Rochester proposes to reallocate $46,177.04 of the following CDBG funding: Program Year 1998 Contingency Activity: An amount of $25,000 Program Year 1998 City Rental Rehab Program: $21,771.04 into 2000 Olmsted County HRA Acquisition / Rehabilitation Activity. CDBG funding will be used to provide affordable housing within the City of Rochester by purchasing / rehabilitating property located at 1813 SW 1st Avenue and completing improvements on 11 properties owned by the Olmsted County HRA located within the City of Rochester. In addition, the Olmsted County HRA will use $56,000 of CDBG funding allocated in the year 2000 for cost of purchasing vacant lot(s) and / or site improvements for additional affordable housing for their 2000 Acquisition / Rehabilitation Activity described above. Total CDBG funding for the 2000 Olmsted County HRA Acquisition / Rehabilitation Activity is $102, 771.04. A balance of $4,077.36 will remain in the Contingency Activity for any existing or future CDBG activities. Council Action Needed; 1. Approve amending the1998 Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant, allocating $46,771.04 to the 2000 Olmsted County HRA Acquisition i Rehabilitation Activity. Attachments: 1. Memo addressed to Mayor & Common Council, dated May 23, 2001 Distribution: p 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3. CDBG File COUNCIL ACTION: MoSonby: second ao� Memo To: Mayor & Common Council From:Terry Spaeth Date: 05/23/01 Re: Transfer of CDBG Funds As you know, the City has acquired the property located at 1813 Vt Avenue SW with the intent to sell to the HRA for the amount of City costs incurred. (Estimated to be approximately $20,000). The HRA is then planning to rehab the property ( Estimated cost $25,000) and use as a single family rental property. On May 14"', the HRA Board met to discuss this issue. One of the concerns expressed by HRA Board members was that the the purchase and rehab of the 1813 property would spend down their CDBG allocation ($56,000) so that there would not be adequate funding to provide maintenance on the 14 homes that the HRA operates that were purchased as part of the flood control project (flood homes). In order to assist the HRA with the purchase of the 1813 property (which will generate approx. $6000 annually in income for the HRA) and ensure that there are adequate funds available for flood control home maintenance, the staff has the following suggestions for reallocation of CDBG funds at this time: • . Transfer $25,000 from CDBG Contingency to the HRA Site Acquisition / Affordable Housing Improvement activity. Transfer $36,000 from the City Rental Rehab Program to the HRA Site Acquisition / Affordable Housing Improvement activity. (The City Rental Rehab Program dollars were set aside in 1998 to provide rental rehab in the Kutzky Park neighborhood. There has not been any of those funds spent since that time, and none of those funds are committed for upcoming projects. If something comes up there, we can transfer funds from another activity which is not spending down its funds.). 9 Page 1 By taking these actions, we are providing the assistance to the HRA for 1813 acquisition and flood home maintenance, which should alleviate HRA Board concerns. We are also spending down our CDBG funds, which has been a big HUD concern as of late. Staff feels that we have adequate unspent funds allocated to other activities that can be transferred into an "active" activity if the need so arises. We are proposing to bring this to the Council as a public hearing at the June 18t' meeting. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 285-8082 or Theresa Fogarty at 285-8232. C; Steve Kvenvold Gary Neumann Theresa Fogarty Gary Lueders • Page 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 06-18-01 . DATE: .011 AGENDA SECTION, PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM ESTA RIDE ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC WORKS I e - SHMENT OF AGENCY E FOR PREPAREDE A KNAUER This is a public hearing to consider establishment of an "Agency Fare' on Zips Dial -A Ride. The City had requested $93,808 from Olmsted County for 2001 ZIPS operations. This was in addition to a fare increase implemented in February and local levy from the City of Rochester. The County recently indicated that they will provide $42,279 for 2001. This still leaves a funding shortfall of $51,530. Unfortunately there are not many other sources to make up this shortfall except an agency fare. Under the federal ADA rules ZIPS cannot charge more than twice the base fare charged on the regular route system. This maximum was reached in February with the implementation of a $2 fare. An exception to this rule is what is referred to as an "agency fare' for agencies that use ZIPS to transport their clients. We identified and met with two agencies (Ability Enterprises and PossAbilities) that would fall under an "Agency Fare'. Both agencies receive reimbursement for transportation of their clients based on a per diem. Four options were identified with agency fares ranging from $4.00 to $8.42 per ride or $8.00 to $16.84 per day. (A summary of the four options is attached.) The agencies currently receive a per diem ranging from $6.42 to $11.57. The agencies indicated support for option #2 that calls for an agency fare of $4.85 per ride or $9.70 per diem. The agencies will be submitting requests for an increase in their per diems to pay for the increased fare. Because of the mid Year implementation this still leaves a shortfall of $26 098.30 We have requested Olmsted County's approval of this additional amount. The agency fares will be adjusted in the future as needed via a hearing process. We have indicated to these agencies that the "agency fare" could increase to $5.55 in 2002 based on projected costs. The Transit Advisory has recommended approval of the "Agency Fare' at $4.85 per trip. Staff will be working with the agencies to establish monthly billing procedures. REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION Adopt prepared resolution approving establishment of an "agency fare' as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act in 49 CRF 37.131(c) 4 for ZIPS Dial -A -Ride at a rate of $4.85 per trip _ /J COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: W LL U Z w ¢ Z Q O LL N Z O H p O LL Q O aN > 0 J a z N ¢ m r O to o'! N rn 1 v- N M M v Ow r O O N r � � 1 r 0 W c F N L V CL w _ � 0 v) d w c c cis d z W w ai O LL.Q c V O O O Lr) O Oa0 cq O N N N Ch N r C7 M V• LO r tf} Q9 40 