HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/2001_Regularr -1
CITY OF ROCHESTER
COUNCIL AGENDA
COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS
GOVERNMENT CENTER
151 4T" STREET SE
MEETING NO. 17
REGULAR ADJOURNED
PAGE
(1-2) A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
B) CALL TO ORDER
C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS
AUGUST 20, 2001
7:00 P.M.
(3-4) 1) Devin Moore Requests to be Heard RE: Skate Park
(5-6) D) CONSENT AGENDAIORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS
1)
Approval of Minutes
(7-8)
2)
Request to Create an Additional Plan Checker Position
(9-14)
3)
Approving Capitalization Policy Amendment
— (15-16)
4)
Council Authorization to Proceed with TIF Project in Phase 2 of Rose
Harbor Estates
(17-18)
5)
2"d Street SW Skyway Repaint Bid
(19-20)
6)
Bid Award for New Passenger Loading Bridge
(21-22)
7)
Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
(23-24)
8)
Approval of Accounts Payable
(25-26)
9)
Donation from Firefighters for Christ
(27-28)
10)
Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department
(29-30)
11)
Community Band Director Contract
(31-32)
12)
National Recreational Trail Program Grant
(33-36)
13)
Request to Create an Additional Sergeant Position in the Police Dept.
(37-38)
14)
Request for RPD ERU to Use MnDOT Property for Training Purposes
(3940)
15)
Acceptance of Maintenance Agreement for TEAC Recording System
(41-42)
16)
Transportation Revolving Loan Fund Application
(43-44)
17)
Professional Services Agreement for TH 63 South Design
(45-46)
18)
Professional Engineering Services/Design of 3`d Avenue SE from 4d'
Street SE to 12t' Street SE
(47-48)
19)
Development Agreement/Home Federal Savings Bank
(49-50)
20)
Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive
Plaza/Jack Prow Property
Council Agenda
August 20, 2001
Page 2
(51-52) 21) Owner Contract/Watermain to Serve the People of Hope
Church/Phase 1
(53-54) 22) Stormwater Management Agreement
(55-56) 23) Proposal for Design Engineering Services/Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain Extension to Serve the Graham Property
(57-60) 24) Preliminary Analysis and Design Services/Sanitary Sewer and
Watermain Extension to Serve Southtown Heights
(61-62) 25) Passenger Loading Zone at St. Pius X School
(63-64) 26) H/C Parking for Rochester Towers Condominium
E) HEARINGS
(65-72) 1) Annexation Petition by Jim and Frances McGovern to Annex Approx.
2 Acres Located on NW Comer of Intersection of 37t' Street (CSAH
22) and 16t' Avenue NE
(73-78) 2) Final Plat by Floyd Larson Construction to be Known as Radichel
Second Replat
(79-86) 3) Final Plat to be Known as Cedar Creek Townhomes CIC 183
(87-96) 4) Final Plat by Leslie A. Lurken to be Known as North Park 11'' Sub.
(97-118) 5) Type 111, Phase III, Restrictive Development and Incentive
Development Final Plan by Home Federal Savings Bank/Proposing a
10,000 Square Foot Office and Commercial Banking Building
F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(119-120) 1) Approval of De Minimis Settlement Agreement with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in the PCB Treatment, Inc., Case
(121-122) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
H) TABLED ITEMS
OTHER BUSINESS
J) ADJOURNMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING I
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A
t i cm 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.
%,VJNCILACTION: Motion by: seoondby: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
3 '
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
LETTERS AND PETITIONS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
ITEM NO.
G
„rid DESCRIPTION:
DEVIN MOORE REQUESTS TO BE HEARD RE: SKATE PARK
PREPARED B ::
S. KVENVOLD
Devin Moore has requested an opportunity to speak to the City Council about a proposal to
establish a skate park.
T y, 40 n.r.:.` 3h 1,�,. %�+7, 6�.6✓u� u. mac.
4A
44
%,wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
MEETING
DATE: 8/20/01
ITEM NO.
D-1-26
PREPARED BY:
G.NEUMANN
This RCA lists all the items which have been included in the consent agenda for this meeting. The Council can
approve all of the items with a single motion to approve. The Council President will allow the Councilmembers
an opportunity to state whether there are any of these items which you wish to have removed from the consent
agenda approval and to have them discussed and acted upon separately by the Council.
The consent agenda for this meeting consists of the following RCAs:
D-1. Approval of Minutes
D-2. Request to Create an Additional Plan Checker Position
D-3. Approving Capitalization Policy Amendment
D-4. Council Authorization to Proceed with TIF Project in Phase 2 of Rose Harbor Estates
D-5. 2"d Street SW Skyway Repaint Bid
D-6. Bid Award for New Passenger Loading Bridge
D-7. Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities
D-8: Approval of Accounts Payable
D-9. Donation from Firefighters for Christ
D-10. Appointments/Police Officer/Police Department
D-11. Community Band Director Contract
D-12. National Recreational Trail Program Grant ( A*,04-v)
D-13. Request to Create an Additional Sergeant Position in the Police Dept.
D-14. Request for RPD ERU to Use MnDOT Property for Training Purposes
D-15. Acceptance of Maintenance Agreement for TEAC Recording System
D-16. Transportation Revolving Loan Fund Application
D-17. Professional Services Agreement for TH 63 South Design
+D-18. Professional Engineering Services/Design of 3 d Avenue SE from 4d' Street SE to 12`h Street SE
D-19. Development Agreement/Home Federal Savings Bank
D-20. Owner Contract/Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive Plaza/Jack Prow Property
D-21. Owner Contract/Watermain to Serve the People of Hope Church/Phase I
D-22. Stormwater Management Agreement
D-23. Proposal for Design Engineering Services/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the
Graham Property
D-24. Preliminary Analysis and Design Services/Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve Southtown
Heights
D-25. Passenger Loading Zone at St. Pius X School
D-26. H/C Parking for Rochester Towers Condominium
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve consent agenda items.
. %JUNCIL ACTION: Moron
Second
-'?— a
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING J
DATE: 8/20/ 01�
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATORc,r1
DESCRIPTION: REQUEST TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL PLAN CHECKER
ABY�:
PREPAPOSITION
S. KVE
The Committee of the Whole, at their 8/13/01 meeting, recommended approval of the attached request to create
an additional plan checker position in the Building Safety Department.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Request a motion creating an additional Plan Review Technician position in the Building Safety Department as
requested.
. wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
Memo
To: Mayor and City Council
(
From: Stevan E. Kvenvold(/ ` t
Date: August 10, 2001
Subject: Request to Create an Additional Plan Checker Position
The attached memos from Ron Boose and Randy Johnson review the current timeframes
involved in the plan checking process and request the creation of an additional plan checker
position to help reduce the time involved in getting a building permit.
Ron and I have discussed the need to reduce the plan check timeframe for some time and it
appears that the only feasible option available is to hire an additional plan checker.
Currently, it takes up to two and one-half months to get a commercial building plan check
completed. This timeframe is completely unacceptable and the complaints about the length
of time involved are increasing.
The building permit revenues are more than sufficient to cover the expenses involved with
this position. The building permit fees for 2001, to date, are $1,427,830. The total revenues
and expenses budgeted for 20oi are $1,718,500. I do not have any doubts that actual 2001
building permit revenues will significantly exceed the budget figure.
I am requesting your authorization to begin the process of advertising for an additional plan
checker position. The salary range for the Plan Review Technician position is $46,005 to
$69,008.
I will seek your approval to proceed as requested at the 8/13/01 C.O.W. meeting and, if you
give the approval to proceed, I will request formal authorization to create the additional
position at the 8/2o/oi Council meeting.
c: G. Neumann
R. Boose
L. Gilsrud
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 8/20/2001
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda/Organizational Business
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Administration
ITEM NO.
D - 3
i i mwl DESCRIPTION: Approving Capitalization Policy Amendment
PREPARED BY:
Stevan Kvenvold
The finance department has requested approval to increase the City's capitalization threshold from
$1,000 to $5,000 per item purchased. This would cause all purchases under $5,000 in cost to be
expensed in the year purchased as opposed to being tracked as a fixed assets and depreciated over their
useful lives.
The attached memo from the finance director points out that the new governmental accounting standards
(GAS13 34) will require them to track and depreciate aft contributed infrastructure (owner contract
subdivisions streets, underground, etc.) as fixed asset items beginning in 2002, adding significantly to
the workload of the finance department staff. Increasing the capitalization threshold to $5,000 will allow
them to eliminate a significant number of items being tracked with very little decrease in total dollar
value. The memo shows that approximately 60% of the number of items can be eliminated with a little
over a 1% decrease in total valuation. The memo fiirther points out that the Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA) has recently amended their "recommended practices" to state that the
$5,000 threshold should be the minimum level for any government entity.
I support this request and feel they will provide alternative solutions for our departments to inventory
and track their assets. This amendment will free up some resources in the finance staff to address the
new demands of GASB 34.
Recommended Action:
Approve a resolution amending the City's capitalization policy on fixed assets by increasing the
minimum threshold from $1,000 to $5,000.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by Second by: to:
S,7 ,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 8, 2001
TO: Stevan Kvenvold, City Administrator
FROM: Dale Martinson, Director of Finance/k
SUBJECT: Capitalization Policy Amendment - $5,000 Threshold
We are requesting approval to increase our capitalization threshold from $1,000 to
$5,000 per item beginning in 2002. If approved, items that cost less than this $5,000
threshold would not be maintained as fixed assets, nor would we depreciate these items
even if they had useful lives exceeding two years. Rather, they would be expensed in
the current year. Departments that wanted to continue to track these items from a
control standpoint would be given options including property tags and inventory tracking
systems, but we would not audit or control them from an accounting standpoint.
Why the request?
1. Statement Number 34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB 34)
will place significant additional demands on our staff, especially in the area of fixed
asset accounting. All general fixed assets will now need to be depreciated like our
enterprise assets have been plus we will be adding massive amounts of new fixed
asset records to account for all infrastructure systems. The most significant addition
will be all of the "contributed capital" infrastructure in the form of roads, bridges and
underground that has been constructed by private parties, but later turned over to
the City either through annexations or through new subdivisions being constructed.
This will add significantly to the number of records to maintain and provide some sort
of audit control over. Without a significant increase in staff, we simply cannot do the
job without some amendments to policy.
The Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) recently amended its
recommended practices on capitalization (attached) to state, in part, "In no case
should a government establish a capitalization threshold of less than $5,000 for any
individual item." I believe this amendment was in consideration of what they knew
every government would soon be facing with GASB 34.
3. The "80/20 Rule" states something to the affect that eighty percent of one's time and
effort is spent on twenty percent of an issue. This clearly shows up when looking at
fixed asset maintenance efforts. The table on the next page reflects the number of
items to maintain and the actual dollar value of those assets when comparing the
current $1,000 vs. the proposed $5,000 threshold on our current fixed asset listing:
City of Rochester Fixed Asset Listing
Number of Items and Dollar Value
$1,000 Threshold vs. $5,000
$1,000
Threshold
Current
$5,000
Threshold
(Proposed)
Amount
Chan a
Percent
Chan e
General Fixed Assets:
Items to Maintain
2,362
458
(1,904)
-80.6%
Cost Valuation
$ 23,800,000
$ 19,900,000
$ (3,900,000)
-16.4%,
Enterprise Assets:
Items to Maintain
1,938
465
(1,473)
-76.0%
Cost Valuation
117,962,537
116,954,706
$ (1,007,831)
-0.9%
Land and Buildings:
Items to Maintain
3,470
2,269
(1,201)
-34.6%
Cost Valuation
387,266,785
385,523,462
$ 1,743,323
-0.5%
Combined Totals:
Items to Maintain
7,770
3,192
(4,578)
-58.9%
Cost Valuation
529,029,322
522,378,168
$(6,651,154)
-1.3%
The impact obviously varies by type of assets with there being far fewer items in the
land and buildings category, for example, that are less than $5,0.00 in value.
Nonetheless, looking at the combined totals, we could reduce the number of items to
maintain by 4,578, or nearly 60% for only a 1.3% reduction in the valuation of assets
maintained.
When would it take effect?
If approved, we would treat all budget requests for 2002 under this policy and would
account for them during 2002 in this manner. Year-end 2002 statements would reflect
the reduction in the asset listing but would not be noticed as we add in all the
contributed infrastructure in 2002 under the GASB 34 requirements.
Requested Action:
If this meets with your approval, I request that we take this to the council for formal
adoption by our governing board. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions about this proposal.
Attachment: GFOA Recommended Practice as it relates to capitalization of fixed assets.
IOL GFOA Capital Assets Recommended Practices - Updated 2001
• Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Tangible Capital Assets
(1997, updated 2001)
Background. The term "capital assets" is used to describe assets that are used
in operations and that have initial lives extending beyond a single reporting
period. Capital assets may be either intangible (e.g., easements, water rights) or
tangible (e.g., land, buildings, building improvements, vehicles, machinery,
equipment and infrastructure). It is incumbent upon public -sector managers to
maintain adequate control over all of a government's resources, including capital
assets, to minimize the risk of loss or misuse.
Not all tangible capital -type items with useful lives extending beyond a single
reporting period are required to be reported in a government's statement of
position. Items with extremely short useful lives (e.g., less than 2 years) or of
small monetary value are properly reported as an "expense" or "expenditure" in
the period in which they are acquired.
When outlays for tangible capital -type items are, in fact, reported on the
statement of position, they are said to be capitalized. The monetary criterion
used to determine whether a given capital asset should be reported on the
balance sheet is known as the "capitalization threshold." A government may
establish a single capitalization threshold for all of its tangible capital assets, or it
may establish different capitalization thresholds for different classes of tangible
capital assets.
Capitalization is, of its nature, primarily a financial reporting issue. That is, a
government's principal concern in establishing specific capitalization thresholds
ought to be the anticipated information needs of the users of the government's
external financial reports. While it is essential to maintain control over all of a
government's tangible capital -type items, there exist much more efficient means
than capitalization for accomplishing this objective in the case of a government's
smaller tangible capital -type items. Furthermore, practice has demonstrated that
capital asset management systems that attempt to incorporate data on numerous
smaller tangible capital type items are often costly and difficult to maintain and 1.3
operate.
Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
recommends that state and local governments consider the following guidelines
in establishing capitalization thresholds for their tangible capital -type items:
1. Tangible capital -type items should only be capitalized only if they have an
estimated useful life of at least two years following the date of acquisition.
2. Capitalization thresholds are best applied to individual items rather than
to groups of similar items (e.g., desks and tables).
3. Infrastructure assets should be treated separately from other capital
assets for purposes of establishing capitalization thresholds. As a general rule,
capitalization thresholds for non -infrastructure items should be designed to
encompass approximately 80 percent of a government's total non -infrastructure
tangible capital -type items.
4. In no case should a government establish a capitalization threshold of
less than $5,000 for any individual item.
5. In establishing capitalization thresholds, governments that are recipients
of federal awards should be aware of federal requirements that prevent the use
of capitalization thresholds in excess of certain specified maximum amounts (i.e.,
currently $5,000) for purposes of federal reimbursement.
6. Governments should exercise control over their noncapitalized tangible
capital -type items by establishing and maintaining adequate control procedures
at the departmental level.
Reference
• Government Fixed Asset Inventory Systems: Establishing, Maintaining and Accounting,
Paul Glick, GFOA, 1987.
1i
• The Need for Periodic Inventories of Tangible Capital Assets (1997 updated
2001)
Background. The term " capital assets" is used to describe assets that are used
in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single reporting
period. Tangible capital assets include land, buildings, building improvements,
vehicles, machinery, equipment, and infrastructure. It is essential that
governments establish and maintain appropriate inventory systems for their
tangible capital assets. Such systems are needed to protect tangible capital
assets from the danger of loss or misuse.
Many governments have installed "perpetual" inventory systems to maintain
effective control over their tangible capital assets. Perpetual inventory systems
i
are constantly updated to reflect additions and deletions of tangible capital
assets, thus providing managers with direct access throughout the year to
reliable information on current balances in tangible capital asset accounts.
One advantage of establishing and maintaining a sound perpetual inventory
system for tangible capital assets is that such a system can relieve a government
of the burden of performing an annual inventory of its tangible capital assets.
Instead, managers and auditors can use tests of randomly selected items to
verify that the inventory system for tangible capital assets is continuing to
function properly as designed.
Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
recommends that every state and local government perform a physical inventory
of its tangible capital assets, either simultaneously or on a rotating basis, so that
all of a government's tangible capital assets are physically accounted for at least
once every five years. While well -designed and properly maintained perpetual
inventory systems can eliminate the need for an annual inventory of a
government's tangible capital assets, no inventory system is so reliable as to
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING '1-2 /
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
City Administrator
ITEM NO.
¢ 4
ITEM DESCRIPTION Council authorization to proceed with TIF project in Phase 2 of Rose
PREPARED BY:
Harbor Estates
T. Spaeth
Recently, DeWitz Construction requested that the City provide TIF assistance upon 100 lots in the 2nd phase of the
Rose Harbor Estates Subdivision area. At this time, the TIF request has been revised to request TIF assistance upon 21
lots in the 2nd phase (see attached letter).
As you may recall from the staffs memo to the Council dated 7/10/2001 (attached), the City had previously agreed to
provide TIF assistance in the amount of $12,000 / lot, upon 64 lots in the I" phase of the Rose Harbor Estates
development. Subsequently, the First Homes program evolved and DeWitz construction was granted approval for First
Homes funding upon 47 of the above mentioned 64 lots. By the time, this occurred, the first phase of Rose Harbor
Estates was nearly built out, and DeWitz Construction was only able to utilize the First Homes assistance on 19 of those
lots, and therefore have First Homes funding available for an additional 28 lots at this time.
At that time the staff recommended that the City agree to provide TIF assistance of up to $10,000 / lot in up front
assistance at the time of the home sale closing (same as other First Homes TIF Development Agreements) on the
additional 28 lots that are still eligible for First Homes assistance. Since the developer is only requesting TIF assistance
upon 21 lots at this time, the staff would recommend proceeding with the decertification of 17 lots in Rose Harbor
Estates (Phase 1) and proceeding with providing TIF assistance on 21 lots in Rose Harbor Estates (Phase2).
: establishment of a TIF District will require a public hearing before the Council. In order to meet notice
requirements, etc.., the public hearing should be scheduled for the October 1, 2001 Council meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve proceeding with the establishment of a TIF District on Phase2 of Rose Harbor Estates to provide TIF
assistance upon 21 lots for single family home development and calling for a public hearing to be scheduled for the
October 1, 2001 Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Copy of letter by DeWitz Construction dated August 7, 2001
2. Copy of memo to Council dated July 10, 2001
7t� - 3 A'
V
Yi�ii
I
HOME BUILDERS
August 7, 2001
Terry Spaeth
City Administration
201 4`h Street SE
Rochester, N4N 55904
Dear Terry,
I am writing you to request TIF assistance on 21 more lots which are approved for
First Homes. As you know we received approval from First Homes for 47 lots last year
in Rose Harbor Estates Subdivisions. We only used 19 of these in our first Rose Harbor
Estates. This leaves an additional 28 to be used in our upcoming subdivisions. At this
time, I have limited my request to 21 lots. I feel that by requesting a limited number of
lots with each request we can be fairly confident we will not need to decertify TIF lots in
the future. Here is the list of the 21 lots I currently need.
Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Rose Harbor Estates Second.
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Rose Harbor Estates Second
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 3, Rose Harbor Estates Second.
Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, Block 3, Rose Harbor Estates Third.
If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Thank you.
Sincerely,
-ick"
Joan DeWitz
604 - 11th Ave. N.W. • Suite 100 • Rochester, Minnesota 55901 • 507/282-4624
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING I
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
'D
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2' STREET SW SKYWAY REPAINT BID
PREPARED BY:
D. KNOTT
Bids were opened on August 14, 2001 for the repainting of the 2nd Street SW skyway bridge. The following
bids were received:
Bidder: Swanson & Youngdale Inc. $ 71,500
Bidder: TMI Coatings Inc. $169,000
The staff estimate for the project was $65,000. The City will pay 50% of the cost of the project with Mayo
and BGD5 splitting the remaining 50%. The City share will be paid from funds remaining in the downtown
development district.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Award a contract in the amount of $71,500 to Swanson & Youngdale Inc. for the repainting of the 2nd Street
SW skyway bridge and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign any necessary documents.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Bid award for new passenger loading
Rochester International Airport
The Rochester Airport Commission recommends and requests Council authorization to:
MEETING 9 /
DATE: 8/20/01
ITEM NO.
PREPARED BY:
Steven W. Legve
Accept the bid from DEW Engineering and Development Limited for a new passenger loading bridge to serve
regional aircraft at the Rochester International Airport. This bridge will be installed in the new passenger gate
area currently under construction. This project is in the CIP (J6970).
(Both known manufacturers of this type of bridge attended a pre -bid meeting but only DEW Engineering ended
up submitting a bid.)
Bid: DEW Engineering and Development Limited $261,392.00
Funding: 90% Federal
10% Local
Bid quotations attached.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any grants or other documents related to this project to
include the contract with DEW Engineering and Development Limited.
%,JUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING v-1
UA I t:
CONSENT AGENDA
CITY CLERK
i civl DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES
D-
DONNA JSCHOTT
The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or
disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding
debts with the City of Rochester.
GAMBLING — TEMPORARY
National REGAP Network, Inc.
1235 West Center St.
Rochester. Mn. 55902
Raffle 11/10/01 AT
Collins Feed & Seed
411 2"d Ave NW
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Church of the Resurrection
1600 11's Ave SE
Rochester, Mn. 55901
Raffle 11/3/01 at Church
SOUND AMPLIFICATION
United States Amateur Ballroom Dancers Assn.
Kickoff Dance Celebration 9/14/01 AT
Peace Plaza 8:00 PM to 9:30 PM
Rochester, Mn. 55901
(Please Waive 8:00 PM Time Period)
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses.
—. JNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING vim/
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent Agenda
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Finance Department
ITEM NO.
D_ 8
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Approval of Accounts Payable
PREPARED BY:
Dale Martinson
Respectfully request a motion to approve payment of Accounts Payable
(submitted separately) in the amount of $1,874,157.47.
Less: Any exceptions
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
a5
8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Fire
- 9
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
DONATION FROM FIREFIGHTERS FOR CHRIST
DC Slavin
Firefighters for Christ would like to make a donation of four (4) digital/instant cameras
to be placed on the front
line engines. The approximate value of these cameras is $100 each.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Approval to accept donation of four (4) cameras from Firefighters for Christ.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ��
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
NO.
OrganizationaUConsent
JITEM
Human Resources
D_ 10
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Appointments - Police Officer - Police Department
PREPARED BY:
L. Gi] rud
The City of Rochester Police Department had two resignations and one retirement. The resignation of Officer
Krey, effective May 31, 2001, the resignation of Officer VanMocr, effective March 18, 2001 and the retirement
of Captain Thompson, effective July 31, 2001 created three (3) vacancies for the position of Police Officer.
Council Action Requested:
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 Swenson,
Ryan Manguson and Joseph Week to the position of Police Officer in the Rochester Police Department
effective August 20, 2001.
This information is given to the Council so that Council members are aware of the appointments
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
/
Rii Ili lEN '
t
• 10
��y■IaleWCACm ROCHESTER K g
�� 4rp1TfD :1'`
POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
BOB MOORE BOB NOWICKI MICHELLE LEAK
August 6, 2001
Honorable Mayor Canfield
City Hall
Rochester, Minnesota 55904
Dear Mayor Canfield,
The resignation of Police Officer Kreye effective May 31, 2001 created a
vacancy for a Police Officer.
We respectfully request that you make one appointment to the position of
Police Officer from the following list of three (3) names which stand highest
on the Police Office Eligibility Roster of qualified candidates:
1. John Swenson
2. Ryan Manguson
3. Joseph Week
Police Chief Roger Peterson requests that these appointments be effective
August 20, 2001.
Respectfully Submitted,
y�,�ai��
Michelle Leak,
President
Police Civil Service Commission
An EguulOpportunity Employer
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE:
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Civic Music
D,11
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Band Director Contract
PREPARED BY:
Steven Schmidt
Rochester Civic Music has engaged Eric Straubmuller to serve as Community Band Director during
the period August 20, 2001 - August 31, 2002. The mission of this ensemble is to provide personal
enrichment for recreational or novice musicians. This ensemble is also a vehicle for experienced
musicians, who may have been away from music making for some time, the opportunity to hone
their skills so that they might compete for positions in the Concert Band.
On -going goals and objectives of the ensemble are as follows:
• Produce one concert each quarter.
• Perform such community service functions as may be feasible.
• Participate in the Rochesterfest Parade.
The Director shall be paid as according to the following schedule --
Rehearsal Services ...............$26.25/service
• Concert Services..................$52.50/service
• Coordination Services.......... $420.00/quarter
The contract has been approved as to content by Civic Music's General Manager and as to form by
the City Attorney.
ACTION REQUESTED: That a motion be adopted authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the contract dated July 25, 2001 by and between the City, acting by and through its Music
Department and civic Music board, and Eric Straumuller.
COUNCIL ACTION: Modonby: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING %
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 33 i
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
OrganizationalYConsent
Police Department
D-I 3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request to Create an Additional Sergeant Position in the Police
PREPAREDIBY--Department. S. Kvenvol
Chief Peterson is requesting to eliminate a current Captain position, which is vacant due to the retirement of
Captain Thompson, and replace it with another Sergeant position.
The newly created Sergeant position would be assigned to serve as a liaison with the court system and
prosecutors to attempt to more efficiently schedule police officers who are called to testify at trials (see
attached).
If approved, this request will result in a reduction of operating expenses as a result of the Sergeant position being
compensated at a lesser rate than a Captain and offers the possibility of reducing overtime paid to officers called
to testify at court trials.
Council Action Requested:
Request a motion approving the creation of an additional Sergeant position in the Police Department and
eliminating the currently vacant Captain position.
wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
A
ZIGTOTAITWU
Rochester Police Department
Administration
DATE: August 8, 2001
TO: Stevan Kvenvold
FROM: Roger Peterson
SUBJECT: Court Liaison Position
I am requesting authorization for an additional sergeant's position on the Police
Department in order to address the issue of court related expenses.
As you know, the Police Department spends a significant portion of its budget for overtime
that is generated by officer court appearances. There has been a considerable effort over
the past couple of years, particularly on behalf of our department staff and the City
Attorney's Office, to control these costs. Unfortunately, we have no control over the
policies of other agencies within the criminal justice system and can only react to decisions
by these agencies that may adversely affect our budget.
As it stands, criminal cases are scheduled by the court several weeks or months in
advance and any officers associated with a given case are notified of a pending court
appearance. Unfortunately, the number of criminal cases on the calendar far exceeds the
courts ability to hear them and the great majority of cases are postponed. This may occur
on a given case several times with the officers being notified of a case continuance each
time their case is rescheduled. This results in significant overtime expenses when officers
are notified at the last minute that a case has been postponed and we are contractually
obligated to pay a minimum of four hours of overtime pay for each officer for each such
occurrence.
This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that many officers that are notified of
pending court appearances are never called as witnesses when the case does go to trial.
While the City Attorney has dedicated staff time to eliminate as much of this occurrence as
possible, prosecutors for the County Attorney's Office typically do not have enough time
prior to trial to eliminate notifications for officers that will not be needed to testify. This also
results in substantial expense, as we are required to compensate an officer for their time,
regardless of whether they actually testify on a given case.
While these circumstances have created a very significant problem, a new court
scheduling system implemented over the summer will result in exponential increases in
court -associated overtime if we are unable to effectively address this issue. Where it had
been the practice to schedule cases for a given day, it is now the practice of court
scheduling to notify officers that they are needed for trial for a given week, thereby giving
35 �
the court flexibility in when a particular case will be heard. This practice significantly
impacts court related overtime by virtue of the number of additional days an officer is
scheduled for court. This practice also adversely affects the officers involved as they very
conceivably would never have any given week when they would not be scheduled for court
and be free to leave for vacations, training, or other events of any duration.
Over the past several years it has become increasingly obvious that, in order to address
this issue, we need to take a much more active role in the scheduling of officers for court
appearances. Our current practice simply does not allow us to obtain and disseminate the
information necessary to effectively manage this function.
This circumstance exists primarily because of a very significant difference between officer
court appearances and any other function that officers perform. A court appearance is the
only function of a police officer not managed by the Police Department. In every other
case an officer works at the direction of a department supervisor and we have managerial
control over the officer in terms of their assignment and associated expenses. This is not
the case with court appearances that are entirely at the discretion of other agencies. As a
result, we have no managerial or budgetary control in regard to this function.