0flc; 00O N M cV ts r n M V+1401443� 4q).Vo O M (M N a0 r r tp !D N D) O O N t0 N LL .... O FiT EA U O r 0 N O r CD T � O h I— � W g H C 0 a N o v~i = o LL at r� a ro > •c IL `gym _ o d w N � O D Z W = o y �a ❑ w LLIW ¢ LL s° 61 O) O lt7 to O N W D7 :) O OD O CO 0 O> to N tC7t7^ r N N d co N V} fPr to ���v!). U). to O CL y N fl v a o m w a a= c w Q � c d 0 0) U m > N C CC O d CD C C Nt > 0 -p 'a ) NCIS cc 0 7 : Q U N a' 7 7 7— ¢ i..i N 14 3 — LL — u- a cL- = c LL c c Qo o t� oL Q Q Nm rov ¢ ¢yC N— OO r Q Q N c`a QN C% U N -p m LL .0 N to — CD a O U Co(0 o 0) a7 N O fC E E E a) E aa, oy E� �n O O L wQLuLU o�E Qcn O LL w Q aaU) ar5 N O Cl N C_ to M �Y to Y7 N LL 4& 4A N? O ca r2 O N t CD W t o a N n LL 0 CD > aLa o N m Z W N C O 0 ns ❑ W = W 0 < � C q t Q w U-a�m M O h lj N N ~ `O LL ca +A O Or N O r to .r a Q n LL. O N - 43 �- go w O LL LU w CL t >43 a N Lo m Z w WC ( 07 O = )tl O ❑ w � w C U. �O * 0 t y < m .. U 0 m w m m v d 'a 0(3) O) O LO O Ln O Ln co M co) m o m O r M N d' O O N v; N d; V d' M O r M o o m w w O I 01 N w I W N N CO N O Il O a_ [O N )A _ N N N ti a3 N O CM N r N to w r l� 69 M �V� N r O r CO o r L U ��� •- r m u sAl rPr � � 4& W f& 6» ss 6-1fn v3 u► N ate) v o a N o N a > O N 7 cr 0 N d _ a) O U O v a Q 'O C.)7 a) C d a Q a� a) o d d > C)7 r (mOf u a) a 01 > > d a) C m C y vs C > 0) d C N C ;O f4 L > Q' N N) C C C -_ Q U t6 7 LL 7— LL ca 7 LL cc m G^ cc y-CL C O T 0 m C .� S N N C C > > c 0)M m 4) �aN_ o =3 ca. QL QQN 0 0= QLLQL t m Q UC) En LL a m- UUN N LL W- lo-o o a) C 0) >+ ° O N N C N O J U) U m w N N 'O N O) O J C Ecc - O En a) - E = a 0 NON F- E -o�ao a OOLL�m E=❑ Q� Q W Q OOti WmQEN Q W QN REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING AI ! DATE: 6/18/01 n n9NDA SECTION: I ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Permit Parking Petition from Edison Neighborhood ITEM NO. 4;, -10 PREPARED BY: �, D. Rossmari This is a Public Hearing to establish Permit Parking on 8" Avenue SW / 500 block. The residents have petitioned the City to establish Permit Parking on their street, to control all day parking during weekdays The area is shown on the attached map. This petition is from within the Edison Neighborhood where Permit Parking has already been established on seven blocks. The petition has been reviewed as to meeting the requirements of R.C.O. 4138 and staff finds that all conditions are met. The petition is to add a street to an existing zone. The street requested is impacted heavily by all day parking Monday thru Friday from a source outside the neighborhood. There 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 % none COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to the Comprehensive Traffic & Parking Resolution Book: A) adding paragraphs (6) to Zone 46 (Edison Neighborhood) of section L "Residential Permit Parking to be effective from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday thru Friday" (6) 8`n Avenue SW / 500 block, on the west side of the street. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion Second V I 1 CD p II F CD I -4' j I 1 CD N N m J 0 N co J m G a Y m P co w --I w to C Y a N 2E a O P NW O N W � J � V q ± J 'a J Vp P G O q V B AVE SW s a � m m pm OP m N a O W e AVE SW a N w v m � uP J a a w $ � � m ]AWM j q q P y m U q� y 2 y N 2 fqJ P N q E G m m N N ay N a 'a W V CCD X CD 10 Y I rTl �-, c --Io 3 � Z ��\ a� • ^h �• rn Irt C CD Q T 000 00 S mho m 41 'D z LP s�� gcZ m a / REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING A07 DATE: 6/18/01 nacNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Works ITEM DESCRIPTION: Hearing: Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2 PREPARED BY: Sunnydale Subdivision, J9760 I JA411 . Loehr This is a Hearing to consider 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- 0 (21 If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted ordering the project to be made. Since ® the project was petitioned for by greater than 60% of the property owners affected by the project a ® simple majority vote of the City Council is required for adoption. ® VJ .J Attachment: Feasibility Report COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: i� Second by: LiQ4W 041 to: r' p el Chi i FRF VIEW RD E 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 M _ 2 _ DECEMK'it 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 _ DFci N[BER 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 $14,365 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. 3. 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. 4. 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— Dccr_rnsr•.R 7, 2000 Lane SE, plus 5 service connections, plus $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 $24,672.80 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. 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 Corner Lot Credit & Intersections $24,672.80 TOTAL $496.392.00 Submitted for your consideration: John H. Wellner, PE Richard W. Freese, PE Infrastructure Manager City Engineer �a3 - 5 - DECEMBLR 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 City's Urban Service Area in Sunnydale Subdivision and northeast of Sunnydale 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 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 The assessment rates are consistent with current City policy. Make Initial Disbursement from P. I. R. Fund REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING o14250� DATE: 6/18/01 I; AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Reports & Recommendations City Administrator F, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law related to Zoning District PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth Amendment #01-04 At the June 4, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council held a public hearing to consider the rezoning of the Burnham / Close properties. Upon review of the record, the City Attorney has prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law and order relating to said zoning district amendment. Attached for the Council's review are the findings of fact prepared by the City Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of City Attorney prepared Findings of fact and Conclusions of law dated June 13, 2001. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: The Council may adopt, modify or revise the findings of fact, conclusions of law and order as needed. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: M OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2001 TO: Stevan E. Kvenvold — City Administrator FROM: Terry L. Adkins — Rochester City Attorney SUBJECT: Findings of Fact for Rezoning of Burnham/Close Properties On June 4, 2001, the Council held a public hearing to consider the rezoning of the Burnham/Close properties formerly located in the Rochester Township. The hearing focused on the Planning Department's and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to rezone both properties to the R-1 zoning district. Following the hearing, the Council instructed the City Attorney to prepare draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order and to bring this document back to the Council for its review and consideration. As further instructed by the Council, I prepared the Findings document so as to adopt the Planning Department's and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to rezone both properties to the R-1 zoning district. I enclose that draft document for presentation to the Council. The Council may adopt, reject or modify the document as it pleases. Enclosure A7 BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA Findings of Fact, In Re: Zoning District Amendment #01-04 Conclusions of Law, and Order On June 4, 2001, the Common Council of the City of Rochester conducted a public hearing, with notice to the public, to hear its request to establish zoning districts for land recently annexed to the City of Rochester located at the southeast quadrant of Bamber Valley Road and Mayowood Road, and north of Merrihills Drive. The land in question is identified on the attached Exhibit A as the Burnham and Close properties. The City Planning Department recommended the change of the land's current H zoning district (Holding) classification to the R-1 zoning district ,Mixed Single Family). At the June 4, 2001, hearing, numerous neighbors and their legal counsel appeared and spoke in opposition to the R-1 zoning district. Instead, these neighbor requested the Site be zoned R-Sa. The City Planning Department testified in support of the R-1 zoning district. During the hearing, the Council received and considered the April 19, 2001, Planning and Zoning Department's staff report, the minutes of the April 25, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the May 31, 2001, letter from Attorney Ken Moen, the June 4, 2001, letter from Joe and Carol Burnham and the June 4, 2001, memorandum from Planning Director Phil Wheeler. Copies of these documents, identified as Exhibit B, are attached and incorporated herein. _ __ r. Following the public hearing, the Council considered and discussed the entire matter. Based upon that evidence which was presented at the June 4, 2001, hearing, the Council made the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City initiated action to establish zoning districts for land recently annexed to the City of Rochester located within Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 23 of the Rochester Township. 2. The June 4, 2001, public hearing addressed solely the land (comprised of approximately 5 acres) located at the southeast quadrant of Bamber Valley Road and Mayowood Road, and north of Merrihills Drive S.W. This land is identified on the attached Exhibit A as the Burnham and Close properties (hereinafter "Site"). 3. There are currently two single-family dwellings on the Site. 4. Property to the west is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and is the location of the Bamber Valley Elementary School. Property to the north is zoned R-1x and is the location of a townhome development. Property to the south is currently zoned H, but the Council has indicated its intent to zone the property as R-Sa. Property to the northwest is a residential development zoned R-1. 5. Rochester Code of Ordinances (RCO) §60.338 provides that the Council shall approve a petition to amend the zoning map or the text of the zoning ordinance if the amendment satisfies 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. 6. Rochester Code of Ordinances (RCO) §60.338 also provides that the Council shall approve a petition to amend the zoning map or the text of the zoning ordinance if the amendment satisfies 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 b) the proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. (Spot Zoning involves the classification 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.) 7. The Planning and Zoning Staff Report, dated April 19, 2001, suggested the following findings of fact: a) Through the Water Quality Protection Program, municipal services are being extended to portions of the area; to eliminate individual septic systems, drain fields and private water systems; protect water quality and the health, safety and welfare of the community. This area was recently annexed to the City of Rochester. r gp b) Permitted uses allowed within the proposed zoning districts will be appropriate on the subject property and compatible with adjacent properties. c) The proposed amendment does not involve spot zoning. 8. On April 25, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review the proposed rezoning request for the entire land area. The Commission adopted the Staffs suggested findings of fact. The Commission recommended that the City approve Zoning District Amendment #00-10. With respect to the Site, the Commission recommended the R-1 zoning district. 9. At the hearing, Attorney Moen stated (a) the Site has already been zoned by Olmsted County as Ra (rural residential) as part of a previous subdivision process; (b) the use of R-Sa zoning would continue that previous zoning action; (c) since Merrihills Drive would be significantly affected by any future development and since the R-Sa zoning district allows less intense development than the R-Sa zoning district, the R-Sa district would have less impact upon Merrihills Drive; and (d) the City's past practices do not give any property owner the absolute right to determine the scope or extent of development which might occur on the owners property. 