In order to establish the control required to responsibly manage this function it is
necessary for a member of our supervisory staff to act as a liaison with the court and
prosecutors to determine when officers are actually needed and ensure their timely
appearance. Such a liaison will greatly facilitate effective and efficient officer appearances
by determining which criminal cases are going to be heard and which officers are going to
be called as witnesses. This will not necessitate a change in procedure for the court or the
prosecutors' office, nor will it limit the discretion of the prosecution to call any officer they
feel is necessary for a given case. It does, however, avoid the notification of officers that
will not needed, an element critical to the elimination of very substantial unnecessary
overtime expenses. The failure to exercise departmental control in this regard promises to
be very costly. Court related overtime rose by $4,000.00 last month under the court
scheduling procedure now in use.
I would like to assign a sergeant the responsibility of managing this function as the nature
of the job requires supervisory authority to make assignments, and to authorize and deny
overtime. Other supervisory functions will also be performed as time permits.
The creation of this position would coincide with the elimination of a captain's position due
to the recent retirement of Captain Thompson on July 31s'. As such, we would essentially
be replacing a captain with a sergeant and would experience a reduction in operating
expense as a result. We would not be increasing the total number of sworn officers on the
department.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 37 /
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
Consent Agenda
Police
D- 1 4
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for RPD ERU to use Mn DOT Property for Training Purposes
PREPARED BY:
Roger Peterson
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has offered the use of the properties located at 505 W. Frontage
Rd NW (Tri-State Outdoor) and 507 W. Frontage Rd NW (Rochester Armored Car), Rochester, MN for training
purposes for the Rochester Police Department Emergency Response Unit.
MnDOT has offered these premises for training purposes providing the City of Rochester hold the State
harmless against possible claims arising out of these activities.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve resolution authorizing the Rochester Police Department Emergency Response Unit to use MnDOT
properties for training and holding the State harmless from possible claims arising from these activities..
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by. to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ,3
DATE: 8-20-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Police
D _ 15,
�m DESCRIPTION: Acceptance of a Maintenance Agreement for the TEAC Recording
PREPARED BY:
System.
Gary Mulleneaux
The police department leased the TEAC Recording System from Loffler Business Systems under a five-year
lease agreement. The first year of maintenance was covered under the terms of the lease. For the additional four
years of this agreement the City would need to enter into a maintenance agreement or pay for maintenance on an
incident -by -incident basis. This maintenance agreement would cover July 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001
and would then be renewed on a 12-month basis each remaining year of the lease. The annual fee is $3,900; the
funds have been budgeted to cover the remainder of 2001.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval for the Rochester Police Department to accept the TEAC maintenance agreement with Lol%ler
Business Systems, Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING t 1
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION -
CONSENT AGENDA
i i cM DESCRIPTION: Transportation Revolving
ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works Zi- /(V
PARED BY:
R. Freese
On January 19, 2000, the City Council authorized the submittal of an application to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation for a $5,000,000 Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF) loan to be used in financing the
reconstruction of 50'h Avenue NW from 65th Street NW to Valleyhigh Drive NW. The City was notified in July
2000 that MnDOT had enumerated the City's project, 501h Avenue NW Reconstruction, for participation in the
TRLF Program. The purpose of the TRLF Program is to encourage innovative approaches to financing
transportation projects and to help build needed transportation infrastructure in a timely manner by providing low-
cost financing to eligible borrowers for transportation projects.
The Minnesota Public Facilities Authority (PFA) has recently contacted the City indicting their intent to sell bonds
later this year for the TRLF Program. PFA provides below -market rate loans to borrowers for transportation
projects approved by MnDOT. PFA sets a discount rate from a municipal bond index. The discount is 1.0% lower
than the Aaa Municipal Bond rate. The loans can be amortized for up to a maximum of 30 years. The City must
issue a general obligation or revenue bond to the PFA as security for the loan.
The Finance Director and I, in consultation with the City Administrator, have prepared an application to the PFA
for a $5,000,000 TRLF loan for the reconstruction of 50'h Avenue NW from 65'h Street NW to 10 Street NW. The
PFA deadline for submittal of the application packet was August 13, 2001. The PFA representative agreed to
accept the City Council resolution authorizing the submittal of the application after the City Council meeting of
August 20, 2001.
The attached spreadsheet has been prepared to illustrate to you that the past and current "pay as you go method" of
financing major street infrastructure projects will not longer work if the City intends to stay responsive to the
growth demands placed on it.
The spreadsheet further illustrates the funding shortfall that currently exists for the TH 63 South Interchange
project that includes reconstruction and capacity improvements to several listed City streets. Without the City
receiving a share of the Inter -Regional Corridor funding appropriated by the State for this project and/or the
creation of a Transportation Improvement District the City will need to consider property taxes, including debt
service resulting from bonding, to fund the local share of this Project scheduled for construction in 2003 2004.
Some Municipal State Aid funds may be available, but other projects listed on the spreadsheet that are funded with
TEA 21 dollars will need to be supplemented with Municipal State Aid Street dollars.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to act on the City's behalf in executing an
Application for a $5,000,000 Transportation Revolving Loan Fund Application with the Sate of Minnesota
Public Facilities Authority.
2. Authorize staff to develop a Transportation Improvement District for City Council review and approval that
covers the TH 63 South and the associated 401h Street SE, 40'h Street SW and 48h Street SW Improvements.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second bv: to:
IIf
I
I€
�6
I
Y!
♦
F
'
I
I
i
{]
yggy
3g3g
ygy$
I gggp
E
'
i��
i
i
•
$
[Yy
62y
6Ly
fEy
n<y
(py
<1y
Q�
U4
LLU
ULL
LL
ULL
4
(4.�
6
6
E
b
h
E
b
b
s
i
sas
saga
'a
I
a
—_
s
Baas
sa—a
sasaas
s
"p
$a�saa
a
s
ssa
saa
aaa
a
3
sass
aa—
8
$asa
.ti
�y
lssg
a
saaa
'd
sasaas
a
§$
$
$
G
$
53
G
G
Fp5151.2
�
�Q�Q��g�g
�.._...._
a
�
aa$s
gp@.
������
a
Iaass
lea
ggp�p
ssaa
sa
$
eat
assssa
s
s
a
gg�
»
�g�gaa
jy
�g$g�g�
�sss
as
sssaaa
a`a�—�
.�
�i
pp
S
p
."25
4
C
p
tl.
Q
b
�. �
_• .::—
._ .. Q.__
—
—
pQ
D
pp
tlfl
pp
tl
QQ
S
QQ
E
QQ
pp
66Q
p
ES
_— 5...._
y
p¢
3f
S
St
i5
B
X
Q
E
y
ES
p
IS
QS
<<
a
<
U
<
V
ry
3
ml
n
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 43 /
DATE: 8/20101
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Services Agreement for
Public Works
ITEM NO.
D-0
'ARED BY:
R. Freese
The City of Rochester, Olmsted County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation have over the past two
years jointly participated in and funded the Preliminary Design Layout and Environmental Assessment for the TH
63 South interchanges and associated improvements to 40's Street and 48"' Streets SW. Under the terms of that
agreement the City contributed 37.5% of the funding, Olmsted County contributed 12.5%, and MnDOT paid the
remaining 50%.
The Environmental Assessment and Layout Plan have been completed. Numerous public information meetings and
a Public Hearing on the Environmental Assessment were held on the Project. Technical and Policy Advisory
Committees were formed to aid in the selection of a preferred alternative.
MnDOT solicited Requests for Proposals for Final Design Services from several engineering consulting firms for
the design of the entire project including the City and County roads. The City Engineer, County Engineer and
ROCOG Transportation Planner participated in the proposal review and selection process. The representatives
from the three agencies unanimously recommended to retain the professional engineering services of Yaggy Colby
to prepare the final design plans and specifications for the Project. Yaggy Colby had previously prepared the
Environmental Assessment and the Preliminary Layout Plan for this project.
A final scope of work has been negotiated for the Project design. Consideration for all services performed and
goods and materials supplied by Yaggy Colby shall be paid by the City, County and MnDOT on a cost plus fixed
fee basis totaling $1,608,185.50.
MnDOT has submitted a Professional and Technical Services Agreement to the City for execution. The
Agreement provides for the basis of payment for Yaggy Colby's professional engineering services for this Project.
The total cost obligation of MnDOT shall not exceed $1,338,783. The total cost obligation of Olmsted County
shall not exceed $134,701.25. The total cost obligation of the City of Rochester shall not exceed $134,701.25.
The City is not required to make payment for its share of the Project design services until such time as MnDOT has
paid to Yaggy Colby $1,200,000. After that time the City, Olmsted County and MnDOT will equally pay 1/3 of
each invoice submitted by Yaggy Colby.
The Project is scheduled for a November 2002 bid letting. Construction will commence in the Spring of 2003 and
will extend to the Fall of 2004. The estimated construction cost is $19,800,000 in 2001 dollars.
Staff has reviewed the Professional and Technical Services Agreement and we recommend that the City Council
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Professional and Technical Services Agreement between Yaggy
Colby, Olmsted County, MnDOT and the City of Rochester for Final Design of the TH 63 South interchanges and
improvements to 40'h Street and 48"' Streets.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q�
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DFPT:
ITEM NO
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
p-18
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Professional Engineering Services: Design of 3` Ave SE from 4
pR:
PARED BY
St SE to 12" St SE (J-2245).
D. Nelson
The following project has been proposed for construction in 2002 and is included in the 2001 -
2006 Capital Improvement Program.
Project: Rehabiliation of 31d Avenue SE from 4th Street SE to 12th Street SE. (J-2245).
Yaggy Colby Associates, proposes to provide Preliminary Design services at an hourly rate not
to exceed $20,000.00, plus optional final design plan and specification preparation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with
Yaggy Colby Associate, for Preliminary Design Analysis services in an amount not to exceed
$20,000.00.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING q?
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING ❑EPT: ITEM NO.
Public Works D-(
i i rM DESCRIPTION: Development Agreement — Home Federal Savings Bank P PARED BY:
1�M. Nigbur
The Home Federal Savings Bank, to be located West of West Circle Drive along 55b' Street and 41s`
Avenue NW, and City Staff have had discussions relating to impacts of the development of the property
on the surrounding infrastructure. Based on our 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 abutting the development.
• Dedication of right of way/easements.
• Traffic Improvements including access control, driveway modifications, and signage.
Owners payment of the assessments, development/connection related charges
including SAC, WAC, connection charges, future pedestrian facility charges and
Storm Water Management.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Development Agreement. The Owner has executed the
agreement.
West Circle Drive
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Development Agreement for the Home Federal
Savings Project.
wUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by:
to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING /
DATE: / /01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT!
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D—aQ
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive
PR�PARED BY:
Plaza — Jack Prow Property (J9829)
M. Baker
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
The Prow Company (Owner) & Rochester Construction Co. (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner
Contract J9829 consisting of "Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive Plaza (Jack Prow Property)".
DLLL
� wcewwa"rE r
d12
Q 12
oU
U�
o:
r �`o
Um
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9829,
"Watermain & Hydrant to Serve Civic Drive Plaza (Jack Prow Property)"
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 8/ 0101
AGENDA SECTION'
ORIGINATING nEPT-
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
E) --)4
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Owner Contract — Watermain to Serve the People of Hope
PRPARED BY:`T n
Church - Phase I. (J9834)
M. Baker'j
Staff would offer the following Owner Contract project for consideration by the Council:
People of Hope (Owner) & Fraser Construction (Contractor) are requesting a City / Owner Contract
J9834 consisting of "Watermain to Serve the People of Hope Church".
,n-
3
I 3
i
Approx. Area of
J9834 -
People of Hope Church
PhaseI B-01
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the City / Owner Contract for J9834,
"Watermain to Serve the People of Hope Church"
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING 53
DATE: 8/20101
AGENDA SECTION:
CONSENT AGENDA
ORIGINATING DEPT- ITEM NO.
Public Works p -oZeZ-
i i rM DESCRIPTION: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
PI PARED BY:
,..1 M. Baker
The Department of Public Works has received a request on one (1) property, to voluntarily
participate in the City's Regional Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). This department
has reviewed the information for this property and has determined that there is support for
participation. The Owner of the following property has requested voluntary participation in the
City's Plan, with the applicable participation fee as follows:
• Nedzad Nukic (1619 3`d Ave SE)
(SDP#01-56)
$ 600.50
The Owner of this property has already provided payment for its respective charges. These
funds will be deposited upon acceptance by the Council for the property to participate in the
City's Plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt a Resolution accepting voluntary participation by the above noted property, in the City's
Regional Storm Water Management Plan.
tAUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 55
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D -a3
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposal for Design Engineering Services: Sanitary Sewer and
PREPARED BY:
Watermain Extension to Serve the Graham Property, J9795
J. Loehr
This is a proposal from WHKS & Company to provide Design Engineering Services for the following
local improvement project:
Project No. M1-34, J9795
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Graham Property in Section 6 of Marion
Township."
On April 2, 2001 the City Council received a petition from Mr. Fred Schmidt requesting that public
sanitary sewer and watermain be extended to the Graham property. Council referred the petition to the
Department of Public Works to determine the adequacy of the petition and to prepare a Feasibility
Report for the petitioned project.
A Feasibility Report for project J9795 was prepared by the Department of Public Works. The Feasibility
Report was presented to Council on April 2, 20001 for consideration. Council accepted the Feasibility
Report and directed the Public Works Director to prepare plans and specifications for the project:
WHKS & Company is recommended to perform the Design Engineering Services for the project since
they are capable of performing the desired level of engineering required to design the project, and since
Fred Schmidt (petitioner) retained WHKS to provide engineering services for the Graham property
(private development). Utilizing the same consultant for each project can best coordinate the
requirements for the city project and the private development project.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of Design Engineering Service Agreement with
WHKS & Company for a "LUMP SUM" amount of $9,050.00.
Attachments: WHKS Design Engineering Service Proposal
Map
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to:
WHKS & Co.
GERALD WEILAND. P.E.. PRESIDENT& CEO
PENNY SCHMITZ. EXEC. V.PPES.. COO & CFO
FOUAD DAOUO, P.E. & S.E.. VICE PRIES.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS RICK ENGSTROM, C.EL. VICE PRIES.
MICHAEL 2ELNSKAS. P.E. VICE PRIES.
CAROL KASTLER, L.S.
2905 SO. BROADWAY
August 7, 2001 ROCHESTER, MN 55904-5515
phone 507-288-3923
fax 507-288-2675
e-mail rochesler®whks.com
Mr. Jim Loehr
Project Manager
City of Rochester
201 Fourth Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
RE: Design of Proposed Sanitary Sewer, and Watermain to serve the Graham
Property in Section 6, Marion per Alternate No. 1 from 3/19/01 Memo.
Dear Mr. Loehr:
As discussed, and also after talking to Fred Schmidt, we are pleased to submit the
following revised estimate of Engineering Service Costs to complete the design.
The following is a tabulation of the various items and estimated costs we have identified
to complete the design. We understand that you wish to have us perform the work on a
Lump Sum basis.
Field Topography Survey,
Legal descriptions and Exhibit for Easements
as requested by MnDOT $ 2,400.00
2. Geotechnical exploration and report $ 1,500.00
3. Design, drafting, specification preparation,
and bidder coordination $ 4,500.00
4. Expenses and permit costs 650.00
Total Estimated Engineering Fees $ 9,050.00
We assume that the project would be built in 2002, and that staking, testing, and
observation costs will be addressed at a later date.
OTHER OFFICES: P.O. BOX 1467 MASON CITY, IA 50402-1467 PHONE 641423-8271
470 CENTRAL AVENUE DUBUQUE, IA 52001-7024 PHONE 319-582-5481
1421 S. BELL AVE., SUITE 103 AMES, IA 50010 PHONE 515-663-9997
167 SINSINAWA AVENUE EAST DUBUQUE, IL 61025-1218 PHONE 815.747-8833
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 8/20/01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
D ;:t-q
i t rill DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Analysis and Design Services: Sanitary Sewer and
PREPARED BY:
Watermain Extension to Serve Southtown Heights, J9791
J. Loehr
The City of Rochester received a petition from property owners in the Southtown Heights area in 1999.
The petition signed by 39 of 50 property owners requested that the City extend city sanitary sewer and
watermain, under the Water Quality Protection Program, to serve Southtown Heights. The City Council
accepted the petition on August 2, 1999 and then authorized staff to develop Engineering Service
Agreements for the project.
This is a proposal from WHKS & Company to provide Preliminary Project Analysis for the following local
improvement project:
Proiect No. M1-30. J9791
"Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Extension to Serve the Southtown Heights Subdivision Area."
WHKS & Company is capable of providing the desired level of Preliminary Project Analysis and Design
Engineering Services. The Department of Public Works recommends that WHKS be initially retained to
provide Preliminary Project Analysis for the project. Compensation is proposed at the actual cost and
expense fee structure.
After the completion of the Preliminary Project Analysis and selection of design alternates and the scope
of the project is determined the Department of Public Works will negotiate a Design Engineering Service
Agreement with WHKS for the project. Compensation for Design services is proposed at a "Lump Sum"
amount as negotiated for the project. The "Lump Sum" amount will be based on the extent of
engineering services required for the project.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of an Engineering Service Agreement with WHKS &
Company to provide engineering services as follows:
a. Preliminary Design Analysis (actual cost and expense fee structure).
b. Design Services ("Lump Sum" as negotiated by the Department of Public Works and approved by
the City Administrator).
Attachments: WHKS Design Engineering Service Proposal
Map
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
WHKS & CO.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS
August 14, 2001
Mr. Jim Loehr
Project Manager
City of Rochester
201 Fourth Street SE, Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
GERALD WEILAND. P.E.. PRESIOENT & CEO
PENNY SCHMITZ, EXEC V. PRIES. COO 3 CFO
FOUAD DAOUD, P.E. 8 S.E., VICE PRIES
LAND SURVEYORS . RICK ENGSTROM. C. E T. VICE PRIES.
MICHAEL ZELINSKAS. P.E.. VICE PRES.
CAROL KASTLER. L.S.
2905 SO, bmuAUWAY
ROCHESTER, MN 55904-551�
phone 507-288-392:
fax 507-288-267E
e-mail rochester@whks.com
RE: Preliminary Analysis and Final Design of Proposed Sanitary Sewer and
1Rfatarmain Systems to Serve the Southtown Area.
Dear Mr. Loehr:
As requested, we are pleased to submit the following estimate of Engineering Service
Costs to perform a preliminary analysis and final design of the project.
Phase 1 — Preliminary Analysis
The following is a tabulation of the various items and estimated costs we have identified
to complete the analysis.
1. Preliminary topography survey and
house foundation elevations $ 8,000
2. Research, site reconnaissance, meetings
and coordination, and analysis of options 12,000
3. Soil borings' 3,600
4. Expenses 400
Total Estimated Phase 1 Engineering Fees $24,000
Items of work to be performed by sub - consultants
We estimate that Item 1 above is approximately 60 percent of the field surveys that will
be needed for the final design phase. Item 3 is estimated to be 100 percent of the
Geotechnical work that will be needed for final design.
Also, for your information, we have estimated that approximately 5,000 feet of 8"
sanitary sewer main; 7000 feet of 6" and 8" watermain, 22 manholes, and approximately
50 service connections will be included in the project as illustrated on Exhibit 1.
I have also attached a copy of our hourly rate fee structure for this project.
OTHER OFFICES: P.O. BOX 1467 MASON CITY, IA 50402-1467 PHONE 641.423-8271
470 CENTRALAVENUE DUBUQUE, IA 52001-7024 PHONE 319-582-Wl
1421 S. BELL AVE., SUITE 103 AMES, IA 50010 PHONE 515-663-9997
167 SINSINAWA AVENUE EAST DUBUQUE, IL 61025-1218 PHONE 815-747-8833
Southtown
Page 2
We propose to complete the preliminary analysis on an Actual Cost Basis, using these
hourly rates, and not to exceed costs for the sub -consultant work identified above. The
sub -consultant costs will be passed on to you as billed to us.
We would strive to have the preliminary analysis available for review by approximately
November 15, 2001, so that informational meetings and public hearings can be
scheduled in late November or December.
Please contact me if you have any questions, or need additional information. If the
above is acceptable, please contact me and we will proceed with research.
Phase 2 - Final Design — Informational Only
The following is a preliminary tabulation of the various items and estimated costs we
have identified to complete the design. If accepted for the design phase, we understand
that you wish to have us perform the work on a Lump Sum basis.
3. Completion of Field Topography Survey,
Legal descriptions and Exhibit for Easements $ 5,000.00
4. Design, drafting, specification preparation,
and bidder coordination 38,250.00
3. Expenses and permit costs 750.00
Total Estimated Phase 2 Engineering Fees $44,000.00
We understand that your preliminary schedule is to advertise for bids in the Spring of
2002.
Please contact me if you have any questions, or need additional information. We will
assist you with contract preparation as needed.
Sincerely,
WHKS/a/co. ,
Alla J. King, P.E.
AJK:tr
Proposals%R ocheste rV00 I \South town-prop.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING (0 /
DATE: 8-20-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works
[) ---,Q5-
M DESCRIPTION: Passenger Loading Zone @ St Pius X School
PREPARED BY:
D. Rossman
The City has received a request to expand the passenger -loading zone for the St Pius X School
located at 1205 12" Avenue NW. The Principal, Mr. Matt Kleebe has requested to expand the
loading zone on the west side of 12'" Avenue from 121" Street NW north a distance of 250 feet.
There is much congestion along this street during the school start and end times. The loading zone
will allow parents to park at the curbside while loading and unloading students, and will improve the
overall safety of the situation.
The street width is 36 feet. Currently this area is marked "Permit Parking" for staff and employees
of the school. These will be moved to other locations. In addition, some of the school loading
activity will be relocated to the north playground. This request has been reviewed with Sgt. Bob
Schei of the Rochester Police Department and he agrees.
Staff has reviewed the request and recommends its approval.
West Side 250 feet
1---st. Plus Sc"oa ;_ 3
Z
u_
12 S T �...
-__ tU S T N W
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution amending section E "Passenger Loading Zones" of the
Comprehensive Traffic and Parking Resolution Book as follows;
Amend Paragraph (93.5) 12' Avenue NW on the west side of the street, from 12'" Street to a distance
250 feet north of 12' Street, 15-minute limit, from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, School Days Only.
OUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE:
63
8-20-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Public Works
_2,6_M
DESCRIPTION:H/C Parking for Rochester Towers Condominium
j1TEMNO,CONSENTAGENDA
PARED BY:
rnan"
The City has received a request from Mr. Robert Weisner of Weis Management (288-7980) to
designate handicapped parking stalls along with additional passenger loading zones near the
Rochester Tower Condominium located at 207 5" Avenue SW. There is a need for this to
accommodate the owners of Rochester Towers and their guests.
Presently this area is a 2-hour limited parking zone with 2 stalls for passenger loading. There is
an 8' parking lane along with an 11-foot traffic lane. Traffic volumes are less than 1,500 vehicles
per day. This request has been reviewed with the City Police Department, and they agree with
the request.
Staff would recommend in favor of the request.
I j
2nd Street SW
i
H/C Parking Y
N
3rdStreet SW ---.—
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the prepared resolution making the following changes to the Comprehensive Traffic and Parking
Resolution book:
1) Add paragraph (11.0) to section C "Special Parking Zones" (Zone A - General ) to read; (11.0) Fifth
Avenue SW, on the west side, a distance of 50 feet more or less (2 stalls for handicapped parking) in
front of the premise known as Rochester Towers, 207 51" Avenue SW.
2) Amend paragraph (81.5) of Section E " Passenger Loading Zones" to read " 51" Avenue SW on the
west side, 60 feet more or less in front of the premise known as Rochester Towers, 207 5" Avenue
SW.
COUNCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to:
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING
DATE: 08-20-01
DEPT:
--BLIC HEARINGS I PLANNING
.. �M DESCRIPTION: Annexation Petition #01-17 by Jim and Frances McGovern to annex
approximately 2 acres of land located on the northwest corner of the intersection of 371h
Street (CSAH 22) and 16" Avenue NE. The property is located in a part of the SE114 NE'/.
of Section 24 of Cascade Township.
August 15, 2001
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
ITEM NO.
e''
PREPARED BY:
Theresa Fogarty,
Planner
The City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this annexation request on August 8, 2001. The Commission found that this
property is adjacent to the city limits and can be served by City services. The Planning Commission therefore recommends approval of
this request.
Ms. Rivas moved to recommend approval of Annexation Petition #01-17 by Jim and Frances
McGovern. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Planning Department Recommendation:
See attached staff report, dated August 2, 2001.
Minnesota Statutes now specify that the property taxes payable in the year an annexation is effective shall be paid to the Township.
For the five years following the annexation, the City must make a cash payment to the Township equaling 90%, 70%, 50%, 30% and
10% of the Townships share of the taxes in the year the property was annexed. The Township Taxes on this property for 2000 is
$117.66.
Council Action Needed:
1. Following the public hearing, if the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should
instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to be adopted and transmitted to the MN
Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning.
2. If approved, the applicant is requesting the Council to suspend the rules and allow the
ordinance its second reading.
Attachments
1. Staff report, dated August 2, 2001.
2. Draft copy of the minutes of the August 8, 2001, CPZC meeting
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney: Legal Description Attached
4. City Finance Director: Tax Information Attached
5. Planning Department File
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime
Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 20, 2001 in the Council Chambers at the
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: 46
Send by: '7 — toes
F
r
,
tY
:O
0
N
r
d
r
0
0
ac
W
U
r
a
W
JUL
2UUi
ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPAWNIENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
CC U N TY o, www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: August 2, 2001
µ0C 11ESTER:{'/
.�F.
RATE D-A I;G VST-
RE:Annexation Petition #01-17 by Jim and Frances McGovern to annex
approximately 2 acres of land located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of 37th Street (CSAH 22) and 16th Avenue NE. The property is
located in a part of the SE'/4 NE Y. of Section 24 of Cascade Township.
Planning Department Review:
Applicants/Owners: Jim and Frances McGovern
3315 NE 161h Avenue
Rochester, MN 55906
Location of Property: The property is located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of 371h Street (East Circle Drive t CSAH 22) and
161h Avenue NE.
Existing Land Use: This property is currently developed with a single family
residence.
Size:
The property proposed for annexation is approximately
2 acres of unplatted land.
Existing Zoning:
The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) District
on the Olmsted County zoning map.
Future Zoning:
Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning map.
Land Use Plan:
This property is designated for "low density residential' uses
on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan.
Adjacency to the Municipal
The property is adjacent to the city limits along its northern
Limits:
and a portion of the western boundaries.
Sewer & Water:
The North East Intermediate Level Water System Service
Area is available to this property along the north side of East
Circle Drive.
Municipal sewer and water can be served to this property.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345
FAx 507/287-2275
7�17 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
..emu,
Page 2 • .
Annexation #01-17
August 2,2001
Utilities: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.033 (subd. 13), a
municipality must notify a petitioner that the cost of electric
utility service may change if the land is annexed to the
municipality. A notice has been provided to the applicant.
Townboard Review: Minnesota State Statutes require that the Townboard
members receive a written notice, by certified mail, 30 days
prior to the public hearing. The City Council will hold a public
hearing on this item on August 20, 2001. The City Clerk has
sent the certified 30 day notice.
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Public Utilities - Water Division
2. Rochester Public Works
Report Attachments:
Staff Recommendation:
1. Annexation / Location Map
2. Referral Comments (2 letters)
This property is adjacent to the City limits and can be served by city services upon extension of the sanitary
sewer and water lines from their present ends. The Planning staff recommends that the City proceed to
adopt an ordinance annexing the property according to Minnesota Statutes 414.033, Subdivision 2(3).
ROCHESTER
i'i'/innad5ola
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
Date: 7/25/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4" Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX — 507-281-6216
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for
Annexation #01-17 on the McGovern (NE'/< , Sect 24, Cascade) property. The
following are Public Works comments on the proposal:
This property can be served with municipal sewer & water. Development
charges for SAC & WAC, as well as, Sanitary Sewer & Watermain
Connection will be due prior to connection to municipal services.
The annexation shall include''/2 of the 16L' Ave ROW.
C:\tempWNNX01.17 McGovem Sect 24 Cascadel.doc
rpu 0
we pledge, IV, de<iver
July 12, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: Annexation #01-17 by Jim and Frances McGovern to annex 2 acres of land
located at the NW corner of the intersection of 16`h Ave. NE and East Circle Dr.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow:
1. This property is within the North East Intermediate Level Water System Service Area, which
is available to this property along the north side of East Circle Dr.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
0644A R-
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Jim Loehr, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention
Jim & Frances McGovern
FA
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
MINUTES OF THE DRAn Copy
CITY OF ROCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
2122 CAMPUS DRIVE SE —SUITE 100
ROCHESTER MN 55904
Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission held
on Wednesday, August 8, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council/Board Chambers of the Government
Center, 151 4th Street SE, Rochester, MN.