10. Other neighbors appeared and testified in favor of the R-Sa zoning district. They testified that (a) the existing homeowners bought their lots in reliance upon the R-Sa zoning district (or its predecessor Ra zoning district); (b) any development in the R-1 zoning district will bring a considerable increase in traffic; (c) the R-1 zoning district will devaluate their property; (d) the R-1 zoning district will detract from the neighborhood; and (e) the use of the R-1 zoning a3t istrict would bring about more intense development, as compared to the R-Sa zoning district, which would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood. 11. Senior Planner Mitzi Baker indicated that the R-Sa zoning district is not the best district for the Site. She stated (a) Merrihills Drive would not be as significantly impacted by future development since development would be orientated not towards Merrihills Drive, but to the northwest. It would be difficult to orientate development to Merrihills Drive because of the topography of the area (changes in elevation); (b) any future development on the Site regardless of the zoning district would need to move the existing roadway access along Mayowood Road away from the intersection of Bamber Valley Road and Mayowood Drive; (c) both the R-Sa and the R-1 allow non-residential development. Applying the R-Sa zoning district to the Site, area accessory uses such as public emergency facilities, parks and recreational facilities, churches, chools, cemeteries or social service centers would be permitted uses and, as such, could be established without any public hearing. That would be true in the R-1 zoning district as well. All that is gained by use of the R-Sa zoning district on this Site, in terms of permitted uses, is a prohibition against offices and medical facilities. 12. The June 4, 2001, memorandum from Phil Wheeler indicates that the Site meets the locational criteria for neighborhood commercial uses since (a) it is located at the intersection of a collector and/or higher level streets; (b) it has relatively flat terrain; (c) it has good vehicular and pedestrian access; (d) it has a projected service area of at least 1,500 households with a radius of one-half to one mile; and (e) it has at least enough land to serve the fully developed neighborhood at the rate of 2.5 acres of land per 1,000 neighborhood households. 13. The Wheeler memorandum also indicated the Site is separated by elevation differences and by its orientation from the adjacent large lot development. Because it is suitable for neighborhood commercial uses, the Site is clearly suited for either R-1 or R-1x development. As such, the proposed R-1 zoning district is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. 14. The Wheeler memorandum indicated that changing the Site's zoning district to the R-1 district would be compatible with the adjacent large lot development. A compatible use does not mean an identical use. A "compatible" development does not mean development which has the same lot size, density, style of use, or use as abutting property. Instead, a compatible development means a development which avoids or mitigates reasonably anticipated harm to neighboring properties. 15. The Wheeler memorandum stated that, in the City of Rochester, different uses do abut one another. Residential development does abut commercial uses. Townhomes do abut single family dwellings. As such, the City recognizes that differing uses which abut one another do not cause a demonstrable harm to abutting properties. 16. The Wheeler memorandum concludes that the R-1 zoning district for the Site causes no demonstrable harm to abutting properties and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This matter is properly before the Common Council pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.355, subdivisions 2 and 3, and §462.356, subdivisions 2, 3, and 4. 2. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Common Council hereby determines that the Site satisfies the criteria for a zoning district a33 range pursuant to Rochester Code of Ordinances §60.338 from the H zoning district (Holding) to the R-1 zoning district (Mixed Single Family). The R-1 zoning district furthers the policies and goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan by providing for appropriate commercial development within a residential setting. The R-1 zoning district is also compatible with the existing residential development since there has been no demonstrable harm resulting from such a zoning district in past cases where residential development abuts commercial development. There is no record of any demonstrable harm to abutting properties as a result of the R-1 or the R-1 x zoning district. 3. By the greater weight of the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Common Council hereby determines that there is a rational basis related to the public's health, safety and welfare for a zone change for this Site from the H zoning district (Holding) to the R-1 zoning district (Mixed Single Family). The R-1 zoning district furthers the policies and goals of ie City's Comprehensive Plan by permitting appropriate commercial development within a residential setting. The R-1 zoning district is also compatible with the existing residential development since there has been no demonstrable harm resulting from such a zoning district in past cases where residential development abuts commercial development. There is no record of any demonstrable harm to abutting properties as a result of the R-1 or the R-1 x zoning district. a�j ORDER The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.355, subdivision 2, does hereby order that the Planning Department's and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to change the zoning district classification of the Site from the H zoning district (Holding) to the R-1 zoning district (Mixed Single Family) be in all things approved. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this day of June, 2001. John Hunziker, President City of Rochester Common Council V zone2oning.0104 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a3s DATE: 6/18/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. OLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE G ITEM DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ADKINS G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. a) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property in Sections 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 23 of the Rochester Township Recently Annexed to the City of Rochester from the H District to the R-Sa, R-1 and B-4 Districts, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. b) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property in Sections 15 and 16 of the Rochester Township Recently Annexed to the City of Rochester from the H District to the R-1 District, and Amending Ordinance No. 2785, Known as the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester, Minnesota. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). a) An Ordinance Rezoning Certain Property from the R-1 District to the M-1 District and from the R-1 District to the R-2 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 North Side of 48b' Street SW West of Highway 63 East of 11U' Avenue SW. r-Y-L'� b) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 11.79 Acres of Land Located in a Part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 107 North, Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located West of Century High School East of Deerhaven Development. G.4. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Moaon by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING g3� DATE: 6-18-01 er.FNDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. TABLED ITEM PLANNING , L _ ( ITEM DESCRIPTION: Zoning District Amendment #01-04 initiated by the Rochester PREPARED BY: Common Council to establish zoning districts for land recently annexed to Phil Wheeler, AICP the City of Rochester located South of Lamar Court between 15'h and 181h Planning Director Avenues SW. June 14,2001 Plunkett Property South of 28th Street SW between 151h and 18th Avenues SW —Tabled May 21, 2001 On May 21, 2001, the City Council held a public hearing to consider establishing zoning districts for land in Rochester Township that was annexed to the City in 2000. The City Council tabled a motion to approve R-Sa zoning for the property located south of Lamar Court SW, east of 181h Avenue SW, and north of Greystone Subdivision, and west of 15h' Avenue SW, owned by the Plunkett family. At the request of the Council, staff met with Rick Plunkett and Wade Dumond of Yaggy, Colby and Associates to discuss their zoning options. Council Member Marcia Marcoux also attended the meeting, as did Gene Peters, developer of Greystone and member of the Rochester Town Board, at the request of Mr. Plunkett. Staff also convened a separate meeting of Mr. Plunkett and Ken Moen, representing interested neighbors, also attended by Jim Carlson representing Mr. Plunkett and Marcia Marcoux, to discuss a proposed special district drafted by Mr. Moen. " cussion paragraphs on the attached pages discuss alternative approaches to establishing a zoning district for the Plunkett property. Recommendation The Council should withdraw or defeat the tabled motion approving R-Sa zoning, because at the required minimum lot size, development on municipal water and sewer does not appear to be feasible. As the attached memo indicates, if the Council is unwilling to proceed with R-1 zoning due to the size of the lots accommodated, special district zoning with an underlying R-1 zone appears to be the long term approach best suited to address the neighborhood issues while still accommodating a feasible development served by municipal water and sewer. In the short term, since the property owner will need more time to devise a feasible special district, the most appropriate zone is the Interim district. In order to avoid creating needless impediments to normal building improvements on the property, the Council should consider amending the Interim District to accommodate building changes similar to those accommodated in other districts through the nonconformities section of the ordinance cce P`T4 a^ Council Action Needed: 1. The Council should direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact reflecting the Council's 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. ^^ 1UNCIL ACTION: z� � ��,�, _l Motion By: Seconded By: Action: Page 2 �v RCA June 14, 2001 The options discussed in the meeting with Mr. Plunkett included items 3 through 6 of the list below. The se' option was developed by the neighborhood. Staff comments below address all of the seven options on the „_.. ZONING OPTIONS TO CONSIDER FOR THE PLUNKETT PROPERTY 1. R-1 2. RSa 3. A special district with an underlying R-1 designation 4. Interim zone 5. Agriculture zone 6. Mixtures of the above zones 7. A special district as proposed by neighbors (see below) 1. R-1 Zoning For the reasons spelled out in the original staff report, the staff considers the R-1 District to be the most appropriate district for the Plunkett property. R-1 zoning will provide the needed density and flexibility to make development on City water and sewer feasible. The contention that smaller lots abutting larger lots devalues the larger lots is unsubstantiated. There is no evidence that the Pine Ridge, Lenwood, or Waterford developments have had an adverse impact on abutting properties, even though their lots are significantly smaller than the lots in Merrihills and Bamberwood subdivisions. Under the provisions of the ordinance applying to properties abutting large lot development, the minimum lot size in the R-1 District would be 9,000 square feet. 2. R-Sa Zoning R-Sa zoning for the entire site would require a 2.01 acre minimum lot size on the Plunkett property. The fro ge and density requirements would likely result in an unfeasible cost for sewer and water service. For then ie reasons that the Council determined that it would be unfeasible to serve the existing lots in Merrihill nd Bamberwood, development on municipal water and sewer would be impractical. In addition to being a financial burden to the developer, such development would be a waste of City infrastructure. The alternative of development on individual well and septic systems would address the developer's financial burden but would not address the City's interests in compact, orderly development and affordable expansion of infrastructure. 3. Special District Establishing a special district with an underlying R-1 zoning could result in a feasible development meeting several of the neighbors' objections. Such a special district could entail the following: ❑ Setting minimum standards for lot frontage along 15'" Avenue SW (for comparison purposes, the R-Sa district would require a minimum frontage of 135 feet); and ❑ Establishing a maximum overall density for the entire property, or ❑ Setting a minimum lot size for the entire area. These standards should be devised so as to avoid detrimental impacts on neighboring properties, but should also be no more restrictive than necessary to avoid such impacts. It would not be necessary from the Council's perspective to develop a detailed general development plan to approve such a special district, but the property owner might need more detailed development planning in order to determine that the standards result in a feasible development consistent with the topographic and access constraints of the property. A separate hearing would be required to approve a special district spelling out detailed standards. 