Members Present: Ms. Mary Petersson, Chair; Mr. Randy Staver, Vice Chair; Ms. Lisa
Wiesner; Ms. Leslie Rivas; Mr. Michael Quinn; and Mr. James Burke
Members Absent: Mr. Paul Ohly; Mr. John Hodgson; and Mr. Ardell Brede
Staff Present: Ms. Mitzi A. Baker; Mr. Phil Wheeler; and Ms. Jennifer Garness
Other City Staff Present: None
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS:
Mr. Burke made a motion to approve the minutes of July 25, 2001, as written. Mr.
Staver seconded the motion. The minutes from July 25, 2001 were approved
unanimously.
Ms. Baker requested that items C2, C3, and C4 be presented and heard together
with the Commission making separate motions for each request.
Ms. Petersson stated that a Discussion Item on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Addressing Affordable Housing and Diversity would be added under
"Other Business."
Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the agenda, as modified. Ms. Rivas
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
ANNEXATIONS:
Ms. Mitzi A. Baker presented the staff report, dated August 2, 2001, to the Commission. The
staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Burke asked if staff knew what timeframe water and sewer would be extended to 16'"
Avenue.
Ms. Baker responded that she was unsure if sewer and water would go up 16" Avenue. She
explained that they may be extending services directly from Circle Drive.
Page 2
City Planning and Zoning Comnussion Minutes
Hearing Date: August 8, 2001
Ms. Rivas moved to recommend approval of Annexation #01-17 by Jim and Frances
McGovern based on staffs recommendations. Mr. Staver seconded the motion. The
motion carried 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
FA
Ms. Mitzi A. Bak presented the staff report, dated August 3, 20/1, to the Commission. The
staff report is on fil at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning DeparAent.
Ms. Baker asked that\*g
submit a revised plat at ast one week prior to the City
Council meeting.
Ms. Baker suggested dition Number 1c s follows: "A utility easement must be
provided along the endary of the plat d shall be of adequate width to
accommodate the exisin as well as ditional utilities." She stated that the revised
condition would addrents made by PU Water and RPU Electric regarding the
need for utility easeme
Ms. Wiesner asked how wide "a
is.
Ms. Baker responded that the wording be "adequate width to accommodate the existing
water main" as there is an existing wa ma .She explained that the applicant would need to
speak directly with the agencies reg ing the xact width.
Ms. Wiesner asked what type of " ossing" would e constructed in Condition Number 2.
Ms. Baker responded that it w Id be a pedestrian cr sing to get across the road and would
not be an overpass.
Mr. Bob DeWitz, Presidenybf Western Walls, addressed t Commission. He stated that an
easement currently exist on the property. He explained tha the crossing would only be at the
first two lots.
Mr. Burke asked if hfagreed with the staff -suggested conditions'
Mr. DeWitt respol(ded yes.
Ms. Julie Leis9A of Western Walls addressed the Commission. She sta d that the crossing
would be a pjfdestrian ramp on each side of the street.
Mr. Kevin uchs addressed the Commission. He explained that his property as adjacent to
the deve pment. He questioned how the development would proceed. He ex ined that
excavation had been occurring on the hillside. He expressed concern regarding a potential for
erosion.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING
DATE: 03-20-01
AGENDASECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
—ILIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
S —Z
„cal DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-32 by Floyd Larson Construction to be known as
PREPARED BY:
Radichel Second Replat. The plat proposes to re -subdivide approximately 4.15 acres of land
Theresa Fogarty,
into 2 lots for commercial development. The plat replats Lots 2 and 6, Block 1, Radichel First
Planner
Replat. The property is located along the south side of Trunk Highway 14, north of 91h Street
NW and west of 37`h Avenue NW
August 15, 2001
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated August 15, 2001, recommending approval subject to the following condition:
1. Storm Water Management is required for the development of this property, and a Storm Water Management and
Grading Plan will be reviewed through the permitting process for individual lot development. A Storm Water
Management fee will apply if on -site detention is not provided.
Council Action Needed.,
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2, City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m
Chambers at the Rochester / Olmsted County Government Center.
7. McGhie and Betts, Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
on Monday, August 20, 2001 in the Council
ROCHESTER-OLhISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
c o o N T. OF www.cimstedcounly.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
� pGH F.S TE k.,l,�11
R ,
R'�TED..{UGUST��•
DATE: August 15, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-32 by Floyd Larson Construction to be known as
Radichel Second Replat. The plat proposes to re -subdivide
approximately 4.15 acres of land into 2 lots for commercial
development. The plat replats Lots 2 and 6, Block 1, Radichel First
Replat. The property is located along the south side of Trunk
Highway 14, north of 9th Street NW and west of 37th Avenue NW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Floyd Larson Construction
John McGuire
3848 Highway 14 East
Rochester, MN 55904
Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie and Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments:
1. Rochester Public Works Department
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (1 Letter)
2. Copy of Final Plat
3. Location Map
Plat Data:
Location of Property: This plat is located along the the south side of Trunk
Highway 14, north of Radichel First Replat and north
of 37th and 381" Avenues NW.
Roadways: There are no new roadways being dedicated with this
Plat.
BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING/ZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285.8345
FAX 507/287-2275
T'C1] AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
FA
Page 2
Radichel Second Replat
August 15, 2001
Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian Facilities are required adjacent to existing
right-of-way and will need to be constructed
concurrent with development of this property,
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils
within this Plat.
Drainage: Grading Plans will be reviewed through the permitting
process for each lot at the time of development.
Storm Water Management is required for the
development of this property.
Public Utilities: Utilities are currently available to serve the property,
Spillover Parking: Parking for the development of each lot will be
determined at the time of Site Development Plan
Review.
Parkland Dedication: The property will not be used for residential
development, therefore, there are no parkland
dedication requirements.
Preliminary Plat:
According to Section 61.221 of the Land Development Manual "A subdivision in which all
proposed lots front on a platted or dedicated street right-of-way and no major changes to the right-
of-way are proposed may be exempted from the requirements of this paragraph (Land
Subdivision Permit).
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, Section 61.225 and would recommend approval
subject to the following condition:
1. Storm Water Management is required for the development of this property, and a
Storm Water Management and Grading Plan will be reviewed through the permitting
process for individual lot development. A Storm Water Management fee will apply if
on -site detention is not provided.
Reminder to Applicant:
Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City / Owner Contract for
construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision.
W
119 ROCHF,STER
Minnesota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DATE: 8/13/01
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 requested application for Final Plat
Request #01-32 on the Radichel Second Replat fa replat of Lots 2 & 6, Block 1,
Radichel First Replat) property. The following are Public Works revised comments on
the proposal:
1. Storm Water Management is required for the development of this property,
and a Storm Water Management & Grading Plan will be reviewed through the
permitting process for individual lot development. A Storm Water
Management fee will apply if on -site detention is not provided.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property have previously been paid,
with the exception of Storm Water Management, if on -site detention is not provided.
C:\temp\FP01-32 Radichel Second Replat.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PLANNING
fv1 DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-33 to be known as Cedar Creek
Townhomes CIC 183
MEETING
DATE 8-20-0191
ITEM NO.
S -,3
PREPARED BY:
Brent Svenby,
August 15, 2001
Planning Department Review:
See attached Staff Report dated August 15, 2001,
The Planning Staff has reviewed the submitted final plat and would recommend approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Construction of a concrete sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of Kenosha Drive NW and Monroe Drive
NW, concurrent with the development of the property.
2. The documents assigning long-term maintenance of the common lands shall be recorded concurrent with the
final plat documents (mylars).
3. The applicant agrees that the deferred parkland dedication requirement shall be reduced by .7 acres.
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. Recordingrrreasurer/Auditor's Statement
3. Recording Fee
4. Title Opinion
5. 1 Original Plat Mylar
6. 3 Mylar Copies of Plat
Attachment:
Staff Report dated August 15, 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.
Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE.
5. Yaggy Colby Associates
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
on Monday, August 20, 2001, in the
7-0
✓oL ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744
L O N N T♦ OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: August 15, 2001
.00 .0.0CHE5 TF.R •.if/ 1'4...
i
r •.
OR'i TeD•A UGI'SS.
RE: Final Plat #01-33 to be known as Cedar Creek Townhomes CIC 183
Planninq Department Review:
Applicant/owner: Todd Ustby
1211 Ashley Lane SW
Rochester, MN 55902
Surveyors/Engineers: Yaggy Colby Associates
717 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: 1. RPU Water Division
2. RPU Operations Division
3. Rochester Public Works
4. Rochester Public Works
5, Planning Dept. - Addressing
Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments ( 2 Letters)
2. Location Map
3. Copy of Final Plat
Plat Data:
Location of Property: This plat is located along the east side of Kenosha
Drive NW, north of Monroe Drive NW and south of
Valleyhigh Road.
Zoning: The property is zoned R-3 (Medium Density
Residential).
Proposed Development: This development proposes to re -subdivide
approximately 1.86 acres of land into 14 lots for a
townhome development and one common lot. The
applicant has received approval of the site plan for
the townhomes.
Streets: The plat does not propose dedication of any new
public right-of-way. The abutting roadway was
previously platted in the Badger Ridge Subdivision.
All of the lots have frontage onto Kenosha Drive NW.
BUILDING CODE 50712B5-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/2B5-B232 - HOUSINIG/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-6345
FAX 507/287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page 2
August 14, 2001
$3
Drainage:
Grading and drainage plans have been approved for
this plat.
Wetlands:
The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps
were reviewed for the presence of wetlands, no
potential wetlands are indicates on this site.
According to the Soil Survey, hydric soils do not exist
on this property.
Public Utilities:
Utilities are available to serve this development.
Spillover Parking:
As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for
service vehicles and visitors. This development
requires 11 spillover parking stalls. It appears as
though the additional parking can be accommodates
on the roadways and most likely within the private
driveways, as well.
Parkland Dedication:
No parkland dedication is required for this plat.
General Development Plan:
This property is included in the approved Badger
Ridge GDP.
Preliminary Plat:
This plat does not dedicate right-of-way for any new roadways. A Preliminary plat was not
required for this Final Plat.
Planning Staff and Recommendation:
The Planning Staff has reviewed this final plat in accordance with the Rochester Zoning
Ordinance and Land Development Manual, and would recommend approval subject to the
following conditions or modifications:
1. Construction of a concrete sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of Kenosha
Drive NW and Monroe Drive NW, concurrent with the development of the property.
2. The documents assigning long-term maintenance of the common lands shall be
recorded concurrent with the final plat documents (mylars).
3. The applicant agrees that the deferred parkland dedication requirement shall be
reduced by .7 acres.
8q ROCHESTER
Winnedola
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4� Street SE Room 108
TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740
7800
2122 Campus Drive SE s-507- 81-6
FAX - 507-281-6216
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DATE: 8/13/01
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for Final Plat #01-33 on the Cedar
Creek Townhomes CIC#183 (Replat of Lot 6 Block 1 Badger Ridge 3rd Subd). The following
are Public Works comments on the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
2. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required if said development involves
the extension of public watermain and/or the addition of hydrant(s) that are not
included in approved construction plans, and City -Owner Contract for Badger Ridge.
3. Construction of sidewalk along the entire frontages of Kenosha Drive & Monroe Dr.
is required concurrent with the development of this property.
4. The Developer should install a unit mailbox for this development. If each unit has a
separate mailbox then all of the on -street parking is obstructed.
:• Charges /fees applicable to the development of this property have previously been addressed
in the City -Owner Contract for Badger Ridge First Subdivision, and have been paid.
C:uemp1FP01-33 Cedar Creek Townhomes CIC183 (replal L6 B1 Badger Ridge 3rd Subd).doc
ROCHESTER PARK AND AREATION DEPARTMENT
rachester
MEMORANDUM CX
DATE: August 8, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning Department
SUBJECT: Final Plat#01-33
Cedar Creek Townhomes CIC
The approval of the final plat (the replatting of Lot 6 Block 1 Badger Ridge 3rd) will
reduce the deferred park dedication required of Badger Ridge 1" plat when it was
approved 16 October'00.
The original dedication requirement was calculated for 1.85 acres to be known as Cedar
Creek Townhomes under the assumption that the property would be developed with the
maximum density permitted. The proposed final plat is less then the maximum permitted
and will reduce the original dedication requirement by .7 acres.
0:\DST0TZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\NW 2898\CEDAR CREEK TOWNHOMES.DOC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING S /
DATE: 08
AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO.
BLIC HEARINGS PLANNING
—M DESCRIPTION: Final Plat #01-01 by Leslie A Lurken to be known as North Park PREPARED BY:
Eleventh Subdivision. The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 12.75 acres into Theresa Fogarty,
45 lots for single family development and one outlot. This Plat will include dedication of Planner
right-of-way for three roadways including Hillsboro Drive NW. The property is located north
of North Park Second Subdivision, south of the Orchard Ridge Development and allows for
August 15, 2001
Planning Department Review:
See attached staff report dated August 15, 2001, recommending approval subject to the following condition:
1. Parkland Dedication requirements be met via: Combination of dedication of land (OutlotA) to the City, plus cash
in lieu of land in the amount of $14,250 with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat.
Council Action Needed:
1. A resolution approving the plat can be adopted.
Distribution:
1. City Administrator
2. City Clerk
3. City Attorney
4. Planning Department File
5. Planning Department, GIS Division
6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 20, 2001 in the Council
Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center.
7. McGhie and Betts, Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION: Motion
Second
(6MA J '7- o
i 0
REDUCED COPY gel
NOT TO SCALE
i
oMott
I � ,G.Lu SCO:
L9m, m9L
]''latel �tl/a r ec'm ao oL Lrie T x�8r p e
•a aIe qM _MN 3NVI
"YVVHONIYVNIB �a s
v
[g� g q LKSI rl'0S1
•0 N i S_
N
clwl Wn meL - mv[ msL r W � N
Z M
• .Lnwvo s M ,mwb s Q
I srvn
y� 92,IpL1� n 55t 3} I C7 I LLUI ry
s 9IA MN .".mr3NVl m I NYLt
�a ✓ SIIIH ' a "'OIOMS100 m.ww X
-77
8 1 i l' I KStI
a�8_fi A• ,O1 � A o' k 8 t�G � 3 f G] tagb x
_ e1Yr1 w .mrG10 S I mOl mt[ W'iL ml rLi 3 $9.� 10 N
C���JSll{ mSL I M S0.w10 S M1,C0r6b i M jO.wW S M �W.wb f I _ � 9 -.
l v f �• AA h�4 n -
6 �`R B l°^ ei " $ ® And N '8 a 10 �^" RIF •tb �Sr� a.V! it
s:elr^L`]L'A n
R MN 3AI80 OM09ST11H
_. flame if? ♦ y
SLSL — �'OL — �q♦_ _ _ W9L � si �^ Op.,A a �� Q S�
♦ Y
® Oe 1 4S
_ LS'(L m'OL m'OL W Ol LOV( W'OL SS59 "1'
w•y 3 =.Kta M
Y�prp
s
I�AUG - 6
ROWESTER!
PLANNING DE
ROCHESTER-OLhISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744
. o o w , , o, www.olmstedcourty.com/planning
TO: Rochester Common Council
FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner
DATE: August 15, 2001
RE: Final Plat #01-01 by Leslie A Lurken to be known as North Park
Eleventh Subdivision. The applicant proposes to subdivide
approximately 12.75 acres into 45 lots for single family
development and one outlot. This Plat will include dedication of
right-of-way for three roadways including Hillsboro Drive NW.
This property is located north of North Park Second Subdivision,
south of the Orchard Ridge Development and allows for the
continuation of Hillsboro Drive NW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner: Leslie A. Lurken
1027 NW 71h Street
Rochester, MN 55901
Surveyors/Engineers: McGhie & Betts, Inc.
1648 Third Avenue SE
Rochester, MN 55904
Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department
Rochester Public Works Department
Report Attachments:
1. Referral Comments (2 letters)
2. Copy of Preliminary Plat
3. North Park General Development Plan
Development Review:
Location of Property: The property is located north of North Park Second
Subdivision, south of the Orchard Ridge Development.
Zoning: The property is currently zoned R-1 (Mixed Single
Family) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map.
Proposed Development: This development consists of 12.75 acres of land to be
subdivided into 45 lots for single family development
and one outlot.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224
.a�wn PLANNING20NING 507/285-8232 • WELLISEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 5071287-2275
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Page
11 Final Plat #01-01
North Park 11 th
August 15, 2001
Roadways:
This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for the
continuation of one roadway and two new roadways.
The first roadway labeled "Hillsboro Drive NW" is
designed with a 56' right-of-way. This roadway is a
continuation of "Hillsboro Drive NW" from the south
(North Park 2n° Subdivision). The right-of-way width for
"Hillsboro Drive NW", north of "Birmingham Drive NW"
must be increased to 60' in width.
The second roadway labeled "Birmingham Drive NW" is
designed with a 50' right-of-way and a 51' cul-de-sac
radius. This roadway intersects "Hillsboro Drive NW"
and continues to the east, then northerly direction. This
roadway in an incorrect roadway type. The roadway
type will need to be changed to "Birmingham Lane
NW".
The third roadway labeled "Cotswold Hills Lane NW" is
designed with a 50' right-of-way and a 51' cul-de-sac
radius. This roadway intersects "Birmingham Drive
NW" and continues in a northerly direction.
Pedestrian Facilities: In accordance with current City policy Pedestrian
Facilities are required for this development along both
sides of all new public roads including along the road
frontage of Outlot A .
Drainage: The elevations of this property range from 1090' along
the southern portion of the plat to approximately 1120'
along the center and northern portion.
Grading and drainage plans have been approved by the
City Public Works Department.
A Development Agreement has been executed for this
property.
Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now requires that all developments
be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric
soils. The site was studied for wetlands and no
wetlands were found.
Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will need to be extended
from their present ends to accommodate this
development.
Spillover Parking: As per Section 63.426 of the LDM, all residential
development must provide spillover parking for service
vehicles and visitors. This development requires 54
spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the
additional parking can be accommodated on the
roadways and most likely within private driveways, as
well.
Page 3
Final Plat #01-01
North Park 11th
August 15, 2001
Parkland Dedication: The City Park and Recreation Department
recommends that dedication requirements be met via:
A combination of dedication of land (Outlot A) plus cash
in lieu of land. Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City.
General Development Plan: This property is included within the North Park General
Development Plan (GDP).
Preliminary Plat Staff Review and Recommendation:
A preliminary plat for this area was approved by the City Council on March 5, 2001. The approval
of the preliminary plat was subject to three (3) 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 Outiot A.
2. Parkland Dedication shall be met via: The combination of land (Outlot A) plus cash
in lieu of land. Outiot A shall be dedicated to the City and the developer shall grade
and establish the outlot to turf prior to deeding the outlot to the City.
3. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Rochester
that outlines the obligations of the applicant relating, but not limited to; storm water
management; park dedication; traffic improvements; pedestrian facilities;
contributions for public infrastructure. Grading and Drainage plans must be
approved for this development. A Traffic Calming contribution shall be required for
this development. A contribution for the North West Transportation Improvement
District (NWTID) will be required for this development.
Planning Staff Review and Recommendation:
The Developer has executed a Development Agreement with the City for this Plat. Therefore,
staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions or modifications:
1. Parkland Dedication requirements be met via: Combination of dedication of land
(OutlotA) to the City, plus cash in lieu of land in the amount of $14,250 with payment
due prior to recordation of the final plat.
q3 /
ROCHESTER PARK AND OOCREATiON DEPARTMENT
201 FOURTH STREET SE
ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769
TELE 507-281-6160
FAX 507-281-6165
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 6, 2001
TO: Jennifer Garness
Planning
RE: North Park 111h
Final Plat#01-01
Acreageof plat..........................................................
Number of dwelling units .............................................
Dwelling unit density ...................................................
Densityfactor............................................................
Dedication...............................................................
Fair market value of land .............................................
12.75 acres
45 units
3.53 units/acre
.0244
1.10 acres
$15,000 / acre
The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met
via: Combination of dedication of land (Outlot A) plus cash in lieu of land.
The applicant should be given credit for the dedication of Outlot A (.15 acres) which will
serve as an access to the existing 6.5 acre park. The applicant should grade and establish
turf on the outlot prior to dedication. Dedication of the outlot can also be deferred until
such time as the area is accessed by public street.
Dedication due ...........................1.10 acres
Less outlot A..............................0.15 acres
Net dedication due ..................... 0.95 acres as cash in lieu of land in the amount of
$14,250 with payment due prior to recordation of the final plat.
Applicant:
Leslie Lurken
1027 7" Street NW
0:\DST0T2\200I\DEDICATI0N\NW 2e98\N PARK 11.D0C
ROCHESTER 05�'
/ V /inne90 to
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 4� Street SE Room 108
TO: Consolidated Planning Department Rochester, MN 55904-3740
7800
2122 Campus Drive SE 5-507- 81-6
Rochester, MN 55904 FAX-507-281-6216
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DATE: 8/13/01
The Department of Public Works has reviewed the requested application for Final Plat
Request #01-01 on the North Park Eleventh Subdivision property. The following are
Public Works revised comments on the proposal:
1. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property.
2. A City -Owner Contract has been executed for this property.
3. Outlot 'A' is to be dedicated to the City for park access.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the
executed City -Owner Contract, and Development Agreement for this property, and
include:
:• J9173 NW Trunk Sanitary Sewer
J9265 Watertower & Trunk Watermain to Serve High Level NW Area (Note: A
portion of this property has previously paid for Tower charges and the remainder
has a current assessment)
Contribution to NWTID
i• Traffic Calming Contribution
Stormwater Management (water quality portion only
Contribution for First Seal Coat Program
•:• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division:
4 Street name Signs 1 Dead End Sign
C:\temp\FP01.01 North Park 11 th.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING QJ /
DATE: 8-20-01
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING
�,_ _ 5r
1TrM DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Restrictive Development and Incentive
PREPARED BY:
Development Final Plan #01-02 by Home Federal Savings Bank. The applicant is
Brent Svenby.
proposing to develop a 10,000 square foot office and commercial banking building with
Planner
bank drive -up windows. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and is located
along the south side of 551h Street NW, north of West Circle Drive, and east of 41" Avenue
NW.
August 15, 2001
Note: Recommended condition # 2 can be deleted, the applicant has addressed the comments in the RPU letter.
A condition placed on the preliminary plan required that the temporary access to 41" Ave. NW be
designed with a curve in it so that it didn't align directly with the front window of the single family
residence to the west. The applicant's consultant met with the adjacent property owner on June 28,
2001 regarding the alignment of the temporary access. The adjacent property owner agrees to the
alignment as shown on the final plan, without a curve in it. if the Council agrees with the new
alignment, the final plan should be approved as submitted.
City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation:
The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on July 25, 2001, to consider this Restricted Development
and Incentive Development. The proposal is considered an Incentive Development to allow the construction of a 10,000
square foot office and banking building and a restrictive development to allow drive -up windows in the R-1 zoning district.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request according to the applicable criteria and standards in the LDM. The
mission found that this request is consistent with those criteria, subject to the following modifications or conditions:
1. An approved grading/drainage plan is required prior to construction. Storm water management must be
provided and a fee will apply for voluntary participation in the City's regional Storm Water Management Plan if
the proposed on -site water quality pond is not sized to address the stormwater volume for the entire site.
in from the RIP" Water Di -Wen shall be addFessed prio�
letteF dated July 11,
approval of the 2 T-hp comments the .9001
3. The property is limited to the temporary access to 41" Ave. NW until the City Engineer authorizes access from
the property onto 55'h Street NW. At such time the access is permitted to 551h St. NW, the temporary access to
41" Ave. NW shall be removed and vegetation shall be established in its location.
4. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the development, the Development Agreement executed by the
applicant shall be executed by the City.
5. The exterior building materials and colors as indicated on the building exterior elevation plan sheet and the
landscaping plan submitted for final development plan approval shall not be modified without Council review
and approval.
Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase III Restrictive Development and Incentive
Development Final Plan #01-02 by Home Federal Savings Bank with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Ms.
Rivas seconded the motion. The motion carried 6.0. The CPZC also agreed with the alignment as shown on the
final plan, without a curve in the temporary access.
Council Action Needed:
If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving
with conditions, or denying this request based upon the criteria included in the staff report.
COUNCIL 7 Second by:to: 1� �"�
l 3 S on, (//��
IF<� 2;\\�§j / �§
Cl
ex
s O�
� \J
(Z9'6>£oa'P)
6Z'6ti£ 'P,sw
Nll105 ssn�r m�wuiHa
,1 P
4
ji I
R �
1 �:� eF: gig3g
I1 _ {��g(�(Ryy eaa j{ipid3yg
1
a! 1
I- el7Jh s.
(00'£1t P)
rs'u! TAW NN 9ON8AY lslY tt
3 .00.90.10 Na
-------------
. EAGLE STATUE
I
t
SPOT LIGHT
BACK -LIT PLASTIC SIC
HOME
+ FEDERAL
I DARK BRONZE
MESSAGE
SIGN
r
CN BRICK
ROCKFACE CONC. BLC
I gl_oil I
FL-----------
-----------�
TSP One, Inc.
1500 Highway 52 North
Rochester, MN 55901
Tel. (507) 288-8155
Fax. (507) 288-7220
21 Water Street ❑
Excelsior, MN 55331
Tel. (612) 474-3291
Fax. (612) 474-3928
Project Title:
HOME FEDERAL SAVING BANK
Sheet Title:
PYLON SIGN
Project No.:
00022
Date:
06/27/01
Page No:
A
RO • STER-OLNiSTED PLANNING DEPARNIENT
2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester. MN 55904-4744
.OF,.00NFSTFR• .Ft
R AI/
O Q U M T Y OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning
City Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner
DATE: July 20, 2001
RE: Type III, Phase II Restricted Development and Incentive
Development Final Plan #01-02 by Home Federal Savings Bank.
The applicant is proposing to develop a 10,000 square foot office
and bank building with drive -up windows. The property is zoned
R-1 (Mixed Single Family) and is located north of West Circle
Drive, along the south side of 55th Street NW and east of 41 at
Avenue NW.
Planning Department Review:
Applicant/Owner; Home Federal Savings Bank
Attn: Dwain Jorgenson
101 North Broadway
Spring Valley, MN 55975
Consultant: TSP One, Inc
Attn: Bill Meschke
1500 Highway 52 North
Rochester. MN 55901
Referral Comments: City Public Works Department
Olmsted County Public Works
RPU — Water Division
RPU — Operations Division
MnDOT
Rochester Fire Department
Planning Dept. — Wetlands
Planning Dept. - Addressing
Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts
2. Project Narrative
3. Site Plan
4. Referral Comments (4 Letters)
Development Review:
Location of Property: The property is located north of West Circle Drive,
along the south side of 551h Street NW and east of
41" Avenue NW.
BUILDING CODE 507/285-6213 • GISIADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224
PLANNINWONING 507/285-8232 • WELL/SEPTIC 507/285-8345
FAX 50V287-2275
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Home Federal Savings
July 20, 2001
Page 2 of 10
• 1031
Zoning: The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on
the City of Rochester Zoning Map. The property is
designated of the "medium density residential" uses
on the Land Use Plan.
Proposed Development:
The Preliminary Plan for this proposal was approved by the City Council in April 16, 2001.
Included with the preliminary plan, the applicant requested a number of variances to the sign
regulations of the LDM for the proposed signage on the site and also a variance to the amount of
impervious surface coverage in the shoreland district. The variances requested by the applicant
were approved. Final signage detail is included with the information submitted for the final
development plan.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot office building. The building would
contain a 2,700 square foot banking facility with the remaining portion of the building being used
for commercial banking. According to the floor plan there will also be a small area leased for an
insurance office. The site plan shows the banking facility having 4 drive -up lanes. A total 45
parking spaces are shown on the site. The plan also identifies two entrances into the property. A
temporary entrance is shown to 41 s1 Avenue NW. This entrance would be a temporary entrance
until improvements are made to 55`h Street NW. Once the improvements are made to 55 h Street
NW, the entrance to the property would be off of 55'h Street, lining up with Fairway Drive NW. At
the time this entrance is constructed, the temporary entrance to 41 St Avenue NW would be
removed.
This application is the combination of 2 different applications. The first application is that of a
Restricted Development. The proposed drive -up facilities of the bank needs to considered
through the Restrictive Development process because drive -up banking facilities are not permitted
in the R-1 zoning district. The second application is that of the Incentive Development. The
applicant is requesting approval to construct a facility that has a floor area ratio of .075. In the R-1
zoning district a proposed building with that floor area ratio needs to be approved through the
Incentive Development process.
The staff report is broken down into two different sections (Restrictive Development and Incentive
Development).