4. Interim Zoning At the applicant's request, the Council could consider Interim zoning for the property. The property meets the intent of the Interim zone because its development will entail more detailed planning than the applicant hoe v9t prepared. The only drawback of the Interim District is that it has the same limitation on modifications to stn s on the property that the Holding zone has, which are intended to prevent the creation or expansion of p06 „101ly incompatible uses pending approval of a final zoning district. Whether the applicant requests an Interim zone or not, the Council should consider a text amendment to the Interim District applying provisions similar to those in Chapter 65 (on nonconformities) as a means of preventing incompatible uses while still allowing minor modifications to existing uses. Page 3 A 3 RCA r June 14, 2001 Agricultural Zoning i oe property taken as a whole meets the use requirements of the Agricultural District, but because it is in several parcels does not meet the lot size requirements. Zoning the property Agricultural would allow the continuance and expansion of existing uses and would prevent the creation of new lots, since no new lot would be consistent with the Agricultural District's minimum lot size of 35 acres for residential uses. The district would have the effect of deferring decisions on development in the same manner as the Interim District. The property meets the intent of the Agricultural District, but the function of "notifying the public that the future zoning ... will be subject to change..." (Land Development Manual Section 60.329, page 45 of 8/1/2000 edition) is not met by the Agricultural District. In addition, since the existing parcels are smaller than the minimum lot size of the Agricultural District, zoning the property in the Agricultural District might be subject to challenge from abutting property owners. 6. Mixtures of Agricultural and Interim Zoning The group discussed options of zoning portions of the property in the Interim Distrcit and the balance of the property in the Agricultural District. Due to the fact that there would be less than 35 acres in the intended Agricultural District parts of the property, this approach does not appear to meet the intent of the Land Development Manual. 7. The Neighborhood's Special District Proposal The Bamberwoods neighborhood proposed setting three requirements by special district, as follows: a. "The already -subdivided property north of the two 20-acre parcels would remain as is, incapable of further subdivision." (This provision would not apply to the unplatted land along Lamar Court SW.) b. "... a band of property one lot deep along the northern and eastern boundaries of the 40-acre area (would be required to ] be developed as residential only, utilizing the lot size and frontage calculations in the R-Sa district as guidelines." (This provision has since been revised — see below.) c. "The balance of the property could be developed at a density no greater than that which exists in Greystone First Subdivision." Mr. Moen indicated that his intent is to restrict the lots abutting the existing platted lots along 151h Avenue and south of the existing platted lots along 281h Street SW to frontages and lot areas comparable to the median of abutting lots. He offered to develop a refined proposal with the neighbors for Plunkett's and the Council's consideration. At the time of this writing, I have not yet received this refined proposal. In general, however, his proposal would result in a minimum lot size of 1.94 acres along the north side and northeast corner of the 40- acre unplatted portion of the property, with a minimum frontage of 270 feet and a depth of 313 feet. Along the east side of the property, the minimum lot area would be 1.60 acres, with a minimum frontage of 266 feet and a depth of 268 feet. At those lot depths, 17 of the 47 acres would be used for nine or ten lots. If the remaining area were limited to a density of one lot per acre (comparable to Greystone First Subdivision), and assuming road right of way would use 20% of the area (a questionable assumption given the topography and access of the site), the total development would provide for roughly 33 lots. Conclusion I have been advised by the City Attorney that in the case of both Comprehensive Special Districts and Special Purpose Special Districts, "...someone who has a legal interest in the land which will be the subject of the SD must ask the Council (or Commission in the case of a comprehensive SD) to initiate the process." Given the reluctance of Mr. Plunkett to commit to a special district approach without a detailed investigation of the site - specific implications of such restrictions on the feasibility of development, the Council is not able to impose a special district on the property at this time. Special district zoning with an underlying R-1 zone appears to be the long term approach best suited to address the neighborhood issues while still accommodating a feasible development served by municipal water and sewer. However, in the short term, since the property owner will zed more time to devise a feasible special district, the most appropriate zone is the Interim district. In order to /old creating needless impediments to normal building improvements on the property, the Council should consider amending the Interim District to accommodate building changes similar to those accommodated in other districts through the nonconformities section of the ordinance. Distribution: 1. City Clerk 3. City Attorney 2. City Administrator 4. Planning Department File 92 0 N L d L d K W t1 L a N W W a 0 a LU W Y Z J a LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. " q( ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 WELLS FARGO PLAZA 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 Peter J. Coyle, Esq. TELEPHONE (952) 835-3800 DIR. DIAL (952) 896-3214 FAX (952) 895-3333 E-Mail: pwyle@Ihdl.wm June 1, 2001 Terry Adkins, City Attorney City of Rochester 201 4th Street SE, Suite 247 Rochester, Minnesota 55904 Re: Plunkett Family Property Opposition to Proposed R-Sa Zoning Dear Mr. Adkins: Our firm represents the Richard Plunkett family in connection with a City of Rochester zoning proposal relating to their property. The Plunketts own approximately 45.77 acres located between Bamberwood 1 st Addition and 18th Avenue SW, and Lot I of the LaMar Subdivision. The Plunketts have always had a good relationship with the City and hope that relationship continues. The Plunketts did not object to the City's recent annexation, despite overtures to join a lawsuit opposing it. The Plunketts look forward to a continuing cooperative relationship and ask only that the City apply its Ordinances and policies in a fair and consistent manner. For the reasons stated below, the Plunketts support the original recommendation of City staff to zone the Plunkett property R-1, Single Family Residential. Conversely, the Plunketts strongly oppose the proposal to zone their property R-Sa. The Plunketts Oppose R-Sa Zoning for Their Property The City's Land Use Plan Guides the Plunkett Property for Low Density Residential Use. The R-Sa designation would require that the Plunketts develop their land at a minimum density of greater than 2 acres, based on the City's density formula. Such a minimum is 2.3 times the minimum required in the adjacent Greystone development. Expanding the individual lot size to more than twice what the City prescribed for adjacent property will make development of the Plunkett property virtually impossible in order to satisfy a vocal group of neighbors. In fact, as I understand it, Council members favoring the R-Sa zoning proposal do not expect development under the strictures of R-Sa, but rather presume that the Plunketts would offer a plan for smaller Greystone-style lots. The City would then entertain rezoning to R-1 contingent upon such a plan. Yet, since rezoning by a future Council is not assured, especially in the face of neighborhood opposition such as we have already seen, classification of the Plunkett property as R-Sa makes any reasonable development entirely dependent upon a future Council decision. The Plunketts do not have the benefit of the Zoning Ordinance establishing a realistic use for their property. Instead, the property is put into a defacto "holding zone" with any use contingent upon a future Council A`Q-0, LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Terry Adkins, City Attorney June 1, 2001 Page 2 rezoning the property. Since the Plunketts have no right to such a rezoning, the disingenuous classification of R-Sa may, ultimately, constitute a taking. It is also worth noting that the projected 2-acre minimum lot size on the Plunkett property required by R-Sa zoning is also greater than any Bamberwood lot adjacent to the Plunkett property. The comprehensive planning process is intended to guide future land use decisions. By adopting an updated Land Use Plan for Rochester's Urban Service Area, the City established its land use policies for newly -annexed properties, including the Plunkett property. The Minnesota Land Planning Act strongly encourages that local zoning conform to the approved Comprehensive Plan. Minn. Star. 462.355. Zoning must carry out the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 2. The City's Land Use Plan favors City services in the area encompassing the Plunkett property. Yet, the R-Sa designation will require septic systems, since sewer and water on two -acre lots is not economically realistic. By zoning the Plunkett property R-Sa, the City would be contravening its stated intention to maximize City services in the designated Urban Service Area. 2. The Plain Language of the City Zoning Ordinance Does Not Support the Proposed Zoning District Designation. The Plunketts' property is undeveloped, as it has been since its purchase in 1962. The Plunkett family home and agricultural buildings serve the property. The land had been zoned Agricultural by the County until the recent annexation by the City. The Plunketts have no present plans to change the current use of their property. Nonetheless, they want to ensure that a reasonable development option is available to them, based on development trends in the City. The City Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the R-Sa Zoning District is: 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. [emphasis added] The Land Use Plan establishes the meaning of the term "undeveloped" and "developed" when it labels 3,000 of the 4,500 Willow Creek acres "undeveloped." Agricultural land with farm houses and out -buildings are generally not considered developed by the Land Use Plan (or there would be little if any "undeveloped land" in the farm -rich Willow Creek District). So, the City cannot now consider the Plunkett property developed, or even partially developed. Since the Land Use Plan defines the Plunkett property as undeveloped, the City cannot use the R-Sa zone because the express terms of the Ordinance require its application only to developed land. The City admits that the intent was to apply only to developed land. Zoning undeveloped land as R- Sa violates the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. tq 1 .J Terry Adkins, City Attorney June 1, 2001 Page 3 Courts require that the language of a Zoning Ordinance be strictly construed. Frank's Nursery Sales Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W. 2d 604, 608-09 (Minn. 1980). Any doubts regarding the correct interpretation of the ordinance must be resolved in favor of the property owner and against the local government. Frank's Nursery Sales Inc., 295 N.W. 2d at 609 (Minn. 1980). Based on a plain reading of the Ordinance language, R-Sa zoning is not appropriate for the Plunkett property. 3. The City Would be Imposing a Significant Financial Hardship on the Plunkett Property The City's Land Use Plan requires that newly annexed properties be connected to City services when they are developed. The Plunketts support this policy. However, this requirement is undercut by the proposed R-Sa zoning of the Plunketts' property. The Plunketts would face a significant financial burden when extending urban services to their property based on 2-acre lot minimums being advocated by others. It is possible that this significant financial burden, resulting from the application of conflicting City policies, may constitute a regulatory taking. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992); Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). The Plunketts Favor Low Density Zoning for Their Property The City's Land Use Plan Favors R-1 Zoning. The City's Land Use Plan guides the Plunkett property for Low Density Residential use, which is consistent with the R-1 zoning designation under the City Zoning ordinance. Minnesota law strongly encourages conformity between the approved Land Use Plan and local zoning, and requires zoning to implement the Land Use Plan. Neighborhood opposition does not provide a rational basis for rejecting R-1 zoning of the Plunkett property in light of the Land Use Plan designation. Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W. 2d 721, 727 (Minn. App. 1988); Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W. 2d 349, 356 (Minn. App. 1997). The City's Land Use Plan Requires R-1 zoning as part of the Annexation Process. The City's Land Use Plan establishes a policy regarding the zoning of newly -annexed properties, such as the Plunkett property. Under this policy, the guided land use and zoning in the Land Use Plan should be adopted as the end result of the annexation process. The City does not have a rational basis for deviating from its Land Use Plan, which was adopted specifically to avoid the situation in which large -lot landowners resist the annexation process and related efforts to extend urban services to homes on private well and septic. r WLARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Terry Adkins, City Attorney June 1, 2001 Page 4 For the reasons stated above, the Plunketts respectfully request that the City Council adhere to the approved Land Use Plan and recommendation of City staff and adopt R-1 zoning for the Plunkett property. Peter J. Coyle, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator Philip Wheeler, Planning Director Rick Plunkett ::0DMA\PCD0CS\L1a 1\678801 \1 ass , TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE; ZONING PLUNKETT PROPERTY THIS LETTER IS TO INDICATE THAT I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO AN "INTERIM" ZONING STATUS FOR THE PLUNKETT PROPERTY. I LIVE AT 2505 LENOX CT. S W WHICH IS SOUTH OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY'S SOUTH BOUNDARY, I ASSUME THAT WHEN AND IF THIS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, I WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THAT T11VH TO COMMENT ON THE SIZE AND LAYOUT OF THE LOTS. OBVIOUSLY ALL THE PRESENT HOMES IN THIS AREA ARE MUCH LARGER THAN THE R-1 MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND FUTURE LOTS SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING LOTS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY 2 ACRES. RICHARD AND RICK PLUNKETT HAVE ASSURED ME THAT IF ANY DEVELOPMENT WERE TO TAKE PLACE, IT WOULD BE SIMILAR IN LOT SIZE TO THE ADJACENT GRBYSTONB ADDITION. I BELIEVE THE SMALLEST OF THESE LOTS IS APPROXIMATELY ONE ACRE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION ON THIS MATTER ' S Y' :AT :� e r r CC., MARCIA MARCOUX STEVE KVENOLD JOHN HUNZIKER RICHARD PLUNKETT P r MARCIA MARCOUX 1743 8'H ST S W ROCHESTER MN 55902 CC: ,v/EVAN E KVENVOLD CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY HALL 201 4"H ST SE ROCHESTER MN 55904 JOHN HUNZIKER CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT 2828 MAYOWOOD COMMON ST SW ROCHESTER MN 55902 We live across the street from the Plunkett property and support their request to have their property left as 3,�designated ja.4 Zoned Interim. 5�4 rt/ .f� p !� / /p f'y -Aesc,f'�s jay �v� 1�,�, S /s.► / / yv- INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1) Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes from Meetings of 03119101, 03126101, 04123101, 05107101, 05114101, 05121101 and 06111101 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL MARCH 19, 2001 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-5) 1) Review of Proposed Improvements to West Center Street Parking Ramp (attachment) 2) A closed meeting with the City Attorney to discuss the status of the pending legal action entitled West Circle Properties v. Olmsted County and City of Rochester 1 G C0 Oi FE MCIF ROOM M-1 C17 *L 1:15 �>m COMMITT61✓ OF 7FtC- WI-tOLE ROOM 104, CITY FtALL APRI L- 23, 2001 4:15 P.M. PAGE (1-40) 1) Proposed WlttoOAL Else Protecttov%. AssoctOtLOVL Reciul.revin.ev,ts (attachvMvvt) �.i Cam-- COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL MAY 71 2001 4:15 P.M. 1) Councilmember McConnell Requests Consideration of the City Operation of a Cable TV System (attachment) m COMM177TZ OF TI+Z W4fOLZ Roots to*, 6fTJ J+ALL MA-� r¢, zoor 1) Rpu's propvse� 4foyne Rule G6ictrter ilynenc�tnents Cattacktnent) rl+, 4 } .� .. . _ ._r.e:z'�'tn _a awes. r =. ,... .x•,s ..� ,_ ...._, ,� n -ry�sw.�^ :n v � ,$ ". y PAGE (] -26) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ROOM 104, CITY HALL MAY 21, 2001 4:15 P.M. 1) Presentation of 211 Century Partnership Diversity Plan (27-56) 2) Use of Storage Containers -t,[.ltiGli D�-lac-cc--p �7 � 'iClyrsi`Tr^ P ♦.r l <jr rµ� ��� �.i^.,'�A�!^V'. sa. w. rr+iaa. s.�. h� COMMIllUs OF IME WHOLE ROOM too, CIIV MALL ,JUKE 11, 2001 4:15 r.M. FAGS (1-12) 1) Consideration of Proposed Nortfjwest Territory Community Flan (attarbment) ?ERSONNEL ADVISORY COMM111F.F. C1YY ADMIN. CONFERENCE ROOM WEDNESDAY,JUNE a 2ooi 12:oo NOON ,04 Rochester Bank AIN OFFICE C. Box 6478 331 16th Ave. N.W. Rochester, MN 55903-6478 (507) 288-0224 • Fax (507) 288-5816 RICHARD H. PLUNKETT PRESIDENT E 0 6-14-01 Mayor Chuck Canfield and the Rochester Common Council City Hall 20140 Street SE Rochester MN 55904 Re: Zoning Plunkett Property Dear Mayor and Council Members: HAMMOND BRANCH RR 2 Box 450 Hammond, MN 55991-9611 (507) 753-2431 • Fax (507) 753-2136 At the Council meeting of May 21, 2001 the Plunkett family asked that our newly annexed land south of 28' Street and west of Bamberwood be zoned Rl. During the last several weeks we have had the opportunity to reconsider our position. While we note that the common procedure for newly annexed property is to be zoned RI, and that the neighboring Greystone property enjoys an RI zoning, we also recognize the legitimate concerns of the Bamberwood neighbors for continued appropriate development in the area. Accordingly, in the spirit of neighborly cooperation and compromise, we withdraw our request for an RI zoning and agree to an Interim Zoning designation. We continue to oppose an R-Sa designation because it renders any future development infeasible. We also believe R-Sa cannot, by the terms and the intent of the ordinance, be applied to undeveloped land. Accordingly, we believe an R-Sa designation is illegal. While we are prepared to live with the consequences of the Interim zoning, namely the restrictions on issuing building permits, we would appreciate anything the Council could do to provide flexibility in this area. Thank you. cc Steven Kvenvold Phil Wheeler Very truly yours, Richard IL Plunkett