Restrictive Development
The Restricted Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual
(Section 62.700) recognize that certain land uses which are generally not allowed within a given
zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable
balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standards zoning
regulations". This application requires a two step review process, consisting of a preliminary plan
and a final plan. The final plan phase follows the Type III, Phase III, procedure with a review
before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council.
Criteria & Findings:
The criteria to be considered when reviewing a Restrictive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.708 (2), which is attached for your review. This section considers the suitability of the area and
the site design. The final plan may be approved if it is found that the development has addressed
(Oq Home Federal Savings • •
July 20, 2001
Page 3 of 10
and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be
incorporated into the design. Staff suggests the following findings:
a) Public Facility Design: Utilities are available to serve this development. The RPU Water
Division has indicated that the copper water service must be sized according to the probable
peak Bow for the facility. The existing fire hydrants along the north property boundary need to
be raised to the level of the adjacent pavement. if additional on -site fire hydrants are
required, the applicant will need to enter into a City -Owner contract for the installation of the
public watermain and the watermain must be located within a 20' minimum public utility
easement. Prior to the issuance of building permits the issues raised in the letter dated July
11, 2001 will need to be resolved.
b) Geologic Hazards:: This property is within the Shoreland Overlay District. The applicant is
proposing a stormwater management pond on -site. A wetland delineation has been approved
for the site.
c) Access Effect: Temporary access to the property will be provided from 41a Ave. NW until
such a time that improvements to 5e Street NW are done. At that time, the access to the
property will be from 5e Street NW and the access to 41 sr Ave. NW will be removed. The
access to 55m St. NW will align with Fairway Drive NW.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The Plan accommodates future pedestrian facilities to be located
along 55 ° Street NW, 41 n Avenue NW and West Circle Drive.
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: The applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping plan
for the property. The proposed landscaping plan meets the requirements of the zoning
ordinance. The applicant is proposing to plant a vast majority of the easterly and southerly
portion of the property with a native prairie seed mix.
f) Site Status: The project, as proposed, would remain under the ownership and management
of the applicant. The owner/applicant will be responsible for maintenance of the property.
The applicant has executed a pedestrian facilities agreement for the installation of public
facilities on the site.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The site plan does identify the required bufferyards along the
boundaries of the property. The landscaping plan does provide for a number of trees and
shrubs to be planted and approximately 65% of the site will be landscaped.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified in
preliminary development plan relative to Height impact, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation
aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The drive -up facility meets the stacking requirements for financial
institutions.
Incentive Development:
The Incentive Development provisions of the Land Development Manual allow for a higher
intensity development when certain actions are taken by the landowner to make the development
Home Federal Savings
July 20, 2001
Page 4 of 10
more attractive and publicly acceptable. These actions may include additional open space
amenities, traffic and pedestrian amenities and/or design features. The Incentive Development
approval procedure is a two step process consisting of a preliminary plan and a final development
plan. The final plan is reviewed under a Type III, Phase II, procedure with a review before the
Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Council.
The criteria to be considered when reviewing an Incentive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.630 (1), which is attached for your review. This section looks at both the suitability of the area
and the site design. The final plan may be approved if it is found that the development has
addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest can be incorporated into the design.
The development is proposing an increase in density of floor area. The allowed floor area ratio for
an office building within the R-1 (Mixed Single Family) zoning district is .06 for a Type I (staff
approval) permit. This site would allow for a 7,959 sq. ft. building as a Type I development. The
applicant is proposing a 10,000-sq. ft. building, which is a F.A.R. of approximately .075 and
requires that the proposal be reviewed through the Incentive Development process. According to
the site capacity calculation the net buildable area is 132,652 Square feet or 3.04 acres.
The applicant submitted final building elevations and a detailed landscaping plan. The building
plan submitted shows a single story, 10,000 square foot building. The exterior building materials
consist of rock face block, face brick and E.I.F.S. The colors of the exterior materials are
indicated on the plan sheet showing the building elevations. The roof of the building is shown as
being a standing seam metal roof.
A detailed landscaping plan was also submitted. The plan shows a number of deciduous trees
planted on the property. The plan also shows numerous shrubs and perennials planted around
the building and the parking areas. The applicant has also shown that a portion of the property
being planted with a native prairie seed mix. This area is mostly on the eastern portion of the
property around the stormwater management pond and continues to the west behind the building.
Density bonuses are granted in exchange for the incorporation of features determined to be of
public benefit. Features to be considered are listed in Paragraphs 62.651-62.659 of the
Ordinance. The sections applicable to this project are attached for your information.
Density Bonuses:
Section 62.658 All Development
#1 Storm Water Management: The storm water management pond will not only
accommodate the drainage water from the impervious areas on the site but it will also
accommodate drainage from 55f6 Street NW and Fairway Drive NW. The pond will act as
the sediment pond, filtering the water prior to flowing into Kings Run Creek.
#4 Street Improvements: According to the development agreement, the applicant will
dedicate 67 feet of right-of-way along the east side of 4131 Ave. NW. Typically the applicant
would only be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way for this roadway.
#5 Utility Service: Utilities exist adjacent to this project. Some utilities will need to be
modified (i.e. hydrants and valve boxes) to accommodate this development. The applicant
will need to coordinate these modifications or improvements with the appropriate agencies.
165
(� Home Federal Savings • •
July 20, 2001
Page 5 of 10
#6 Integrated Planning: This site is more than one acre in size and is infill development in
an established district.
#7 Increased Landscape Area: The total landscape area of the site is 65%. This is 5%
over the required minimum 60% landscape area.
#8 Parkina Lot Landscaping: The perimeter of the parking stalls are shown as being
planted with trees and shrubs which will provide screening to the residential areas and the
adjacent right-of-ways.
Criteria & Findinas:
The criteria to be considered when reviewing an Incentive Development are listed in Paragraph
62.630 (2), which is attached for your review. This section considers the suitability of the area and
the site design. The final plan may be approved if it is found that the development has addressed
and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be
incorporated into the design. Staff suggests the following findings:
2) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The proposed use of the property (bank) should the compatible
with the existing land uses in the area. The proposed site is suitable as the location for an
Incentive Development as it is located at an entrance to a residential neighborhood and is
not proposed to be located in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
b) Geologic Hazard: This property is within the Shoreland Overlay District. The applicant is
proposing a stormwater management pond on -site. A wetland delineation has been
approved for the site
c) Access Effect: Temporary access will be provided from 41" Ave. NW until such a time
that improvements to 55f° Street NW are done. At that time, the access to the property
will be from 5eStreet NW and the access to 41" Ave. NW will be removed. The access
to 558 St. NW will align with Fairway Drive NW .
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The Plan accommodates future pedestrian facilities to be
located along 5e Street NW, 41" Avenue NW and West Circle Drive..
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: The applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping
plan for the property. The proposed landscaping plan meets the requirements of the
zoning ordinance. The applicant is proposing to plant a vast majority of the easterly and
southerly portion of the property with a native prairie seed mix.
f) Site Status: The project, as proposed, would remain under the ownership and
management of the applicant. The owner/applicant will be responsible for maintenance of
the property. The applicant has executed a pedestrian facilities agreement for the
installation of public facilities on the site.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The site plan does identify the required bufferyards along
the boundaries of the property. The landscaping plan does provide for a number of trees
and shrubs to be planted and consists of 65% percent of the site area.
Home Federal Savings
July20, 2001
Page 6 of 10
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified
in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks, and Internal Site
Design
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation
aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design
j) Ordinance Requirements: The signage proposed is consistent with the sizes that were
approved through a variance request during the preliminary development plan approval.
The overall site plan appears to meet the general standards for similar uses within the R-1
zoning district.
Restrictive and Incentive Development: The Commission will need to make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding this application.
A condition placed on the preliminary plan required that the temporary access to 41"Ave
NW be desigped with a curve in it so that it didn't align directly with the front window of
the singlMsIdence to the west. The applicant's consultant met with the adjacent
property owner on June 28, 2001 regarding the alignment of the temporary access. The
adjacent property owner has decided that not having a curve in the access works better for
him. The Council will need to decide if the condition placed on the preliminary plan
requiring a curve in the temporary access should be removed.
Staff suggests that this application can be approved subject to the following conditions or
modifications:
1. An approved grading/drainage plan is required prior to construction. Storm water
management must be provided and a fee will apply for voluntary participation in the
City's regional Storm Water Management Plan if the proposed on -site water quality
pond is not sized to address the stormwater volume for the entire site.
2. The comments in the letter dated July 11, 2001 from the RPU Water Division shall be
addressed prior to the approval of the final development plan.
3. The property is limited to the temporary access to 41s' Ave. NW until the City Engineer
authorizes access from the property onto 55'h Street NW. At such time the access is
permitted to 55th St. NW, the temporary access to 41`t Ave. NW shall be removed and
vegetation shall be established in its location.
4. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the development, the Development Agreement
executed by the applicant shall be executed by the City.
5. The exterior building materials and colors as indicated on the building exterior
elevation plan sheet and the landscaping plan submitted for final development plan
approval shall not be modified without Council review and approval.
togHome Federal Savings • •
July 20, 2001
Page 7 of 10
CITY OF ROCHESTER
ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL
EXCERPTS
Restrictive Development
62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall approve
a preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addressed and
satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution
consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or
a modification for unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712.
62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or
approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by
the following criteria:
1) Final Development Plan Criteria:
a) Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet
the requirements and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted.
b) Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard
have been incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set
aside from development.
c) Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so
as to:
1) Provide adequate separation from existing street intersections and adjacent
private driveways so that traffic circulation problems in public right-of-ways
are minimized;
2) Not adversely impact adjacent residential properties with factors such as
noise from accelerating or idling vehicles or the glare of headlights from
vehicles entering or leaving the site.
In addition, where the preliminary development plan identified potential
problems in the operation of access points, plans for private
improvements or evidence of planned public improvements which will
alleviate the problems have been provided.
d) Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians
can move safely both within the site and across the site between properties and
activities within the neighborhood area, and, where appropriate,
accommodations for transit access are provided.
Home Federal Savings
July 20, 2001
Page 6 of 10
e) Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been
prepared which indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape
character of the surrounding area.
f) Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future
maintenance and ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the
completion of any platting activities, and the provision of adequate assurance to
guarantee the installation of required public improvements, screening and
landscaping.
g) Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design
contains earth forms, structures and plant materials which are adequate to
satisfy the needs identified in Phase I for the project.
h) Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the
principles identified in preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact,
Setbacks, and Internal Site Design.
i) Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and
circulation aisles to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of
design.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the requirements
of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to signage and other
appearance controls, and with general standards such as traffic visibility and emergency
access
Incentive Development:
62.620 STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The Council shall approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the
development has addressed and satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.630 (1)
or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the
final development plans.
62.621 Standards for Approval, Final Development Plan: The Council shall approve or
approve with conditions a final development plan if it finds that the development has
satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.630(2).
62,630 CRITERIA FOR INCENTIVE DEVELOPMENTS:
In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application, the
Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria:
b) Final Development Plan Criteria:
Public Facility Design: The design of private and public utility facilities meet the requirements
and specifications which the applicable utility has adopted.
lcoHome , Federal SavingsJuly 20• •
Page 9 of 10
Geologic Hazard: Engineering means to deal with areas of geologic hazard have been
incorporated into the development plan or such areas have been set aside from development.
Access Effect: Ingress and egress points have been designed and located so as to address
concerns identified in Phase I regarding the operation of access points, and plans for private
improvements or evidence of planned public improvements which will alleviate the problems have
been provided.
Pedestrian Circulation: The plan includes elements to assure that pedestrians can move safely
both within the site and across the site between properties and activities within the neighborhood
area, and, where appropriate, accommodations for transit access are provided.
Foundation and Site Plantings: A landscape plan for the site has been prepared which
indicates the finished site will be consistent with the landscape character of the surrounding area.
Site Status: Adequate measures have been taken to insure the future maintenance and
ownership pattern of the project, including common areas, the completion of any platting activities,
and the provision of adequate assurance to guarantee the installation of required public
improvements, screening and landscaping.
Screening and Bufferyards: The final screening and bufferyard design contains earth forms,
structures and plant materials which are adequate to satisfy the needs identified in preliminary
development plan for the project.
Final Building Design: The final building design is consistent with the principles identified in
preliminary development plan relative to Height Impact, Setbacks, and Internal Site Design.
Internal Circulation Areas: Plans for off-street parking and loading areas and circulation aisles
to serve these areas meet ordinance requirements in terms of design.
j) Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development is consistent with the
requirements of the underlying zoning district for similar uses in regards to
signage and other appearance controls, and with general standards such as
traffic visibility and emergency access.
62.640 BONUS DENSITY OR FLOOR AREA:
The amount of bonus density will be negotiated with the Commission and Council during
the Type III review process. Density bonuses are granted in exchange for the
incorporation of features determined to be of public benefit. The features to be
considered are listed in Paragraphs 62.651 through 62.659. The features to be used
can be chosen at the option of the applicant.
62.658 All Development: The criteria in this paragraph may be considered for granting bonus
density in all developments:
1) Storm Water Management: The developer provides on -site or off -site
improvements to stormwater facilities that will minimize existing flooding, erosion or
siltation problems resulting from obsolete or non -existing stormwater facilities up or
downstream from the tract in question; or the developer provides improvements
Home Federal Savings
July 20, 2001
Page 10 of 10
such as over -sized retention basins, channel improvements, or recharge facilities
which reduce or eliminate existing flooding, erosion or siltation caused by urban
development either up or downstream. The City Council shall determine that the
existing problems are sufficient to grant the bonus, based upon the
recommendation of the City Engineer.
2) The development proposes to integrate the reuse of an existing structure which has
been vacant for 24 consecutive months.
3) Easements consistent with the flood control project are provided, or other bank
treatment or river beautification which will result in increased usage of the area
along existing streams for walking, sitting, or other means of passive recreation are
developed.
4) Street improvements normally provided by the City of Rochester are constructed,
dedicated or paid for by the developer. Examples include the provision of right-of-
way for arterial streets beyond that normally required to be dedicated, or the
construction or payment for turn lanes, signal lights, increased pavement depths,
etc.
5) Utility Service: The development of the site will lead to increased efficiency in the
existing public utility delivery system or the more efficient use of already existing
utilities. This means, a) that the necessary utilities already exist on the property to
be served, or b) the development of the property will provide a necessary link or
connection to complete the system or improve service.
6) Integrated Planning: The proposed development involves the integrated
development of a site which is a minimum of one acre in size and located in an
established district.
7) Each four (4) percent increase in the landscape area ratio above the minimum
required shall be considered as meeting the criteria for bonus density/floor area or
an increase in plant materials so as to exceed minimum requirements.
8) The proposed development minimizes access points by utilizing shared access
points with adjacent developments, resulting in a reduction in the number of
driveway openings on a collector or higher level street.
9) Parking lot landscaping for the purpose of screening residential areas and/or right-
of-way areas from concentration of vehicles.
•
CNE�TF A. ,,
ALL- MIERICA CM
ROCHESTER
•0R•-�-
V'e
/%�iruze�ata
DAVID A. KAPLER, Chief
Rochester Fire Department
201 4th Street SE, Room 10
Rochester, MN 55904-3726
(507)285-8072
FAX #(507) 285-8256
DATE:
July 13, 2001
TO:
Jennifer Garness, Planning
FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief
SUBJECT: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development and Incentive Development
Final Plat #01-02, Home Federal Savings Bank, located north of West
Circle Drive, south of 55th Street NW, and east of 41" Avenue NW.
With regard to the above noted general development plan, the fire department has the
following requirements:
An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants
properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water
Division. Hydrants shall be in place prior to commencing building construction.
Streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO
31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Emergency vehicle
access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction.
3. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any
residential buildings.
4. All buildings are required to display the proper street address number on the
building front, which is plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the
property. Number size must be a minimum 4" high on contrasting background when
located on the building and 3" high if located on a rural mail box at the public road
fronting the property. Reflective numbers are recommended.
c: Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division
Home Federal Savings Bank, 101 North Broadway, Spring Valley, MN 55975
TSP One, Inc. 1500 Hwy 52 North, Rochester, MN 55901
ROCHESTER 113
i'V/inn¢3ota
TO: Consolidated Planning Department
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904
FROM: Michael J. Nigbur
DATE: 7/13/01
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
201 41° Street SE Room 108
Rochester, MN 55904-3740
507-287-7800
FAX - 507-281-6216
Public Works has reviewed the requested Restricted Development & Incentive Development
FINAL Plan #01-02 for the Home Federal Savings Bank (55" St NW & 41s` Ave NW)) property.
The following are Public Works Comments on the proposal:
1. Separate Grading & Drainage Plan approval is required prior to development for this
project.
2. A Development Agreement and a Pedestrian Facilities Agreement have been prepared
and executed for this property.
Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the Development
Agreement
114
11
July 11, 2001
Jennifer Garness
Planning Department
Dear Jennifer:
I
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENIT
2122 CAMPUS DR SE
ROCHESTER MN 55904-474,
507/285-8231
The Public Works Department has reviewed Type III, Phase III Restrictive Development
and Incentive Development Final Plan #01-02 Home Federal Savings Bank and has the
following comments:
• Controlled access along CSAH 22.
• No signs will be allowed in public road right of way.
Sincerely,
Michael Sheehan
County Engineer
MTS:ss
t: \e n g i n d o c\p l a n z o n e. d o c
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
+w•a.
Administration Building Maintenance Surveying and Mapping Engineering Highway Maintenance Parks & Agriculture Solid Waste
rpu
x e pledge, we deliver
July 11, 2001
Rochester -Olmsted
CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2122 Campus Drive SE
Rochester, MN 55904-7996
REFERENCE: REVISED: Type III, Phase III, Restricted Development and Incentive Development Final Plan #01-02
by Home Federal Savings Bank to allow for the development of a 10,000 SF office and retail banking building with
drive up windows. The property is located along the south side of 550i St. NW and east of 41" Ave. NW.
Dear Ms. Gamess:
Our review of the referenced Restricted Development Request is complete and our comments follow: Note that these
same 4 comments were a part of the preliminary plan review, but were not addressed in this final submittal.
1. The copper water service shown must be sized according to the probable peak flow for this facility and include a
curb stop and box to be located within the green area.
2. The existing hydrant north of the building must be raised to the level of the adjacent pavement for better visibility.
3. A note must be added stating that all the existing valve boxes within the construction area must be adjusted to final
grade per the standard City of Rochester Requirements.
4. The Fire Prevention Bureau will need to comment on the location of the existing fire hydrants as they relate to
protection of this building. If they require additional on -site fire hydrant(s), water mains connecting to and
including any fire hydrant are considered public and need to be centered within a 20' minimum public utility
easement. The owner would be required to enter into a City Owner Contract with the City of Rochester for the
installation of the public water main. Contact the Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works
Department for details. Final water main construction plans would need to be prepared by a civil engineer and
conform to standard City of Rochester requirements.
Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions.
Very truly yours,
06--1A RISC,
Donn Richardson
Water
C: Doug Rovang, RPU
Mike Engle, RPU
Mark Baker, City Public Works
Mike Glenzinski, City Public Works
Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau
Home Federal Savings Bank
TSP One, Inc.
McGhie & Betts, Inc.
Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813
telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542
Page 4 • •
�ICity Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
111 Hearing Date: July 25, 2001
s. Petersson explained that businesses in the Northwest Plaza Shopping Center have
Vplained about not having a large sign like McDonalds in the past.
With Xone else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing.
Ms. Rivas ove to deny Type 11 Conditional Use Permit #01-24,by Don Rolf.Th
Architecture etwork (Wendy's) based on staff findings Mr. Stayerseconde , the
motion.
Mr. Burke asked whV the procedure would be for the applicant to resubmit the/application with
additional information Novided.
Mr. Svenby explained thatlte applicant could appeal the decision of
Council. N
to the City
Mr. Brede stated that he tends to ok for fast food restaur/aaint
driving on highways.
Therefore, visibility is important.
Mr. Slaver stated that it would hav\bebeneficial for theto have submitted
additional information.
Mr. Rolf indicated that he would speak with NX. Fogarj,+/about the appeal process
I The motion carried 5-1. with Mr. Brede voting)Av. I
REVIEW ITEMS:
Ms. Theresa Fogarty prese ed the staff report, dated July 16, 2001, o the Commission. The
staff report is on file at t ochester-Olmsted Planning Department. a stated that the
request would be hear efore the City Council as a public hearing.
Mr. Burke pointe ut that the analysis states that "the pedestrian bridge ac s the Zumbro
River" should b changed to "the pedestrian bridge across the Silver Creek."
Ms. FogaVstated that she would check the engineering report and that she wout it
clarifiedyfior to the City Council meeting.
Mr
Type III, Phase III Restrictive Development and Incentive Development Final Plan #01.02
,[ by Home Federal Savings Bank. The applicant is proposing to develop a 10,000 square
/l` foot office and commercial banking building with bank drive -up windows. The property
Page 5 •
City Planning and Zoning Corrurussion Minutes
Hearing Date: July 25, 2001
of
Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated July 20, 2001, to the Commission. The staff
report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department.
Mr. Svenby gave the background and history of the project.
Mr. Svenby showed the Commission the detailed landscaping plan. He also showed the
elevations of the structure.
Mr. Svenby explained that, when the preliminary plan was approved by the City Council; there
was a condition regarding the alignment of the temporary drive to 415t Avenue due to a
concerned adjacent property owner. However, the property owner has decided that the original
plan submitted by the applicant is more amicable. Therefore, the City Council will need to
decide whether to keep the condition as part of the approval process or drop it as asked by the
applicant and adjacent property owner.
Mr. Svenby stated that Donn Richardson was on vacation. Therefore, he was unable to find out
if the revised utility and grading plan addressed all of Mr. Richardson's concerns.
Mr. Staver asked if the Commission should make one or two motions regarding the Restrictive
Development and Incentive Development Final Plan.
Mr. Svenby responded that the Commission could make one motion.
Discussion ensued regarding the application process for the Restrictive Development and
Incentive Development Final Plan.
Mr. Burke asked why the applicant would not receive any type of credit (on the Storm Water
Management fee), as they would be providing more storm water management than the site
requires.
Mr. Svenby responded that there are certain areas on the site that are not draining to the pond
that would be created.
The applicant's representative, Bill Meschke of TSP One, Inc., addressed the Commission. He
stated that it was his understanding that the drainage pond would pick up more drainage than
what was created on the site.
Mr. Meschke stated that they worked with the adjacent property owner regarding the temporary
access.
Ms. Rivas commended Mr. Meschke with working with the property owners. She also
expressed gratitude with regard to buffering and landscaping.
Mr. Quinn asked staff if they needed to include in the motion that the entrance to 41't Street not
be an S curve.
Mr. Svenby responded yes
(� Page 6
1 /1 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
` W Hearing Date: July 25, 2001
Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase III Restrictive Development ,
and Incentive Development .Final Plan #01 02, by Home Federal Sarongs Bank based on
the staff recommended findings and conditions and with the resident's agreement that
the entrance to 41•' Street not be a 5 curve. Ms.l2ivas seconded the motion. The motion
carried 6-0.
CONDITIONS:
1. An approved grading/drainage plan is required prior to construction' Storm water
management must be provided and a feewill voluntary,participation in the
City's regional Storm Water Management Plan if the proposed on slfe water quality
pond is not sized to address the e fo stormwater volumr the entrze site
,. :a -
2. The comments Ain the letter dated. July 11, 2001 from the RPU Water Division shall be
addressed prior tohe tapproval of the final development plan ' j'
3. The property is limited to the temporary access to 41ar Ave NW until the City.Engmeer
authorizes access from the property onto:55ei Street NULI ,At such time the access is
permitted to 55in St NW, the temporary access to 41.1Ave NW shall be removed an
vegetation shall be established in its location 1
4. Prior to the issuance of any permits for the development,the Development
Agreement executed by the applicant shall bb'execuf6d by the
5. The exterior building materials and colors,as indicated on the building exterior
elevation plan sheet and the landscaping plan submitted for final development plan
approval shall not be modified without Council review and approval.
OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Residential Part/
Mr. Greg Wise presented the Nff report, dated July 18
report is on file at the Rochester- Imsted Planning Deb
Mr. Wise and the Commission discusVd the
• front yard parking
• circle driveways
• area accessory development p ing
• multi -family dwelling parking
• commercial parking extens' n parking
• paving of all driveways d parking spaces
• other miscellaneous i ues related to parking
Discussion ensued regay4ing definition of "carport."
to the Commission. The staff
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
AFpORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ORIGINATING DEPT:
CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
MEETING
DATE: 8/20/O1 PPP
ITEM NO.
F-
M DESCRIPTION: Approval of De Minimis Settlement Agreement with U.S. PREPARED BY:
Environmental Protection Agency in the PCB Treatment, Inc., case. TERRY ADKINS
Ti a
In late 1982, the Water Reclamation Plant disposed of three transformers from the Plant. These
transformers were filled with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are chemicals formerly used in
electrical equipment to prevent overheating. RPU assisted in the removal process by removing,
warehousing, bidding and shipping the transformers for disposal. Water Reclamation Plant personnel
selected the PCB Treatment, Inc., sites in Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri. In all, RPU
disposed of three transformers weighing 12, 750 pounds. It is estimated that 29 million pounds of
transformers and other electrical equipment were sent to the site.
PCB Treatment, Inc., consisted of two buildings and the surrounding areas operated by waste disposal
companies in the 1980s. This company received from some 2,000 customers PCB contaminated
material pursuant to their permit under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Among the materials disposed
of were transformers, capacitors, PCB oil, regulators, debris and other miscellaneous equipment.
However, due to regulatory violations and releases of PCBs at these facilities (there were numerous
spills and mishandling of material containing PCB), the permit was not renewed and the company ceased
operations in 1986. Efforts to complete closure and clean-up of the PCB contamination were
-uccessful. Thus, the site was referred to the Superfund program and, under federal law, those who
)ped PCB waste to this site are now responsible for its clean up. (Superfund cleanup is paid for either
oy parties responsible for contamination or by the Superfund Trust Fund. Under the Superfund law, EPA
is able to make those companies and individuals responsible for the site contamination to perform, or pay
for the cleanup work at the site. Superfund is used primarily when those companies responsible for
contamination at the Superfund sites cannot be found, or cannot perform or pay for the cleanup work.)
More than 1,500 parties sent materials containing PCBs to the site.
Rochester is a responsible party for this site since the City arranged for the disposal of PCB -containing
transformers at the site. Because Rochester's transformers make up such a small portion of the overall
PCB material sent to the site (.076% of the total liability), we have been offered a de minimis settlement.
Essentially, a de minimis settlement is a relatively small amount of money to avoid having to share in a
larger amount of expense for the cleanup of the site. It is offered to those whose shipments of
contamination to the site are relatively small.
If the City agrees to the de minimis settlement offer, it must select one of two options. The City can (1)
pay $41,044.46 in return for a release and contribution protection, subject to a reopener to the extent the
total remedial action costs exceed $60 million; or (2) pay $54,725.94 for a complete satisfaction of its
liability with no reopener even if the actual cleanup costs exceed the current estimate.
UNCIL ACTION: Mown
Second
M
Reports and Recommendations
Page 2
August 20, 2001
The City Administrator and I, along with our environmental counsel, recommend the
City accept the de minimis settlement. There is no doubt but that the failure to
participate in the de minimis settlement will mean the City will pay great sums of
money for its legal defense and for its contribution to this contaminated site.
Secondly, the City Administrator and I believe option #2 is the best option. Rather
than face the possibility of additional liability in the future, we believe it is best for
the City to pay the additional money to rid itself of this contamination problem with
no further exposure to additional demands for compensation. Accordingly, we
recommend the Council select option #2.
The City must make its election no later than August 20th. If the City doesn't select
either option by that time, then the City faces unlimited liability with the other major
shippers of PCBs in the clean up of this site.
Council Action Requested:
The City Administrator and I recommend the Council adopt a resolution approving
and accepting the de minimis settlement agreement with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in the PCB Treatment, Inc., case and further selecting option #2
(pay $54,725.94 for a complete satisfaction of the City's liability with no reopener
clause even if the actual cleanup costs exceed the current estimate).
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING a
DATE: 8/20/ 1
AGENDA SECTION:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
ITEM NO.
-- ;OLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CITY ATTORITEY'S OFFICE
G
1 rr.M DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
TERRY ADKINS
G. 1. RESOLUTIONS
i - Mc
G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. •v
G. 3. COND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption).
a) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 19.05 Acres of Land Located in
the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 107 North,
Range 13 West, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Said Property Located North of Emerald Hills
Development and South of 48w Street NE. 617�)
b) An Ordinance Annexing to the City of Rochester Approximately 7.87 Acres of Land Located in
e Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 106 North, Range 14 West, Olmsted County,
Minnesota. Said Property Loc ted on the West Side of 180 Avenue Southwest North of 36th Street
Southwest. �eypp 0�1
�G
G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS "
. jUNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: