Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/2001_RegularCITY OF ROCHESTER COUNCIL AGENDA COUNCIL/BOARD CHAMBERS GOVERNMENT CENTER 151 4T" STREET SE MEETING NO. 19 REGULAR ADJOURNED PAGE 1 A) OPEN COMMENT PERIOD B) CALL TO ORDER C) LETTERS AND PETITIONS 2-3 1) Presentation of the Minnesota Flag/Kuwait D) CONSENT AGENDA/ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 7:00 P.M. 1) Approval of Minutes 5 2) Set a Public Hrg Date for the Est of TIF District in Valley Side Estates Subd 6-7 3) Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities 8 4) Accounts Payable 9-11 5) Regional Public Safety Training Facility 12 6) Olmsted Safety Council Grant 13-15 7) RPU Utility Maintenance Aide 16-21 8) Orderly Annexation Petition #01-20 by Alexey Leontovich 22 9) State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety Gang Strike Force Grant Agreement 23 10) Auto Theft Prevention Grant 24 f.lyam `9 11 Award of Contract: West Circle Drive Bike Path 25 12) Quotes for Drainage Tile Installation at the Rochester Airport 26-27 13) Consideration of Bids: Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision 28 14) Construction Engineering Service Proposal Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subd E) HEARINGS 29 1) Proposed Issuance of a $300,000 Grant from the Dept of Trade & Economic Development for PEMSTAR 30-42 2) Expansion of a Nonconforming Use Permit by Mike and Kathie Ryan 43-55 3) Request for Funding for the 2002 Community Development Black Grant Program 56-75 4) Restrictive Development Preliminary Plan by Weatherstone Dev 76-95 5) Amendment to General Dev Plan known as Eagle Ridge 96-131 6) Amendment to General Dev Plan known as Grandville 132-158 7) Preliminary Plat by Southern Woods Dev Corp to be known as Southern Woods Fourth Addition F) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 159-175 1) Establishment of Preliminary Property Tax Levy for 2002 176 2) Land Acquisition — Badger Run Trunk Line (J9745) G) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 177 H) TABLED ITEMS 178-179 1) Consideration of Bids: Sanitary Sewer and Watermain to Serve the Rose Harbor Subdivision Area 180 2) Contribution Agreement: Western Walls for Public Improvements to Serve Undeveloped Property in Rose Harbor Area 181 3) Proposal for Construction Engineering Services: Sanitary Sewer & Watermain to Serve the Rose Harbor Subdivision 1) OTHER BUSINESS J) ADJOURNMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/ A SECTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD . �..I DESCRIPTION: OPEN COMMENT PERIOD CITY ADMINISTRATOR ITEM NO. A 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. . ,)UNCIL ACTION: Mohan by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING ov DATE: 9/17/01 .3 Kvenvold, Steve From: Senjem, David H. [senjem.david@mayo.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:42 PM To: 'skvenvold@ci.rochester.mn.us' Subject: FW: Presenting the Minnesota Flag/Kuwait Unless the events of the week change this the National Guard would like to present the Rochester flag flown over Kuwait during their recent deployment at the Monday night council meeting. I told them we would do it on the TV version. dave --Original Message ----- From: Streich, Rodney (MN) [SMTP:Rodney.Streich@MN.NGB.ARMY.MIL] <mailto: [SMTP: RDdney.Streich@ MN. NGB.ARMY.M I L]> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:49 AM To: 'senjem.david@mayo.edu' Cc: Loge, Scott SFC (MN) Subject: Presenting the Minnesota Flag/Kuwait Mr David Sejem, I believe the meeting was tonight and the third Monday which will be the 17th of September. Just to confirm with you the 17th of Sept. Would work More in the favor of the presentation than tonight. Confirming this date with you please send me back the time and we will action this on the 17th. Thanks for you support, SSG Rodney A Streich Rochester TACC It's about Freedom! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4V DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY ADMINISTRATOR D-1-14 l . _... DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS T. SPAETH 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 Set a Public Hrg Date for the Establishment of TIF District in Valley Side Estates Subd D-3 Licenses, Bonds & Miscellaneous Activities D-4 Accounts Payable D-5 Regional Public Safety Training Facility D-6 Olmsted Safety Council Grant D-7 RPU Utility Maintenance Aide D-8 Orderly Annexation Petition #01-20 by Alexey Leontovich D-9 State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety Gang Strike Force Grant Agreement D-10 Auto Theft Prevention Grant D-11 Award of Contract: West Circle Drive Bike Path pk �vajc k D-12 Quotes for Drainage Tile Installation at the Rocehster Airport D-13 Consideration of Bids: Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision D-14 Construction Engineering Service Proposal Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subd COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve consent agenda items REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda City Administrator rD DESCRIPTION Request to set a public hearing date for the establishment of Tax PREPARED By: Increment Financing District in Valley Side Estates Subdivision T. Spaeth The City staff has been working with the developer (Lumber One, Avon Inc.) of the Valley Side Estates Subdivision housing project to establish a TIF district in conjunction with the First Homes Program. The developer had previously obtained approval for TIF assistance upon 50 lots in Valley Side Estates Subdivision. Only 32 of the lots were platted at the time that the Olmsted County Auditor was required to certify the TIF District so the developer has not utilized 18 of the 50 lots that were previously part of TIF District # 18-1. At this time, the developer is proposing to re-establish the 18 lots that were previously not certified, along with an additional 6 lots, for a total of 24 lots proposed for TIF assistance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt resolution to set a public hearing date of October 15, 2001 to consider the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District # 21-1 for 24 lots within Valley Side Estates Subdivision. ., JNCILACTION: Mobcnby: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4 % DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA CITY CLERK DI 3 I. _... DESCRIPTION: LICENSES, BONDS & MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES PREPARED BY: DONNA IICHOTT The following licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities are submitted for the Council's approvals or disapprovals. All are pending departmental approvals, the required insurance, bonds, fees and all outstanding debts with the City of Rochester. GAMBLING — PREMISE PERMIT Multiple Sclerosis Society 200 12d' Ave S Minneapolis, Mn. 55415 PREMISE AT: Rochescheers Pub & Grill 320 1"Ave SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 GAMBLING TEMPORARY Children's Dance Theatre 2339 Hardwood Ct SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Raffle 12/2/01 AT Senior Citizen's Center 121 N. Bdwy Rochester, Mn. 55904 (Please Waive 30 Day Waiting Period) Beighley Cup, Inc. 14625 Co Rd 142 SE Dover, Mn. 55929 Raffle at Kahler Hotel 10/19/ - 21, 2001 20 2"d Ave SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 )NCIL ACTION: motion by: Second by: to LICENSES, BONDS AND MISCELLANEOUS CITY ACTIVITIES PAGE AUGUST 17, 2001 TEMPORARY ON —SALE LIQUOR Hiawatha Homes Foundation 1530 Greenview Dr. SW Rochester, Mn. 55902 Pre -Holiday Wine Tasting 10/19/01 AT: Radisson Plaza Hotel 150 S Bdwy Rochester, Mn. 55904 SEWER & DRAIN Bill Krause Excavating PO Box 8361 Rochester, Mn. 55903 SIDEWALK — CEMENT Charles Thompson DBA Exact Concrete, Inc. PO Box 104 Zumbrota, Mn. 55992 Leonard Enterprises, Inc. Rt 1, box 6C Milleville, Mn 55957 SOUND AMPLIFICATION Gay/Lesbian Community Services of SE MN PO Box 454 Rochester, Mn. 55903 National Coming Out Night Peace Plaza 10/11/01 4:30 PM to 6:30 PM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or disapprove the above licenses, bonds and miscellaneous activities. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Agenda ORIGINATING DEPT: Finance Department ITEM NO. D 1 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 $1,546,532.67. Less: Any exceptions --UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING G DATE: 9/17/01 / 5EG 1 ION: Consent Agenda IT_... _ESCRIPTION: Regional Public Safety Training r NG DEPT: Fire D 5 PREPARED BY: Jeff Leland The State of Minnesota is in the process of reviewing Capital Bonding requests for projects in the 2002-2003 biennium. City Administration, Police, Fire and Park / Recreation departments have met with representatives from Rochester Community & Technical College, Olmsted County Sheriff and the National Guard to explore the development of the Regional Public Safety Training Facility near the Army National Guard Armory and Community Center. This multi -phase project will maximize the use of existing facilities and construct essential facility elements for other types of training which will benefit all the public safety agencies in the community and in this area. The Police, Fire and Park / Rec departments request pemtission to apply for $550,000 in Capital Bond funding from the State of MN. It is likely that a 50% match would be required. There is currently $160,000 in funds available for land acquisition according to City Administration. Additional matching funds would need to be secured from the 2002-2003 budget if the grant funds can be secured from the State of MN. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt prepared resolution of support for the application for State bonding funds for the Regional Public Safety Training Facility. ICIL ACTION: Moton by: Second M ROCHESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 14, 2001 TO: City Council Members Steve Kvenvold, City Administrator FROM: Jeff Leland, Fire Department Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Regional Public Safety Training Facility Adequate facilities to meet the on -going training needs of area law enforcement personnel, firefighters and the National Guard, continues to present challenges for every department in the Region. To meet these challenges, we propose creating a collaborative project between the Rochester Community and Technical College, Minnesota Army National Guard, Olmsted County and the City of Rochester. The project is to create a Regional Public Safety Training Center(RPSTC) using several existing elements of the Minnesota Army National Guard Training and Community Center and constructing other essential facility elements. Phase 1 of the project will focus on constructing a Live Burn Training Simulator adjacent to the existing Minnesota Army National Guard facilities. This facility will provide essential tactical skill training such as entry and repelling, for law enforcement officers and National Guard troops and live burn training for area fire departments. The blacktop surface surrounding the fire training tower will also serve as a driving course and helipad. Total cost associated with Phase 1 is $1.1 million. If this collaborative project proceeds, the existing Armory gymnasium is proposed to be used by the Police & Sheriff departments for use -of -force training. The existing classrooms and interactive video facilities are proposed to be used by departments for a variety of instructions applications as well. Phase 2 of the project would include refurbishment of the existing Army National Guard indoor firearms range. The indoor firing range is needed for teaching fundamental shooting skills and remedial work for the National Guard and area law enforcement agencies. The range at the Rochester National Guard facility has been closed due to air handling/lead management issues. We feel the investment necessary to restore the facility to operation would be much more economical than building a new indoor range from scratch and is the most economical way to provide this essential training to the Region. Total cost for Phase 2 is yet to be determined. Phase 3 of the project would include construction of an outdoor shooting range and a "Hogan's Alley" type of facility. Because of the neighborhood surrounding the Armory site, we anticipate these facility elements to be located elsewhere, perhaps near the airport. Total cost for Phase 3 is yet to be determined The Army National Guard company assigned to Rochester is an air assault infantry unit. This requires training which focuses on the tasks of the light infantry soldier and the interface with helicopter functions. The Rochester unit is centrally located for the entire 2nd Battalion, 135th Infantry which also has companies in West St. Paul, Albert Lea, Mankato and Winona. In exchange for our use of the National Guard facilities, the National Guard would be allowed to utilize the Fire Training Tower facilities for repelling, urban terrain fighting skills (MOUT) and civil disturbance training. The parking lot and grassland areas near the Fire Training Tower could used by the National Guard for helicopter landing procedures and dismounted formation drills. The proposed purchase of the 80 acre site adjacent to the National Guard property for the Burn Tower and related activities will permit this diverse site to be available to the Guard. The wooded areas are proposed to be used for tactical maneuver training including river crossing, bivwac and wilderness survival training. The Guard would also have access to the outdoor firearms range and Hogan's Alley for training events, if these facilities are feasible to construct in the future. We respectfully request your support of the Regional Training Facility concept. If you have any additional questions, please contact Fire Chief David Kapler or me. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Cc: G. Neumann D. Kapler REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Fire D _ 6, 1 DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: OLMSTED SAFETY COUNCIL GRANT Jeff Leland Rochester Fire Department has learned of potential dollars available through the Olmsted Safety Council. We would like to apply for this grant to purchase equipment to assist with our Scouting Explorer Post. The RFD Explorer Post 520 is an affiliate organization of the Boy Scouts of America. Our mission is to provide opportunities and encouragement for young men and women, ages 14-20, to learn about the fire service as a vocation. Our organization is not funded through any organization or department. Our Post has been in existence since 1995 and is coordinated by members of the Fire Department. We currently have 10 members from local high schools. Our Post members participate in monthly training meetings. In addition, Post members are active in assisting the Rochester Fire Department with many of its public functions, such as safety fairs, parades, etc. Our current inventory of equipment that is used at every hands-on Explorer training session is old and outdated. We are hopeful that the Olmsted County Safety Council can help us in our efforts to provide our Explorer members with the proper safety equipment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED We request Council approval to apply for these grant dollars from the Olmsted Safety Council. _ _ JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/17/01 / AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Human Resources ID_ /� t t tm DESCRIPTION: RPU Utility Maintenance Aide PREPARED BY: Linda Gilsrud As the result of injuries suffered during his employment, Todd Pyfferoen will be offered the opportunity to perform the responsibilities and tasks contained in the job description for Utility Maintenance Aide. His present position is Meter Reader. We are proposing that the position of Utility Maintenance Aide (job description attached) be authorized for Mr. Pyfferoen. He is physically able and qualified to perform the essential functions of the position of Utility Maintenance Aide. The Utility Maintenance Aide position is to be authorized for Mr. Pyfferoen only. Reauthorization would have to occur when Mr. Pyfferoen no longer holds the position. Council Action Requested: Resolution authorizing the position of Utility Maintenance Aide at RPU for Todd Pyfferoen. LuJNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: rpu1-�_ ROCHESTER PUBLIC UTILITIES POSITION DESCRIPTION POSTTTON TTTT F: Utility Maintenance Aide C'T AeSTFTC'ATTON: Barg. Unit DFPARTMFNT: Administration IOR FAM11 Y: SFCTT0N/GR0T TP: Customer Services/Meter Readers ]OR GR ADF: REPORTS TO (TITLE): Lead Customer Service Field Representative T)TRFCTT Y STTPFRVTSFS (TTTT,F(Sl: None • ►1 n IC t • d' • t ' • IC • C � This position provides support to multiple sections, including Customer Services, Meter Reading, Technical Services, and Water. Work is primarily coordinated through the Lead Customer Service Field Representative. MA TOR TOR FTTNC.TTONS/TASKS: * 1. Answer telephone in the shop areas, completing service requests and messages as appropriate. *2. Perform computer entry of field service records, metering records, and test recorders. *3. Maintain Meter Shop record keeping, conduct meter cleaning, and testing, and installation of electronic meter reading devices (ERTS). 4. Maintain tools, equipment and work area in a clean and orderly condition. *5. Accurately read and record meter readings for residential and commercial customers using (handheld) computerized meter reading system. *6. Provide general maintenance assistance to technician groups. Pickup and deliver parts and materials. *8. Maintain the Route Manager software program i.e., route splitting, updating, etc. for Meter Readers. 9. Assist Field Representatives with tagging services (hanging doorknockers) as needed. 10. Assist in reading meters, primarily for large services, as needed. Page 2 — Utility Maintenance Aide /6000 I 11. Assist with light building maintenance and clean up. 12. Perform other duties as required. "ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS Education: High School diploma or equivalent. Experience: Prior experience in utility environment, or a position with comparable qualifications, duties and responsibilities. Technical Skills: Familiarity with computer data entry. Knowledge: Effective use of cleaning tools and materials, how electric and water meters work, and street locations within the City. Licenses & Certifications: Valid Minnesota driver's license. This position requires a majority of time spent sitting with some walking and standing required. Rarely is any climbing required. There is some bending, kneeling, and crawling required. Lifting of objects (i.e. meters) range from 25-50 lbs sometimes may be required. Audio, visual, and verbal functions are vital aspects to performing this position as well as the ability to operate a motor vehicle. Repetitive movement and simultaneous use of the hands, wrists, and fingers is often required in performing computer data entry tasks and in operating handheld meter reading devices. A portion of the workday may be spent outdoors with exposure to heat and cold (A breakdown of the physical and environmental demands is available on the "Job Analysis of Physical and Environmental Demands" in the Human Resources Department.) Reviewed by: (Division Director) Approved by: (General Manager) Date: Date: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09-17-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING 'D _ O DESCRIPTION: Orderly Annnexation Petition #01-20 by Alexey Leontovich to annex PREPARED BY: approximately 1.01 acres of land located along the south side of Eastwood Road SW and Theresa Fogarty, east of Marion Road SE. The property is located in the NW %of the NW 14 of Section 7, Planner Marion Township September 11, 2001 Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report, dated September 11, 2001. As part of the Orderly Annexation Agreement, property taxes payable on annexed land shall continue to be paid to the Town of Marion for the entire year in which the annexation becomes effective. If the annexation becomes effective on or before August 1 of a levy year, based on the date specified in the order from the Minnesota Municipal Board, the City may levy on the annexed areas beginning with that levy year. If the annexation becomes effective after August 1 of a levy year, the Town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that levy year. Thereafter property taxes on the annexed land shall be paid to the City. Council Action Needed: 4. If the Council wishes to proceed as petitioned, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare an resolution to be adopted and transmitted to the MN Planning /Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. 2. The signed resolution and a copy of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion Area #2) should be transmitted to the MN Planning / Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning by the City Clerk (attached is a filing fee for the application in the amount of $25). The resolution and a copy of the Joint Resolution shall also be sent to the Town of Marion and the Olmsted County Auditor/Treasurer. Attachments 1. Staff report, dated September 11. 2001. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk: Filing Fee Attached 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 after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 2001 in the Council Chambers at the Rochester I Olmsted County Government Center. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: TE RCLE Location %K TERRA MOBILE H N ROCHESTER-OL-NISTED PLANNING DEPARTNIENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 pf •`ypCHESTER.;y�1.1� ca U . T 1 o TO: City Council FROM DATE www. of m stedc ou nty. c oMp l a n ni ng Theresa Fogarty, Planner September 11, 2001 RE: Orderly Annexation Petition #01-20 by Alexey Leontovich to annex approximately 1.01 acres of land located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE and east of Marion Road SE. The property is located in the NW'/. of the NW'/4 of Section 7, Marion Township. Planning Department Review: ApplicantslOwners: Location of Property: Existing Land Use: Size: Existing Zoning: Future Zoning: Land Use Plan: Adjacency to the Municipal Limits: Alexey A. Leontovich, Ph D 2020 Eastwood Road SE Rochester, MN 55904 The property is located along the south side of Eastwood Road SE and east of Marion Road SE. This property is currently developed land with one single family residence. The property proposed for annexation is approximately 1.01 acres. The property is zoned A-4 (Agricultural Urban Expansion) on the Olmsted County zoning map. Upon annexation, the property will be zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the Rochester zoning map. This property is designated for "low density residential' uses on the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan. The property is adjacent to the City Limits along its eastern, southern and western boundaries. Sewer and Water: Municipal sewer and water will be available to serve this area. The Rose Harbor High Level Water System Service Area will be available for connection with the completion of the planned water quality protection project in this area. 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. BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 507/285-8224 ..,.�+Po•- PLANNINGIZONING 507/285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 �� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER rdyc c Annexation #01-20 September 11, 2001 WiI Townboard Review: Referral Comments: Report Attachments: Staff Recommendation: Townboard review is not required for this annexation. 1. Rochester Public Utility Department — Water Division 1. Annexation / Location Map 2. Marion Township Orderly Annexation Area #2 Map 3. Referral Comments (1 letter) Section 7, Paragraph (b) of the Joint Resolution for Orderly Annexation (Marion Area #2) between the City of Rochester and Townboard of Marion allows any lands contained in the orderly annexation area may be annexed to the City upon adoption of a resolution when a landowner abuts the City limits and said landowner files a petition for annexation with the City. In such instance, review by the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission shall not be required prior to the City acting upon said petition. Staff recommends that the City adopt a resolution annexing the property. rru uae pledge, we .4eltver September 7, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, M\ 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Orderly Annexation #01-20 Alexey Leontovich to annex 1.01 acres of land located on the south side of Eastwood Rd. SE at 2020 Eastwood Rd. SE. Dear Ms. Gayness: Our review of the referenced petition is complete and our comments follow: 1. This property is within the Rose Harbor High Level Water System Area, which is not currently available in this vicinity. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, Ql M Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Enele, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Alexey A. Leontovich, Ph D. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING a� DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Consent Agenda Police D _ 9 DESCRIPTION: State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety Gang Strike Force PREPARED BY: Grant Agreement Roger Peterson The Rochester Police Department has been involved in a collaborative program with the state of Minnesota and the Olmsted County Sheriff's Office in the operation of a gang investigative unit since 1998. Olmsted County has acted as the fiscal agent for the previous grants. The State of Minnesota requires current resolution approving Olmsted County as fiscal agent for the grant period of July 01 — Jun 03 and for the participation of the Rochester Police Department in the gang investigative unit. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED: Resolutions approving the participation of the Rochester Police Department in a State of Minnesota Gang Strike Force grant agreement and approval of Olmsted County to act as fiscal agent for the term of the grant. ,.,JNCILACTION: Motion by: second by: to: AGEN REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Consent Agenda Auto Theft Prevention Program ORIGINATING DEPT: Police MEETING a3 DATE: 9/17/01 ITEM NO. D-iD PREPARED BY: Roger Peterson The Police Department seeks approval to apply for and accept an Auto Theft Prevention Program Grant available from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The Police Department would like to apply for grant funding in the amount of $30,000 - $50,000. This funding is designed to reduce motor vehicle theft and its consequences in the State of Minnesota by funding programs that aid in the reduction of automobile thefts, increase education and awareness of the public, investigate automobile theft incidents, and prosecute offenders. The funding period is from January 1, 2002 — June 30, 2003 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A local match is not required for this grant. Approval to apply for and accept a grant award from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for Auto Thefl Prevention Projects. The Police Department further requests that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor, City Clerk, City Administrator, or Police Chief to sign a grant agreement or contract in the event of an award. COUNCIL ACTION: Mcum by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: a1� 09/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS Z) — / I DESCRIPTION: AWARD OF CONTRACT: (J4941) PREPARED BY: West Circle Drive Bike Path R. Kelm XAr- Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m., September 12, 2001 for the following local improvement project: Project Number 7503-20-00 (J4941) S.P. 159-020-05 FED. PROJ. NO. TEAX 5501(208) Project Name West Circle Drive Bike Path The following bids were received: Total Bid 1. Road Constructors $ 279,463.40 2. Elcor Construction $ 285,534.00 3. Rochester Sand & Gravel $ 361,259.54 Engineers Estimate $ 289,609.00 Project Background The existing County road, CSAH 22, from 2"d St SW south to CSAH 8, was constructed without pedestrian facilities. A bituminous path along the east side of the road will allow connection to other City trail facilities. $350,000 in Federal Enhancement funds are available to fund 80% of the construction costs for this project. This project is included in the City's 2001 Capital Improvement Program (item #9, page 40). The Project Memorandum, Plans and Specifications have been prepared and subsequently approved by Minnesota Department of Transportation. Project Location t R % r. C Project Recommendation: The Public Works Department recommends the City Council proceed with an award to the low bidder. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopted a resolution awarding the contract, " West Circle Drive Bike Path " (J4941) to Road Constructors Inc. . wUINCIL ACTION: motion by: second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09/17/01 GENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO: - isent Agenda Water Reclamation Plant M DESCRIPTION: Quotes for drainage tile installation at the Rochester Airport PREPARED BY: Lyle J. Zimmerma There is land at the Rochester Airport that cannot be permitted for biosohds application because of wet soils and in some years cannot be farmed because it is too wet. By installing drainage tiles the usable number of acres will be increased by approximately 190 acres in the first phase of this work. Three quotes were received for the first phase and the lowest quote was from Ellingson Drainage of West Concord, MN for approximately $48,000. The final price will be based on the actual amount of tile installed and will be under $50,000. Tile installation was not included in the 2001 CIP, but weather and soil conditions are optimal for doing this work this year. Also, the unit prices quoted are approximately what they were when this work was considered about 7 years ago. The work would be paid for out of Retained Earning in the Sewer Utility Fund. Council Action Requested: It is requested the City enter into an agreement with Ellingson Drainage to install drainage tiles at the Rochester Airport for a price not to exceed $50,000 based on unit prices they quoted. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: To: �I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING W DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. IS CONSENT AGENDA Public Works _ �E I DESCRIPTION: Consideration of Bids: Public Improvements to Serve Lots 23-32, PREPARED BY: Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision, J9760 J. Loehr Bids were received and opened after 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 for the following local improvement project: Project No. M097, J9760 "Basic Construction to Serve Lots 23 through 32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision". The following bid was received: Elcor Construction $372,887.10 Engineer's Estimate $298,640.80 Even though Elcor Construction's bid exceeds the Engineer's estimate by 24.9%, the bid is consistent with the estimate of costs contained in the Feasibility Report that the City Council approved on December 12, 2000. Therefore, the Public Works Department recommends that the City Council award a contract to Elcor Construction at this time. • This Water Quality Protection Program project will be funded consistent with the funding sources outlined in the Feasibility Report prepared for the project. The Feasibility Report and funding sources were previously approved by the City Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed a resolution could be adopted awarding the contract to Elcor Construction. Attachment: Location Map COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 9/17101 AGENDA SECTION, ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM Nn. CONSENT AGENDA Public Works _ 114 DESCRIPTION: Construction Engineering Service Proposal: Public Improvements PREPARED BY: to Serve Lots 23-32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision, J9760 J. Loehr This is a proposal from McGhie & Betts, Inc. to provide Construction Engineering Services for the following local improvement project: Project No. M097, J9760 "Basic Construction to Serve Lots 23 through 32, Block 2 Sunnydale Subdivision". McGhie & Betts, Inc. is recommended for this work since they provided design -engineering services for the project. Therefore, McGhie & Betts is very familiar with the Sunnydale Area, ana the plans and specifications, and McGhie & Betts is capable of providing the desired level of Construction Engineering Services for the project. The negotiated Construction Engineering Services fee for this project is as follow: Actual Cost Not to Exceed $24,060 The estimated total engineering service fees for project J9760 are as follows: Preliminary Analysis & Design Services $28,400 Construction Services $24,060 Total Estimated Engineering Costs for Project J9760 $52,460 Estimated Engineering Costs = $ 52,460.00 = 14.1 % Project J9749 Low Bid $372,887.10 The award of contract for project J9760 is scheduled for September 17, 2001. Execution of this Construction Engineering Service Agreement is conditioned on award of contract for project J9749. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of Construction Engineering Service Agreement with McGhie & Betts, Inc. for the actual cost not to exceed $24,060. Attachment: McGhie & Betts Letter of Proposal cUUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by to: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 02q DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Hearings City Administrator EA ITEM DESCRIPTION Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Business Subsidy for PEMSTAR, Inc. in the form of a DTED Grant Recently, the City was informed that the Minnesota Department of Trade & economic Development (DTED) would be willing to financially participate in the present PEMSTAR expansion project, by providing a forgivable loan for equipment, in the amount of $300,000. Under the Minnesota Investment Fund program implemented by DTED, the City is the recipient of the grant funds, and in turn, the City enters into a loan agreement for the funds with PEMSTAR. This is considered a "business subsidy" under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 116J.993. In order to comply with the "business subsidy" statutes, an Agreement outlining the parties' responsibilities and obligations is required. This is referred to as a "business subsidy agreement", which is similar to a development assistance agreement. In this instance, the Loan Agreement with PEMSTAR that will be executed will act as the "business subsidy" agreement. To qualify as a "forgivable loan" under DTED's requirements, PEMSTAR must agree to create a minimum of 90 jobs with a minimum wage level of $12.00 / hour within 2 years of the benefit date. This requirement, along with repayment provisions will be included in the Grant Agreement between the City and DTED, and the Loan Agreement between the City and PEMSTAR. DTED has not yet drafted the specific Grant Agreement with the City for execution. At such time that is completed, in Agreement with PEMSTAR will be drafted for execution by the City and PEMSTAR. The actual business _.dy approval will be incorporated into the loan agreement documents. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Council Action consists of 2 parts as follows: • Close the public hearing on the proposed "business subsidy" at this time. The business subsidy approval will be part of the forthcoming loan agreement approval. At that time, it would be appropriate for the Council to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Business Subsidy Agreement on behalf of the City of Rochester. • Adopt resolution for City of Rochester to act as legal sponsor for the PEMSTAR expansion project to apply for and receive DTED funding. COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: . 7.a. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 30 1 DATE 9-17-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E- cr . I DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase III Non -Conforming Use Expansion #01-27 PREPARED BY: (Conditional Use Permit) to Allow the Expansion of the Jeff Ellerbusch, Existing Duplex at 707 & 709 14tb Ave. SW Senior Planner September 11, 2001 City planning and Zoning Commission Review: The Planning Commission reviewed this request to expand a nonconforming duplex at their meeting of August 22, 2001. The Commission recommended approval of the proposal subject to the petitioner assuring that the nearest portion of the proposed new garage is at least 10 feet away from the existing 8KV power line by providing the Zoning Administrator with written acceptance of the building and site plans from RPU Electric Division before a zoning certificate id issued to construct the garage portion of the project. Motion by Wiesner, seconded by Slaver. All voted in favor. The motion carried 6 — 0. Council Action Needed: 1. A resolution approving the non -conforming use expansion can be adopted. Attachment: 1. Staff Report dated August 2001 2. CP&ZC Minutes of the 8/22/2001 Meeting Distribution: 1. City Attorney 2. Planning Department File 3. Planning Department —GIS 4. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 2001, in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center, 151 4th Street SE. I COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: seoondby: to: - 7_d . ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPAKIMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Co.." o, www. olmstedcounty.comlplanning TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jeff Ellerbusch, Senior Planner DATE: August 2001 �oel1Poe1[, RE: Type III, Phase III - Non -Conforming Use Expansion - # 01-27; Proposed Addition and Modification to an Existing Non — Conforming Twinplex Located at 707 & 709 14`h Ave. SW Plannina Department Review: Applicants: Mike and Kathie Ryan 927 10" St. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Permit Application: The applicants are requesting permission to expand an existing non -conforming use under the provisions of Section 65.320, NONCONFORMING USES, EXPANSION, of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Section 65.320 establishes the review process for such a request as Type III procedure utilizing a Phase III hearing process. Because this is a Type III procedure, Paragraph 61.140 technically defines this as a conditional use permit. Section 65.320 specifically requires that the review criteria found in Paragraph 65.330 be used by the Commission and Council to evaluate the proposal rather than the typical standards for a conditional use found in Paragraph 61.146. Location of Property: 707 and 709 141h Ave. SW; an unplatted parcel on the west side of 141h Ave SW, one lot south of 71h St. SW near Folwell School. Zoning: R-1, Mixed Single Family District Existing Land Use: Twinplex building built in 1950 and annexed into the City in 1952. Presently the north (707) and south (709) halves of the building are identical. Each unit has 1,476 square feet of total floor area situated on two levels and a 276 square foot tuck -under, one -car garage per unit accessible at the rear of the dwelling. The twinplex appears from the street to be a bit "tired" and in need of maintenance. BUILDING CODE 507/265-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSINGIMAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-6224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/285.8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507187-2275 7C"�7 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER "wow 3a Proposed Modification: The owners propose to modify the northern unit (707) for use as their own residence. The southern unit would not be changed. The plans submitted indicate a 490 square foot addition to the footprint of the building along the northern wall of the dwelling and extending westerly into the rear yard. The addition would be two stories. The existing tuck -under garage of this unit would also be remodeled into living space. In total, 1,256 square feet of living area is added to the north unit giving it a total of 2,732 square feet of floor area. A second modification to the site is the planned addition of a three -stall, detached garage to the southwest corner of the site — directly west of the present driveway access to the rear yard. This new 778 square foot garage would serve the north (owners) unit. Referral Comments: Rochester Public Utilities notes that there is an over -head power line in place along the west (rear) property line of this lot. Proper electrical code and electrical code safety clearances must be maintained between the existing line and the proposed garage. All other agencies responding had no comments or objections to the proposal. Staff Summary: The existing twinplex is situated on a relatively large lot — 84'x134' — 11,256 square feet. The standards of the R-1 zoning district were used to evaluate the proposed additions and modifications. The proposed addition to the dwelling meets the minimum building setbacks for single family homes in the R-1 zone. Counting the addition and the new garage, the site has 23.2% more landscape area than required in the R-1 district. The proposed detached garage is sized and located to conform to the R-1 district. If the existing dwelling on the lot were a single- family residence, all the proposed modifications would be permitted under the R-1 standards. The existing twinplex is a non -conforming use because the only types of dwellings permitted in the R-1 district are single family detached dwellings and group residential care homes. The twinplex was legally established under the regulations of the time, but it would not be permitted to be established under the R-1 zoning regulations of this ordinance, therefore by definition it is a non- conforming use. Non -conformities are allowed to continue and be maintained, so long as they remain otherwise lawful, under the regulations of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance. But, they are not permitted to be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy greater area than on the effective date of the ordinance. Section 65.320 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically provides an opportunity for a non -conforming residential use in a residential zoning district to be modified and enlarged so long as the intensity of the use is remains constant; new structures added would be allowed by the existing zoning district if they were not associated with the non -conforming use; and there would not be significant injurious impact because of the expansion. The ordinance requires that the Commission and Council compare the impact of the proposed change against the following 9 criteria found in Paragraph 65.330: 1) The character and history of the use and of development in the surrounding area. 2) The comparable degree of noise, vibration, dust, odor, fumes, glare or smoke detectable at the property line. 3) The comparative numbers and kinds of vehicular trips to the site. 4) The comparative amount and nature of outside storage, loading, and parking. 5) The comparative visual appearance. 6) The comparative hours of operation. 7) The comparative effect on existing vegetation. 6) The comparative effect on water drainage. 33, 9) Other factors which tend to reduce conflicts of incompatibility with the character or needs of the area. Staff Recommendation: Upon review of the proposed residential expansion of this non -conforming twinplex use and its potential impact when compared to the nine- (9) criterion the staff finds the following: 1) This building was built originally as a twinplex over 50 years ago. There are two other registered duplexes within a lot distance from this twinplex. The use is in character with the area and its history. 2) Upon modification, there will be no discernable difference in noise, dust, odor, fumes, glare or smoke detectable at the property line. 3) There will be no expected change in the typical number or type of vehicular trips to the site because there are no more units than presently exist. 4) There should be no more outside storage, loading or parking; in fact there should be less outside parking because there will two more garage spaces than presently exist. 5) The visual appearance from the street will be indiscernible. It is expected that the expansion of the building will give the owner the opportunity to freshen up the exterior finishes to the existing fagade. 6) There will be no difference in the hours of operation. 7) There will be less existing vegetation on the property after expansion, but the loss is no more than could be expected if the property were a single family home. 8) Any minor differences in water drainage would be no more than could be experienced if the use were a single family dwelling. 9) The use in the near term as partially owner occupied dwelling in a predominately owner occupied neighborhood would tend to reduce incompatibility. Based on the above listed findings, the staff suggests that this request to expand a non- conforming use as submitted be recommended for approval by the Planning and Commission and approved by the City Council with the following condition: 1. The petitioner must assure that the nearest portion of the proposed new garage is at least 10 feet away from the existing 8kv-power line. Written acceptance of the building and site plans from RPU Electric should be provided to the Zoning Administrator before the zoning certificate is issued to construct the garage. Plannina Commission Action: The CPBZC should by motion make a recommendation on this request to the City Council. This matter will be considered at a public hearing before the City Council on September 171h. Attachments: 1. Referral Letter from RPU Electric 2. Residential Land Use Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Photo 5. Applicant's Site Plan 6. Applicant's Revised Floor Plans 7. Applicant's Proposed Modified Building Elevations 8. Applicant's Proposed Detached Garage Elevations r u - 3� we 1�Cedge, we clmt 'P- 507/280-1579 August 1, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning Department Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department FROM: Michael 7. Engle, Supv. of Distribution Design Rochester Public Utilities SUBJECT: Type III, Phase III Expansion of a Nonconforming Use Permit #01-27 by Mike and Kathie Ryan to allow for the expansion of a nonconforming use. The proposal is to construct an addition onto the dwelling and to construct a garage on the lot. The property is located on 14'b Avenue SW and the address is 707-709 14`a Avenue SW. RPU's Operations Division's review of this nonconforming use permit is complete and our comments are as follows: RPU has an 8kv overhead power line located along the west property line of this lot. Proper NEC and NESC clearances will need to be maintained from the proposed garage. Sincerely, Michael J. Engle mje c: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Ryan CAc&EA MMkE 8-fs•..9 SAID CLEA90WO RAW 46*m4iE 7a jftWEAW IMF AWsr AC Ar CFAsr io FEET 5kf Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, MN 55906-2813 telephone 507.280.1540 0 facsimile 507.280.1542 0 website www.rpu.org Map Legend File # 01-27 Expansion of a Non -Conforming Use N N 39 3•-0' 3� -O' 47'-T 84.0' i t I Tw&�. 77lbS` PROPOSED CVWE: 733s( Or DUILDING WITHIN THE REAR 25' OF THE LOT I i � b I 35% AALLDWADLE ECUALS 735s1 Q NEW / 3 5 rALL DM(U � { � N I 22-6 _C GARAGE I - - 4 - - L ------------� EXISTING UTIL IY b EASEMENT ` PROPOSED DRNEWAY ` V 0 1 PROPOSED o i f D ADDITION 4aos{ p.. FiAOr� L. D, m ILA dAfir tlai r 7045 7O 7 14'-Cr 64'-0' 6'-d b I in N N �7 84.0' q av�. s w �n �pE�ISED RFAR FLEVATio l WES �ylSTIF�Ec tjz�nt� ��ylATloa EAST V T 3 t. 3q / N EW DF--tWAPo GARAGE EtZ-VA-n oKs 4jGlifElvE p 41 T—__ G yv-ho• Ilb.�:� �D n ND�T+1 sip Pose 2 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Ausust 22, 2001 / I ' r Mr. Svenby responded yes. Mr. Quinn moved to recommend approval of Annexation #01 18 by Rqdney,YoungeMr.,.; Burke seconded the motio `* A� A person from the audience aged to speak with regard to the Ms. Petersscn explained that it Aas not a public hearing ite nd that they should attend the City Council meeting to be hear 1 The motion carried 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lien Stre Residential) district. management areas. See item below. See iteitf below. the Flan ino cranes approxi I. Bridget Road south of 40 f the area with xed commerci acres propos f r residential d The Ian o Aposes future 4roximatel 9 b \distri xum a y 2.s of lai trial and i,, acres of land from the R- nd A Property included in thisYgetiti 3 and south of the future 48N St. W, 1 Ryan to allow for the expansion of a nonconforming use. The proposal is to construci ar addition onto the dwelling and to construct a garag ' e on the lot. The property is located on 14Avenue SW and the address is 707 & 709 14a Avenue SW. Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch presented the staff report, dated August 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ellerbusch explained that, if the property was a single-family unit, they could make the kind of addition the applicant is proposing. He stated that there are two other duplexes registered in the area. Mr. Quinn asked if the power line is by the garage. Mr. Ellerbusch responded yes. Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 22, 2001 With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. allowed in NW, south Plan. Mr, Brent Svenby pres staff report is on file at Mr. Svenby explained that tl district. The design of the b rict. The property is nd is included withir the staff report, dated August 17, 2001, the Commission. The )chester-Olmsted Planning Departme proposed buildings labeled "A" ar not permitted in the zoning it g meets the definition of an artment building. Mr.-Svenby stated that he had sp en with the applicant's onsultant, and they have agreed to the staff -recommended conditions. Discussion ensued regarding setback quirements fr the garage to the roadway. Ms. Kristi Clarke, of McGhie and Betts, In addre ad the Commission. She explained what the history of the property was. She explai d t t the proposed general development plan no longer functions due to the grade (14-foAonly hange). Ms. Clarke showed where green space ted on a diagram. Ms. Clarke stated that the existing genent plan shows 104 units of 8-plexes. She explained that the proposed amended ps 94 units. Ms. Petersson asked how many garages there would lV for the buildings labeled "A". Ms. Clarke responded one garage der unit (54 in all). Mr. Quinn asked if the applicant Agreed with the staff-recomlvended conditions. Ms. Clarke responded yes. With no one else wishing/o be hard, Ms. Petersson closed tXe public hearing. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 4� DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. Public Hearings City Administrator C— 2 I'i cm DESCRIPTION 2002 Community Development Block Grant Program PREPARED BY: T. Spaeth • This Public Hearing is a requirement of the 2002 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program which is a federally funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Comments on the proposed program are to be taken at the hearing, but no appropriations will be made or action taken at this meeting. Following the hearing, the individual appropriation forms are to be filled out by the Councilmembers and are to be submitted to the Administrator's Office by September 26, 2001. The Council will review the individual appropriations and is tentatively scheduled to make their decisions on the 2001 CDBG appropriations at a second public hearing scheduled for October 1, 2001. • At this time we have not received any confirmation from HUD on the exact amount of CDBG funding that will be received in 2002; however, we are using an estimate of $600,000. The City received this approximate amount in 2001. If the funding that is received is more or less than the $600,000 estimate, the City will need to adjust the amount of the appropriations to the 2002 recipients • The individual requests for CDBG funds have been submitted to the Council separately from the agenda due to their length. The City also received financial information on each non -governmental applicant in the form of IRS Form 990. These Form 990's were not copied with the applications since they are fairly lengthy; however, they are available upon request from the City Administrator's Office. "s we have done for the past several years this office is strongly recommending that needed funding for the ontinuing of the City's Single Family Home Rehab program and the cost of administration of this program tstaffing provided by the Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department) be provided up front prior to considering the other requests The amount recommended for 2002 is a minimum of $250 000 for the Single Family Home Rehab program The Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department is also requesting and we are recommending $35 000 to administer the overall CDBG program In addition the City Council had previously obligated $50,000 annually to the First Homes Program for a 5 year period The staff would recommend that this $50 000 for First Homes be appropriated from the 2002 CDBG funds When these amounts are subtracted from the estimated $600,000 there will be $265,000 remaining to be appropriated. • This office also recommends strong consideration be given to the request of the Park and Recreation Department's request for the modifications to park facilities required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These improvements are required under ADA and if they are not funded with CDBG dollars, they will likely have to be funded with property tax dollars. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: • Hold and close the public hearing. The applicants should be advised that another hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 1, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. after which the Council will approve the appropriation of the 2002 CDBG funds. c;ut1NCIL ACTION: Moban by: second by: to: 7 -o W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, PROGRAM TO: Terry Spaeth, Assistant to the City Administrator FROM: Theresa Fogarty, CDBG Administrator DATE: September 12, 2001 RE: 2002 Community Development Block Grant Requests TOTAL CDBG REQUESTS: $1,424,368 The following is a review of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) requests primarily containing comments on eligibility, fundability, previous appropriations, balances and program benefit. A. PUBLIC SERVICES. The following are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 507.201(e). Please note that the amount allocated for public services cannot exceed 15% of the Grant Allocation (507.201(e)(1)). This year's estimated grant amount is $600,000, therefore, the total amount of the public services allocation cannot exceed $90,000.:.k Aldrich Memorial Nursery School. Aldrich Memorial Nursery School (AMNS) is a nationally accredited learning program for pre-school aged children. AMSN has served Rochester for over 50 years. In 1953, AMNS became Rochester's first independent, incorporated, non-profit nursery school. AMNS provides two, three and five day a week, 150 minute nursery school program to over 500 pre-school children, ages 2 1/2 to 5. Main streamed nursery school experience for 21 Early Childhood Special Education Students of Rochester Public Schools, inclusion of children requiring support in learning English as a second language, inclusion of children with special needs and children from abusive families, a six week summer school program and a lending library with over 600 children's books and a collection on parenting skills and child development. Aldrich Memorial Nursery School is requesting CDBG funding to provide financial assistance to four and five year old children from low income families allowing participation of early childhood education. Amount Requested: $6,000 A15� 2. Arc Southeastern Minnesota. Incorporated in1955 to improve the quality of life for people with developmental disabilities. Arc Southeastern Minnesota previous known as Arc Olmsted County has merged with six smaller Arc chapters in Southeastern Minnesota. Arc Southeastern Minnesota is requesting funds to assist with the cost of administration for their People First Program. The People First Program of Olmsted County offers support and assistance to group members as a whole and to the Leadership team individually, as needed. Assists individuals with developmental disabilities with integration into community activities that will enhance their development, such as employment, volunteer experiences, recreational and social events. ARC Olmsted, in the past, have included high school age individuals with disabilities. All participants are low -moderate income individuals. Total cost of the program is $35,550. Amount Requested: $18,000 3. Bear Creek Services Foundation. Bear Creek Services Foundation is a non-profit that was formed in 1978 by a group of Rochester residents expressing the need for residential and support services in the community for children and adults with developmental disabilities or mental retardation. Presently Bear Creek Services provides residential and support services to 52 clients in 13 group homes. In -home support and care services are provided to an additional eight clients. Bear Creek Services Foundation is requesting CDBG funding for two separate projects: 1) purchase a wheelchair accessible van and 2) purchase and install computers in four of the 13 group homes and network the group homes and general office together. Accessible Van Amount Requested: $ 30,000 Computers Amount Requested: $ 24,000 4. Boys & Girls Club of Rochester. The "Club" is part of a nationwide affiliation of local, autonomous organizations and Boys & Girls Clubs of America working to help youth of all backgrounds develop the qualities needed to become responsible citizens and leaders. More than 445 boys and girls are taking advantage of the programs, activities and serviced provided by the Boys & Girls Club of Rochester. They benefit from trained, caring, professional staff and volunteers who help young people take control of their lives, envision productive futures and reach their goals. F The Boys & Girls Club of Rochester is requesting CDBG funding to be used to fund the staff position of Program Director ($30,168), as well as cover the rent ($54,000) of our facility at 1032 SE 15'h Avenue, Rochester, MN. The Boys & Girls Club is also requesting an additional $1,500 to have a third party evaluator evaluate the programming conducted in the five program areas. Amount Requested: $ 85,668 5. Channel One Food Shelves and Food Bank. A non-profit agency that operates a regional food bank warehouse, distributing more than 5 million pounds of food to 150 non-profit agencies in Olmsted County and fourteen SE Minnesota counties. Channel One also distributes approximately 4.5 million pounds of food to more than 3,200 low income Olmsted County households annually through the Supplemental Food Shelf program. Channel One is requesting CDBG funding for self -assessment, strategic focus and leadership development and capacity building through software applications, making the Internet access part of the tool set, and move towards an internal network with a central file server. Amount Requested: $10,000 Child Care Resource and Referral, Inc. (CCRR). CCRR is a multi- program, private non-profit agency providing child care services for low - moderate income families. CCRR is requesting 2002 CDBG funding to assist with the cost of child care for families residing in Rochester, who are attending school or working. The parent pays a co -payment, based on his/her income and family size, leaving a program share of approximately $369 per month. Ten percent ($6,000) of the funding request will be used to assist with the administration of the program. Amount Requested: $60,000 Family Action Collaborative. Family Action Collaborative (FACES) is a partnership of City of Rochester and Olmsted County professionals, public officials, consumers, parents, businesses, human services funders and providers, foundations and non -profits. Together they have designed a community based collaborative system that improves the lives of, services for, children and their families by providing comprehensive service delivery for families and children, integrate funding streams to provide services and to integrate the delivery of services among agencies in the City of Rochester and throughout Olmsted County. FACES is requesting CDBG funding to continue the collaborative by assisting with the cost of program administration expenses. Amount Requested: $20,000 147 8. Interfaith Hospitality Network of Greater Rochester (IHN). IHN is the local affiliate of the National Interfaith Hospitality Network (NIHN). Since 1986, NIHN as established and supported 74 local programs in 49 states. Fifty-one additional local networks are in development. These programs provide shelter, meals and assistance accessing community services to more than 65,000 homeless families. Based on the national model, IHN of Rochester uses the faith communities of the Rochester area in network of "host' and "buddy" congregations. The host congregations provide overnight accommodations in their churches, for one week. Every night IHN guests are provided with an evening meal, fellowship with volunteers, overnight accommodations. Families are assisted with access to services for employment or job training, housing, transportation, health care, day care, etc. IHN is requesting CDBG funding to assist with the cost of Day Center supplies and expenses to provide basic needs of guests while in the IHN program. Amount Requested: $ 20,000 9. NAMI Olmsted County. NAMI is a non-profit agency providing education, support, and advocacy services to an estimated 3000 persons per year. NAMI Olmsted County works to reduce the stigma of mental illness in our community and increase understanding and compassion towards those who suffer with a brain disorder. NAMI Olmsted County is the local affiliate of the National Alliance for the Mentally ill. NAMI Olmsted County is requesting CDBG funding to train two 5-person teams to teach the NAMI Provider Education Program, a ten -week course in mental illness education and consumer/provider/family collaboration skills. Amount Requested: $8,500 10. PossAbilities of Southern Minnesota. A non-profit organization founded in 1961 by parents and advocates for persons with developmental disabilities. This agency was one of the original nine original projects established by the Minnesota State Legislature to support individuals with developmental disabilities in their home communities. PossAbilities is committed to assisting people with disabilities to be contributing members of the community. Everyone supported by PossAbilities has some degree of mental retardation and many also have significant physical disabilities. All of the 160 people supported by PossAbilities reside in the City of Rochester or Olmsted County. &MO PossAbilities is requesting CDBG funds to purchase two strip -cut paper shredders, replacing two other machines that are unable to be repaired. These paper shredders are used on a daily basis. Amount Requested: $4,680 11.Rochester Area Disabled Athletics and Recreations, Inc. (RADAR). The Rochester Area Disabled Athletics and Recreation, Inc. was incorporated in 1985. Prior to that date, a Wheelchair Sports committee was assisting the management of wheelchair basketball team with limited financial support from the Courage Center. RADAR is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote and sponsor recreation and athletics for the disabled. Physical fitness and recreation are major components to living an independent life style and mainstreaming, including good health, after re-entering the community. RADAR is requesting CDBG funds to assist in the financial support of hiring a qualified individual to serve as a Programming Assistance, allowing RADAR to offer somewhat competitive wages. Amount Requested: $11,000 12. Rochester Area Family Y. The mission of the Family Y is" "To provide for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the individual, family and community". The Rochester Area Family Y has a total of 5,087 members of all ages and cultures. In addition to the annual members, they serve 5,000 persons from the community through non -membership programs and drop -in activities. The Rochester Area Family Y is requesting CDBG funds to purchase and install signs throughout the inside and outside of the building that are translated into various languages teaching and reinforcing the values of caring, honesty, respect and responsibility. Amount Requested: $ 5,000 13. Rochester 4th Street Youth Boxing Gym. The "4th Street Gym" was incorporated in 1987 as an amateur boxing gym for boys and girls, men and women, 8 years through 34 years of age. The primary goal is to train boxers to have moral and strong minds and bodies through discipline. Many of the teenagers that join the gym are at risk, often having serious problems at home and/or at school and seeking comradery and a sense of belonging. The "4th Street Gym" recently formed a relationship with the newly formed Police Athletic League in Rochester and anticipate an additional increase in membership as a result of this association. 5 The "4th Street Gym" is requesting CDBG funding to replace equipment (boxing rings, gloves, headgears, weight -training and exercise equipment) and assistance with monthly building rent for the next 18-24 months. Amount Requested: $ 60,000 14. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. has provided programs and services to the seniors of Olmsted County for more than 39 years. Begun as a small group of individuals who met two afternoons a week in a local hall, Senior Citizens Services, Inc. (SCS, Inc.) has grown to a membership of more than 2,100. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. is composed of five components: Recreational programs, Senior Dining, Senior Advocacy, Share -A -Home and Community Education classes. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. is requesting CDBG funding $15,000 for the Senior Dining Program which consists of serving meals to the elderly in the community and $5,000 for the Advocacy Program which consists of providing services in the following areas, transportation, Medicare, Social Security, health care needs, in -home services, housing, financial assistance, support groups, legal services and insurance. Amount Requested: $ 20,000 15.Y Mentors Program. The Community Youth Mentorship Program was established to provide mentoring as a multicultural program which builds bridges for youth by helping them to discover their own abilities and by broadening their experiences and opportunities. During the year 2001, the Community Youth Mentorship became affiliated with the Rochester Area Family Y and is now titled the "Y Mentors Program" The Community Youth Mentorship Program (CYMP) is in its ninth year of providing a Mentorship Program to the youth of Olmsted County as a prevention program. Their mission is "to provide mentoring as a multicultural program which builds bridges for youth by helping them to discover their own abilities and by broadening their experiences and opportunities". Each of the youths and mentors involved are screened prior to being matched. The adult mentor is required to make a minimum one-year commitment to the youth match. The Community Youth Mentorship is requesting funding from the CDBG funding to be used as general operating funds for the program. Amount Requested: $10,000 l9 �5b 16.Young Life. Young Life is a non-profit, non -denominational Christian organization that builds relationships with kids within the junior and senior high schools in the Rochester area. Young Life has been involved with the Rochester community for over 25 years and currently have two clubs most every week of the school year and several camping opportunities in the summer, fall and winter. All races, genders and beliefs are welcomed to attend. Young Life would like to reduce the cost of summer camp, allowing more kids to attend. Young Life is requesting CDBG funding to assist with the cost of transportation for 10-20 kids from low-income families to attend camp. Transportation consists of renting coach buses from RSB Coaches to travel to Colorado at a cost of approximately $6,000 round trip, each trip. Amount Requested: $ 10,000 TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES REQUESTS: $402,868 B. ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER REMOVAL. The following is an eligible activity as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.208(a)(2). CDBG funds may be used to removal material and architectural barriers which restrict the mobility and accessibility of elderly and handicapped persons to publicly or privately owned buildings and facilities. 1. City of Rochester, Park & Recreation Department. All shelters are in need of some accessibility modification to meet with the new ADA standards. Such improvements consist of parking, access from parking lots, bathroom facilities, access from shelters to playground equipment and signage. CDBG funding has been allocated each year since 1994. At the present Cooke Park, Silver Lake Park, and Slatterly Park are completed. 2000 funding was allocated to begin accessibility improvements at Soldiers Field Park, along the east side of the park, which will take several years to complete. In addition to the park improvements, City Park and Recreation Department is proposing to install a handicap lift on the showmobile. The showmobile is used at a variety of community events and there is no handicap access to the four foot stage. Amount Requested: $50,000 2. Friends and Quarry Hill Nature Center, Inc. Quarry Hill Nature Center is a community supported day -use Environmental Education Center which help to instill environmental principles and ethics into the individual participants of each and every program. The two main strengths of Quarry Hill lie in the fact that is it easily accessible to Rochester area 51 residents and it has a broad base of support with three bodies, Rochester Public School District, Park and Recreation Department and the Friends of Quarry Hill, all contributing to the operations of the Nature Center. The Friends of Quarry Hill is a non-profit organization. Quarry Hill Nature Center is requesting CDBG funding to be used in conjunction with CDBG funding received in 2001. In 2001 Quarry Hill Nature Center was awarded $14,300 to install blacking topping on a trail and replace the existing bridge over the pond, making it accessible. Completing the improvements on the trail will cost approximately $4,000, leaving a balance of $10,000 for the bridge replacement. An additional $16,000 of CDBG funds is needed for replacement of the bridge. Amount Requested: $16,000 3. Southeastern Minnesota Center for Independent Living, Inc. (SEMCIL). SEMCIL is a non-profit organization that provides programs and services which empower persons with disabilities to live independently within the community. SEMCIL's services include information and referral, peer counseling, independent living skills training for youth and adults, accessibility services, housing/home modification, disability awareness/sensitivity training, personal care assistance services, support groups and home health care services. SEMCIL is requesting CDBG funding to allow continuation of their Home Modification Rehabilitation Program. The Program assists persons with disabilities to remove architectural barriers and address other accessibility issues. Since the program's inception in 1994, the demand for service has been steady. A total of 42 projects have been completed. Amount Requested: $30,000 TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL BARRIER REMOVAL REQUESTS: $ 96,000 C. REHABILITATION: The following are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.201(b). Ability Building Center. Ability Building Center is a not -for -profit vocational rehabilitation work center serving persons with disabilities. They are continually providing realistic and appropriate work for over 43 years, with varying degrees of limitation. These hundreds of persons are able to be productive, earn money, build skills, and move onto other community jobs because of their experience at ABC. Ability Building Center is requesting CDBG funds to be used to expand Ability Building Center's main facility. ABC's building committee is recommending, remodel the existing space and construct an addition to the existing space. Total estimated cost of this project is between $1.6 and 1.9 million. It is felt that the combination of ABC's financial reserves, 5;)- fundraising potential and ABC's borrowing potential makes completing this project possible by October, 2002. Amount Requested: $100,000 / 2. City of Rochester. This request is made by the Rochester/Olmsted Planning Department. A consolidated agency providing services for the l City of Rochester and Olmsted County. This request is to continue r� \ administration of the home rehabilitation program that provides assistance to low -moderate income single family homeowners for home improvements. This program is administered in several target areas within the City of Rochester. This program has been active for sixteen years. j This program provides an affordable financing tool for homeowners to eliminate substandard housing conditions. Because of their lack of financial resources, low and moderate income homeowners are unable to obtain financing elsewhere for the improvements. This program provides that opportunity and does not create a financial burden through an additional monthly payment. Funds are provided to a homeowner in the form of a zero interest, deferred loan which must be paid when the homeowner sells or transfers title to the property. Over the past three years, the City has average approximately $45,000 per year in loan repayments. Of the total amount requested, $40,000 will be used for administration of the program. Amount Requested: $250,000 3. Community Housing Partnership. The Community Housing Partnership is a non-profit organization founded by community leaders in 1989. Activities of the organization are under the direction of a volunteer board of directors from the community. It is the mission of the Community Housing Partnership to ensure the availability of decent, affordable housing for lower income households in Rochester and Olmsted County. The Community Housing Partnership is requesting CDBG funds to assist with the installation of new water, sewer and storm laterals on the Holmes School site, for townhome development that will be rented to low - moderate income persons and continuation of the Energy Conservation and Weatherization improvement program for single-family, owner - occupied home throughout the designated lower income census tracts in Rochester. CDBG funds for the Energy Conservation and Weatherization Program will leverage an additional $150,000 in Affordable Housing Program Grant funding from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines. SewerMater/Storm Facilities: Amount Requested: $ 75,000 Energy Conservation Program: Amount Requested: $100,000 0 S3 4. Jeff Allman. Jeff Allman proposes to redevelop the existing vacant building known as Town Hall Estates to create a 34 unit rental project for low -moderate income persons. The development will comprise of three — one bedrooms handicap accessible units, four — one bedroom corner units, four — two bedroom corner units and twenty three — one bedroom units. Total cost for the development of this project is estimated at $2,000,000. Amount Requested: $ 30,000 5. Olmsted County HRA (OCHRA). The OCHRA is a public corporation of the State of Minnesota, providing affordable housing to low -moderate income persons through rental assistance, homeownership and home rehabilitation programs throughout all of Olmsted County. The OCHRA is requesting CDBG funding to rehabilitate three single family homes that are owned and operated by the Olmsted County HRA. The program revenue is insufficient to fund the level of improvements needed to change these properties from some of the worst to some of the best in the neighborhood. Amount Requested: $75,000 6. Rochester Neighborhood Resource Center. The Rochester Neighborhood Resource Center is a non-profit organization dedicated to assisting neighborhoods through education, volunteerism and community partnerships. The Rochester Neighborhood Resource Center is requesting CDBG funds for neighborhood clean-up efforts in the East Side Pioneers, Southeast Settlers, Kutzky Park and/or Northrup neighborhoods. Neighborhood volunteers will assist elderly and disabled residents in clearing debris from their property. Funds will be used for dumpster rental, tipping fees, printing of announcements and other associated costs. Amount Requested: $ 3,000 Samaritan Bethany, Inc. A non-profit organization, providing holistic health services and congenial living environments to aging persons. Samaritan Bethany's services include two nursing homes, an independent senior's living facility and a home health care agency, an adult day care facility and a foundation. Samaritan Bethany, Inc. is requesting CDBG for the following projects: The Home on Eight has no backup boiler and the current boiler is several years old and in poor condition. There are significant condensation problems causing decay and weakening of the pipes, which is a safety issue. Estimated boiler replacement cost is $54,500. The second project 10 54/ is to replace the air-cooled chilled water system which is now over 20 years old and are faced with the prospect of not being able to repair or prolong the life of the system. Boiler Amount Requested: $54,500 Air System Amount Requested: $40,500 8. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. has provided programs and services to the seniors of Olmsted County for more than 39 years. Begun as a small group of individuals who met two afternoons a week in a local hall, Senior Citizens Services, Inc. (SCS, Inc.) has grown to a membership of more than 2,100. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. is composed of five components: Recreational programs, Senior Dining, Senior Advocacy, Share -A -Home and Community Education classes. Senior Citizens Services, Inc. is requesting CDBG funding assist with maintaining the interior and exterior of the building. Such improvements will consist of roof repair, brick work, exterior painting, window replacement, replace ceiling tiles, replace carpeting, upgrade restroom facilities and replace interior vinyl. This work is proposed to be completed over a 2-3 year period. Amount Requested: $30,200 9. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center, Inc. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center provides mental health and chemical dependency treatment programs for the residents of southeastern Minnesota since 1965. Services are provided for adults, children/adolescents, employers/employees, educators, social service organizations and community service organizations. Zumbro Valley Mental Health Center is requesting CDBG funding to complete improvements to the air quality system and installation of new roof shingles at the Day Programs/Administrative office building located at 315 Elton Hills Drive NW, Rochester, MN. Amount Requested: $ 6,300 TOTAL REHABILITATION REQUESTS: $765,500 D. ACQUISITION. The following activities are eligible activities as indicated in the CDBG regulations 570.201(a). 1. Hiawatha Homes Foundation. Hiawatha Homes Foundation, Inc. was created in 1983 as an agency whose mission is to financially support community services, including residential facilities administered by 11 55 Hiawatha Homes, Inc. The mission of Hiawatha is to establish and conduct community residential services that promote dignity and independence in the lives of people with developmental disabilities and to provide appropriate care, supervision, and guidance consistent with individual abilities. Hiawatha Homes Foundation is requesting CDBG funding for land acquisition to construct a fully accessible home for five persons with disabilities. Amount of Request: $35,000 Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity. The Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity's mission is to develop communities by building homes for families who would otherwise not be able to afford to purchase their own home. Persons apply to Habitat because they want stability for their families at a price that they can afford and the Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity offers that opportunity. The Rochester Area Habitat for Humanity is requesting CDBG funds to purchase three vacant lots that will be placed into the land trust developed with First Homes Properties, once construction is completed and the partner family has closed on their mortgage. Amount of Request: $ 90,000 TOTAL ACQUISITON REQUESTS: $125,000 E. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION. This activity is eligible as described in the bz CDBG Regulations 570.206(a). No more than 20% of the anticipated grant ck allocation can be used for program administration. This year's estimated grant amount is $600,000, therefore, the total amount of program administration cannot exceed $120,000. 1. Program Administration. Funds requested to assist with overall program e�,f5' management, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of the CDBG Program for the City of Rochester. Staffing is provided by the Rochester - Olmsted Planning Department. CDBG funds have been appropriated to this activity each year. Amount Requested: $35,000 TOTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION REQUEST: $35,000 Attached for your information is a copy of each application requesting the Community Development Block Grant funds. I have labeled the cover page of each application to correspond to the category which it is identified (ex: Aldrich Memorial Nursery School A- 1). Also, non-profit agencies requesting CDBG funding have enclosed their 990 forms (provided under separate cover). Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. 12 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 5(40� DATE: 9-17-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. 01 14LIC HEARINGS PLANNING �"_ q _..t DESCRIPTION: Type III, Phase II Restrictive Development Preliminary Plan #01-26 by PREPARED BY: Weatherstone Development of Rochester. The applicant is proposing to develop six 9-plex Brent Svenby, buildings in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning district. The type of building Planner proposed is not allowed in the zoning district. The property is located along the west side of 501h Avenue NW, south of 65`h Street and is included within the Weatherstone General Development Plan. August 31, 2001 NOTE: The applicant submitted a REVISED site plan addressing the staff suggested revisions to the site plan. Based on the revised site plan submitted, staff recommends the removal of conditions #1 and 6 from the conditions recommended by the CPZC. The conditions to be removed are shown as strikeeat. The applicant has requested that the Final Plan review be waived. Staff recommends that the final plan be waived. City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On August 22, 2001, the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request. Ms. Weisner made a motion to recommend approval the Restricted Development Preliminary Plan #01-26 by Weatherstone Development of Rochester, with staff -suggested findings and conditions. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. interseGts the narth.fseuth 28'private Feadway whirh The westerly aGGess roadway which with h4terser.ts with Midslobreek Drive NW shall be revised to meet the roadway spaGing requirements or be eliminated. 2. The property shall be platted and easements dedicated for public utilities. 3. All roadways less than 28' in width shall be posted "No Parking". All roadways 28' in width shall be posted "No parking" on one side of the roadway. 4. The building shown in the northeast corner, north of Middlebrook Drive NW, is only permitted if the area is not needed for stormwater management for the Ridgeview Manor Development. 5. The applicant agrees to meet the parkland dedication requirements as specified in the letter dated June 19, 2001 from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. The be to; 6. site plan shall revised „ „ standards along the south line, tePF0vwded pireperty buildings - provide the the buildings labeled R_ on the vpesteicly portion spillover paFkIng requirementsf9F ef#he preperty - Meet t4 the buildings labeled 9 in the westerly of the F;etback requirements of PeFtion TtGn buildings.f the property- 1'''� ��11'- " n buffeFyaFd the boundary In the WeSteFly • along north propeFty portionGf4he-s4W. COUNCIL ACTION: Mown by: i*22Ainw Second by: to: i.'�. •� �%, � .li L � :ate � �f' � l r Page 2 RCA 57 August 31, 2001 Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated, August 17, 2001. Council Action Needed: 1. If the Council wishes to proceed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution either approving, approving with conditions, or denying this request based upon the criteria included in the staff report. 2. The applicant has requested the Council waive the need for a Final Plan phase for this project as allowed in Section 60.532, 6 which is attached. Staff recommends approval to waive the Final Plan phase since the request will meet the criteria included in Section 60.532.6. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated August 17, 2001 2. Minutes of August 22, 2001 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Clerk 2. City Administrator 3. City Attorney' 4. Planning Department File 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 2001 in the Council I Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. Page 3 5U RCA Augusl31, 2001 532 Phase II Hearing Process: The Phase II Procedure shall be as set forth below: 6) The Council shall have the power to waive subsequent review phases in a multi -phase review process if requested by the applicant upon findings that: a) The information considered during the Phase II Hearing Process is sufficient in nature to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements set forth in this ordinance. b) That waiver of the subsequent review phases will not interfere with the purposes and intent of this ordinance. c) That the applicant has provided assurance that all conditions or modifications attached to approval of the project will be met. This assurance shall include, but shall not be limited to, the filing of revised plans, the provision of necessary bonds or other surety to cover the completion of projects, or the filing of necessary legal documents. \/§ / ,,,,,,, ,,,,§ ,\/) ( , , § .. : /§.\� \|/. \�§/ $ : )) � ) § | . . SITE PLAN WEATHERSTONE NORTH _ _k) � .. ft fit f _k) � .. ft fit f oOn Zen W ' till Ili, I l�{�t� tii3E ,ll!! 111 tj!{ !1! 1, ll ti 1 ! ,4eatherstone North P-ochester, 5!E'• i ? `, l t , MinnesotaI , ��v:i li i5 ❑tjti (=tee .. ROCHESTFR, MINNESOTA r 3iliEi.�t;. 6633 3 ROCAESTER-OL1t1STED PLANNING DEPAR'TDIENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 - Rochester, MN 55904-4744 CCU N i , OF www,olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: August 17, 2001 Q PDCH EST e R; A!/,1.1 ' 7 i'. Ra TE :A RE: RE: Type III, Phase III Restrictive Development Preliminary Plan #01.26 by Weatherstone Development of Rochester. The applicant is proposing to develop six 9-plex buildings in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning district. The type of building proposed is not allowed in the zoning district. The property is located along the west side of 50`h Avenue NW, south of 65'h Street and is included within the Weatherstone General Development Plan. Planning Department Review Applicant: Weatherstone Development of Rochester 1201 Meadowlark Court SW Rochester, MN 55902 Architect: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 Property Location and Size: This proposal includes approximately 8.42 acres of land located west of 50"' Avenue NW, south of 651h Street NW and is included within the Weatherstone General Development Plan. Zoning: The Property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential) district. Adjacent Land Use: North: Land zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family) on the Rochester Zoning Map. There is an approved general development plan, Ridgeview Manor, for the property. South: Land within the Weatherstone development being developed with townhomes. The property is zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 - GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-B232 - HOUSING/HRA 507/265-8224 ...,e„,,.. PLANNING2ONING 507/285-8232 - WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER CUP #01.26 O8/17/01 49 Page 2 East: Property across 501" Avenue NW is zoned R- 1 (Mixed Single Family) in the City of Rochester. There also is a some developed property zoned A- 4 (Agricultural -Urban Expansion) in Olmsted County. West: Property zoned R-2 (low Density Residential) in the City of Rochester. The property is included in the Weatherstone GDP and is shown being developed with townhomes. Summary of Proposal: The applicant is proposing a townhome development consisting of 94 units. The buildings range from 2 unit buildings to 9 unit buildings. The layout of the 9 unit building is not permitted in the R-2 zoning district. These buildings are labeled A on the site plan. The other buildings shown on the site plan are permitted in the R-2 zoning district. The entire site plan is being review through the Restrictive Development process. The density proposed would have required the site plan to be review by the CPZC because the density proposed is over what can be approved through a type I staff review process. Public Utilities: Public utilities will be available to serve the site. Easements will need to be dedicated at the time platting for the public utilities. Referral Agency Comments 1. RPU Water Division 2, RPU Operation Division 3. Rochester Public Works 4. Park and Recreation Department 5. MnDOT 6. Planning Dept. Wetlands 7. Planning Dept. Addressing Attachments: Location Map Site Map Building Elevations of the 9-unit building Referral Comments W,j CUP #01-26 08/17/01 go Page 3 ~ 65" Explanation of Application and review procedures: Since the layout of the 9-unit building is not permitted in the R-2 zoning district, the proposal must be reviewed under the Restricted Development provisions. The appearance of the building is that of an apartment building. Each of the units doesn't have a separate exterior entrance. The building has two exterior doors. One door serves three units and the other door serves six units. Detached garages are also shown on the site plan. These garages serve the 9-unit buildings. Windows are proposed on the north, east and west sides of the garages, which would be facing the single family homes in the Ridgeview Manor Development. The only portion of the site being reviewed against the criteria found under the restrictive development is that of the 9-unit buildings. The rest of the site is being reviewed under the performance residential standards of the R-2 zoning district. The Restricted Development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (Section 62.700) recognize that certain land uses which are generally not allowed within a given zoning district can, if regulated, "serve both the public interest and allow a more equitable balancing of private interests than that achieved by strict adherence to standards zoning regulations". This application requires a two step review process, consisting of a preliminary plan and a final plan. The preliminary plan phase follows the Type III, Phase Ii, procedure with a hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the Council. Criteria & Findines: The criteria to be considered when reviewing a Restrictive Development are listed in Paragraph 62.708 (1), which is attached for your review. This section considers the suitability of the area and the site design. The preliminary plan may be approved if it is found that the development has addressed and satisfied all of the criteria, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the design. Staff suggests the following findings: (A) Capacity of Public Facilities: Utilities are available to serve this development. At the time of platting, easements will need to be dedicated for the public utilities. Also the applicant will need to enter into a City -Owner contract for the installation of the public water main. (B) Geologic Hazards: There is a wetland located this portion of the property. The applicant has received approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan for the wetland. The applicant did complete an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) for the property at the time the GDP was approved for the property. (C) Natural Features: The property generally slopes to the south. The lower level of the buildings is proposed to be walkouts to take advantage of the slope. (D) Residential Traffic Impact: CUP n01-26 01 Pa Paee 4 a) The proposed request should not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets. Fiftieth Avenue NW will be reconstructed to an arterial roadway design standard in the near future. b) This proposal will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets. c) This development should not create any additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours than what is normally found in residential developments. (E) Traffic Generation Impact: The anticipated traffic generated by the development should not cause the capacity of the adjacent streets to be exceeded. A different style of building could be used on the property which could generate just as much traffic, if not more. (F) Height Impacts: According to the building elevations, the building height is below the permitted height in the R-1 zoning district. Looking at the building from the north, the building appears so though it's a 2-story building. If you are looking at the building from the south, the building appears as a 3-story building. (G) Setbacks: The setback for the 9 unit buildings appears to meet the Ordinance requirements. (H) Internal Site Design: The far westerly access to the 28' private roadway is to close to the intersection of Middlebrook Drive NW. This access should be removed or moved to a location which meets the spacing requirements of the LDM. (1) Screening and Buffering: The site plan does identify bufferyards along the public roadways. Over 52 percent of the site is considered to be landscape area. No landscaping or buffering is provided along the south property line. If canopy trees were planted along the south property line, the trees would help buffer any potential negative impacts the 3-story buildings may have on the townhomes to the south. (J) Ordinance Requirements: The roadway spacing requirements are not being met for the far westerly access point to the 28' private roadway and the intersection of Middlebrook Drive NW. (K) General Compatibility: The proposed building design (9-unit building)could be considered compatible with the adjacent proposed development. The entire area to the south and west will be developed with townhomes. There are a number of 8-unit buildings within the Weatherstone Development. Staff Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this request in accordance with the applicable standards and provisions, as included in this report. Based upon staff review and the analysis included above, staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following conditions or modifications: CUP #01-26 08/ 17/01 so Page 5 M 67 The westerly access roadway which intersects with the north/south 28' private roadway which intersects with Middlebrook Drive NW shall be revised to meet the roadway spacing requirements or be eliminated. 2. The property shall be platted and easements dedicated for public utilities. 3. All roadways less than 28' in width shall be posted "No Parking". All roadways 28' in width shall be posted "No parking" on one side of the roadway. 4. The building shown in the northeast corner, north of Middlebrook Drive NW, is only permitted if the area is not needed for stormwater management for the Ridgeview Manor Development. 5. The applicant agrees to meet the parkland dedication requirements as specified in the letter dated June 19, 2001 from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department. 6. The site plan shall be revised to: • Provide a bufferyard meeting the "S1" standards along the south property line, to provided buffering for the townhomes to the south from the 9-unit buildings • Provide the spillover parking requirements for the buildings labeled B on the westerly portion of the property. • Meet the setback requirements of the buildings labeled B in the westerly portion of the property. The front yard setback is not being met on some of the buildings. • Provide a "D" bufferyard along the north property boundary in the westerly portion of the site. CUP #01-26 08/17/01 69 Page 6 M/1 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDNANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT ?4ANUAL EXCERPTS Restrictive Development 62.706 Standards for Approval, Preliminary Development Plan: The Council shall approve a preliminary development plan if it finds that the development has addressed and satisfied all the criteria listed in Paragraph 62.708(1), or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest can be incorporated into the final development plan, or a modification for unmet criteria has been granted as provided for in Paragraph 62.712. 62.708 Criteria for Type III Developments: In determining whether to approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application, the Commission and Council shall be guided by the following criteria: Preliminary Development Plan Criteria: A. Capacity of Public Facilities: The existing or future planned utilities in the area are adequate to serve the proposed development. B. Geologic Hazards: The existence of areas of natural or geologic hazard, such as unstable slopes, sinkholes, floodplain, etc., have been identified and the development of these areas has been taken into account or will be addressed in the Phase It plans. C. Natural Features: For developments involving new construction, the arrangement of buildings, paved areas and open space has, to the extent practical, utilized the existing topography and existing desirable vegetation of the site. D. Residential Traffic Impact: When located in a residential area, the proposed development: 1. Will not cause traffic volumes to exceed planned capacities on local residential streets; 2. Will not generate frequent truck traffic on local residential streets; 3. Will not create additional traffic during evening and nighttime hours on local residential streets; E. Traffic Generation Impact: Anticipated traffic generated by the development will not cause the capacity of adjacent streets to be exceeded, and conceptual improvements to reduce the impact of access points on the traffic flow of adjacent streets have been identified where needed. F. Height Impacts: For developments involving new construction, the heights and placement of proposed structures are compatible with the surrounding development. Factors to consider include: Will the structure block sunlight from reaching adjacent properties during a majority of the day for over four (4) months out of the year; CUP #01-26 08/17/01 Page 7 so so G. 2. Will siting of the structure substantially block vistas from the primary exposures of adjacent residential dwellings created due to differences in elevation. Setbacks: For developments involving new construction, proposed setbacks are related to building height and bulk in a manner consistent with that required for permitted uses in the underlying zoning district. H. Internal Site Design: For developments involving new construction, the preliminary site layout indicates adequate building separation and desirable orientation of the buildings to open spaces, street frontages or other focal points. I. Screening and Buffering: The conceptual screening and bufferyards proposed are adequate to protect the privacy of residents in the development or surrounding residential areas from the impact of interior traffic circulation and parking areas, utility areas such as refuse storage, noise or glare exceeding permissible standards, potential safety hazards, unwanted pedestrian/bicycle access, or to subdue differences in architecture and bulk between adjacent land uses. J. Ordinance Requirements: The proposed development includes adequate amounts of off-street parking and loading areas and, in the case of new construction, there is adequate landscaped area to meet ordinance requirements. K. General Compatibility: The relationship of the actual appearance, general density and overall site design of the proposed development should be compared to the established pattern of zoning, the character of the surrounding neighborhood and the existing land forms of the area to determine the general compatibility of the development with its surroundings. 0 0 ROCHESTER Y4/innedota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 6/28/01 `Ib DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 40 Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for PRD#01-19 for the are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. The property should be platted prior to development occurring. 2. A Development Agreement has been executed for this property. Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property are addressed in the Development Agreement with the exception of: First Seal Coat Program @ $0.45 per square yard (rate valid through 7/31/01) :• Traffic Signs as determined by the City of Rochester Traffic Division. C:\temp\PRD01-19 Weatherstone Dev of Roch.doc 406CHESTER PARK AND WEATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE /� J ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 � /( TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 DATE: June 19, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Weatherstone North PRD #01-19 Acreageof plat.......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density .................................................. Densityfactor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 8.62 a 94 units 10.67 units/a .0178 1.67 a NA The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Deferred land dedication with land to be dedicated for the 8.5 acre park shown on the GDP. Dedication to occur when the park is accessed by public street or the Park Department wishes to develop the park. 0:\DST0TZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\NW 2898\WEATHERSTONE NORTH.DOC 9O*Z Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507) 287-2275 REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: June 27, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: Lyle Felsch RE: WEATHERSTONE NORTH TYPE II PERFORMANCE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #101-19 A review has turned up the following address related issues: 1. The official designation of all public andlor private roadways must have approval of the GISIE911 Addressing Staff. 2. Supplementary Address Signage and the incurred costs may be required to eliminate complicated or confusing addressing situations. This signage must be coordinated with the GISlE-911 Addressing Staff in cooperation with the Rochester Fire Department. If required, this signage will be determined at the time of address review. Rochester Minnesota August 27, 2001 Mr. Brent Svenby Consolidated Planning Department 2122 SE Campus Dr. Rochester, MN 55904 Re: Request to Waive the Final Development Plan review/approval process for Weatherstone North. Dear Mr. Svenby: Land Surveying On behalf of our client, Weatherstone Development of Rochester, we would Urban - Land Planning like to request that the requirement for the Final Development Plan review and approval process for the Weatherstone North Site Plan be waived by the Consulting - CiNal Engineering City Council during the September 17, 2001 Board Meeting. (Reference Section 60.532 #6 of the Zoning Ordinance) Geotechnical Engineering The Planning Staff has recommended approval of this site plan with six Construction Material Testing The On August 22, 2001 the Planning and Zoning Board approved Landscape .Architecture the site plan with these listed conditions. All of these conditions have been made to the site plan and will be submitted on August 27`", 2001 so that the amended site plan can be added to the City Council "packet' prior to the September 17, 2001 Meeting. See attached Weatherstone North Site Plan. 1648 Third Avenue S.E. Rochester, MN 55904 Tel. 507.289.3919 Fax. 507.289.7333 e-mail. mcghiebetts.com Established 1946 1. Two (2) copies of the site plan (With Staff Conditions) 2. One (1) reduced version of the site Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above information please do not hesitate to call. Yours very truly, McGhie & Betts, Inc. ��:s KLC/klc Development of Rochester Jerry Attachment v PC Jerry Nelson, Weatherstone Development of Rochester 73 Page 3 City Planning and Zoning Corrnussion Minutes Hearing Date: August 22, 2001 7� With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval o Type II Phase 111 Exp Nonconforming Use Permit #i01-27 by Mike an Kath' Ryan with the condition. Mr. Staver seconded the motion: Ttk m tion carried 6-0 ee r toner must p t assure that the nearest ist 10 feet away from the existing 8kv-po1 d siteplan's from RPU Electric should be i'zoning certificate is issued to'cons#ruci TVpe III, Phase III Restrictive Development Preliminary Plan #f01-26 bV Weatherstone Development of Rochester. The applicant is proposing to develop six 9-plex buildings in the R-2 (Low Density Residential) zoning district. The type of buildinq proposed is not allowed in the zoning district. The property is located along the west side of 50' Avenue NW, south of 65' Street and is included within the Weatherstone General Development Plan. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated August 17, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Svenby explained that the proposed buildings labeled "A" are not permitted in the zoning district. The design of the building meets the definition of an apartment building. Mr. Svenby stated that he had spoken with the applicant's consultant, and they have agreed to the staff -recommended conditions. Discussion ensued regarding setback requirements from the garage to the roadway. Ms. Kristi Clarke, of McGhie and Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. She explained what the history of the property was. She explained that the proposed general development plan no longer functions due to the grade (14-foot elevation change). Ms. Clarke showed where green space would be located on a diagram. Ms. Clarke stated that the existing general development plan shows 104 units of 8-plexes. She explained that the proposed amended plan only shows 94 units. Ms. Petersson asked how many garages there would be for the buildings labeled "A". Ms. Clarke responded one garage per unit (54 in all). Mr. Quinn asked if the applicant agreed with the staff -recommended conditions. Ms. Clarke responded yes. With no one else wishing to be hard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Page 4 . 7� Ciq Planning_ and Zoning Commission Minutes/ Hearing Date: August 22, 2001 Ms. Wiesner moved to recommend approval of Type III, Phase III Restrictive Dev Preliminary Plan #01-26 by Weatherstone Development of Rochester with staff recommended conditions and findings. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The rr carried 6-0. CONDITIONS: 1. The westerly access roadway which intersects with the north/south 28' pnva roadway which intersects with Middlebrook Drive NW shall be revised to me' roadway spacing requirements or be eliminated. $ µ f P 2. The property shall be platted and easements dedicated for public utilities 3. All roadways less than 28' in width shall be posted "No Parking" All `roadw width shall be posted "No parking" on one side of the roadway �S 4. The building shown in the northeast corner, north of Middlebrook Drive NW;' permitted if the area is not needed for stormwater management for the Ridg Manor Development ees to meet the p 19, 2001 from the >ver pa of the,I • Meet the setbac portion of the pi Mr. Svenby stated that General Develc needed to be opened and continued to management areas. ent r Park and standard: ies to the buildings la d setback is 4164 and Zoning District Amendment #01-09 12, 2001. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE:9-17-01 J AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING E S 1 DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General development Plan (GDP) #110 known as PREPARED BY: Eagle Ridge. The applicant is proposing to revise a portion of the approved GDP by Brent Svenby, removing a connection to 41h Street SW. The property is located west of Hilicrest Planner Subdivision and the current west end of 41h Street SW located west of Highland Court SW. September 3, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On August 22, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this amendment to the General Development Plan. Wade Dumond, Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He explained the proposed amendment to the GDP. He also presented layouts of a turn -a -round and explained that he didn't think it would be feasible to construct. Neighboring property owner were for and against the connection. Of the property owners who spoke at the public hearing, the property owners in the Aspens were for the connection while property owners along 4`h Street SW were against the connection.. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Mr. Slaver made a motion to approve the amendment to General Development Plan #110, known as Eagle Ridge, with staff -recommended findings with staff and developer working out the turn -a -round. Mr. Burke seconded the --"on. The motion tied 3-3, with Mr. Only, Mr. Quinn and Ms. Wiesner voting nay. I Amendment is forward to the Council with no formal recommendation from the CPZC. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated August 2, 2001. Council Action Needed: 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with the general development plan as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated August 17, 2001 2. Minutes of the August 22, 2001 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department GIS Division pplicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 2001 in the Council/Board mbers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. Yaggy Colby Associates COUNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: to: W C" C7 m ; _ :�j NdldI 13Wd013A3O IV-83NM des U O o ;�w i�. ° v.ivS3NNIW 'S31S3HJO1 ><-U1N3WdOl3A3a 3DMI 31Ob3 a P 1177 4 a �• . S fp � f i i�!( i pifll�. ��jY � f. ai}H4{� S3:S ?SFSfie i Y♦ IV lI YJ.♦OV I.]I\]V Iv0]IYZJ V1O53NNIw'83153HJ08 3DOIN 31Jb3 � a 8No a f a N77W a I i L.1J EI _J _ { Z W W �c u n♦b —iF1uo �*" ¢ I� w o L LI �z VZ � O: l� �— __ �.._ 3 J Y ._ i �� Li 8d �.. 80 _ - ... ..-. a z a �g , if EAGLE RIDGE I M Ml N♦ F;() I AREA MAP f ROCHESTER-OLDISTED PLANNING DEPARFAIENT 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Co ow,. OF www.olmstedcounty.comiplanning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brent Svenby, Planner DATE: August 17, 2001 RE: Amendment to General Development Plan #110 known as Eagle Ridge. Planninq Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Designers: Size and Location: Zoning: Sidewalks: Young Development Company 600,e Street, Apt. 601 Rochester, MN 55902 Yaggy Colby Associates 717 3rd Avenue SE Rochester, MN 55904 The property is located along the east side of Aspen Place SW and west of 4" Street SW. The property is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. In accordance with current City policy, sidewalk is required along both sides of all of the new streets in the development. Drainage: The applicant has addressed general drainage issues for this portion of the site. Specific grading and drainage plans will be required upon application for final plat approval. Wetlands: The Soil Survey and National Wetland Indicator maps were reviewed for the presence of wetlands. The maps do not indicate the presence of wetlands on this property. Parkland Dedication: Dedication requirements for the entire Eagle Ridge Development have been met by previous dedication as authorized by the City Council in February, 1992. Referral Comments: 1. RPU Operations Division 2. RPU Water Division BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/287-2275 T`?❑f AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 General Development Plan Amendment August 17, 2001 3. Rochester Park & Rec. Dept, 4. Rochester Public Works 5. MnDOT 6. Planning Dept. Wetlands 7. Planning Dept. Addressing Report Attachments: 1. Referral Comments (2 letters) 2. Reduced Copy of General Development Plan Maps (approved and proposed amendment) 3. Neighborhood Petitions Summary: The applicant is proposing to amend the approved GDP to eliminate a roadway connection to the east (4 Street SW). The applicant originally filed a GDP amendment to remove this connection in 2000. The proposal was withdrawn by the applicant until further information was known. At the time the amendment was filed in 2000, we received a petition from the Aspen Home Owner Association. The petition was for the City to require the 4" Street SW connection through the Eagle Ridge Development. The applicant submitted a petition March 30, 2001 from 3 property owners along 4'" Street SW. The petition is a request not to construct the connection between Aspen Place SW and Highland Court SW. Most of the Eagle Ridge GDP has been platted and/or developed. At this time, the applicant is proposing an amendment to the GDP to remove the connection of 4'" Street SW. Although this connection has been shown on the GDP since the original version was approved in 1992, the developer would like to remove the connection. Removing the 4h St. connection will eliminate an access to this development. Two other accesses to the development exist, however. Access is available to Eagle Ridge from Wimbledon Hills Drive (which has access to Country Club Rd.) and from Aspen Lane SW (through the Aspens Subdivision). Staff Suggested Findings: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan (see attached section from the newly adopted regulations, which became affective May 15, 1999. Criteria A. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. Land uses within the GOP would be consistent with the "low density residential' land use designation for the property. Criteria B. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. Page 3 General Development Plan Amendment August 17, 2001 This petition includes a request to eliminate an access to the development. The proposed amendment would eliminate direct access to 4'h Street SE from the Eagle Ridge Development. The Rochester Public Works Department has completed a feasibility report for the construction of 4'h Street SW from Aspen Place SW to 23rd Ave. SW The conclusion of the report is that the construction of 4'" Street SIN is technically feasible, but the construction of 4'h Street can not be constructed to city standards of widths and grades without the acquisition of 5 existing homes along 4th Street SW. Removing the 4'h St. connection will eliminate an access to this development. Two other accesses to the development exist, however. Access is available to Eagle Ridge from Wimbledon Hills Drive (which has access to Country Club Rd.) and from Aspen Lane SW (through the Aspens Subdivision. Criteria C. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. This property is designated for "low density residential" uses and is zoned R-9 (Mixed Single Family). This GDP amendment includes a small portion (approximately 33,400 sq. ft.) of the overall approved GDP. Housing in this portion of the development will be similar to that in the rest of the GDP. Criteria D. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. This petition includes a request to eliminate an access to the development. The proposed amendment would eliminate direct access to 4`h Street SE from the Eagle Ridge Development. The Rochester Public Works Department has completed a feasibility report for the construction of 4rh Street SW from Aspen Place SW to 23rdAve. SW The conclusion of the report is that the construction of 4`h Street SW is technically feasible, but the construction of 4'h Street can not be constructed to city standards of widths and grades without the acquisition of 5 existing homes along 4'h Street SW. Removing the 4'h St. connection will eliminate an access to this development. Two other accesses to the development exist, however. Access is available to Eagle Ridge from Wimbledon Hills Drive (which has access to Country Club Rd.) and from Aspen Lane SW (through the Aspens Subdivision. The Construction of the segment of 4`h Street SIN connecting the Hillcrest and Eagle Ridge Subdivisions can not be made without the reconstruction of 4'h Street SW from 23rd Avenue SW to Eagle Ridge Subdivision due to the insufficient width of the existing roadway. Currently there is no project budgeted in the City's Capital Improvement Program for the reconstruction of 4' Street SW from Aspen Place SIN to 23rd Avenue SW. U� Page 4 83 General Development Plan Amendment August 17, 2001 Criteria E. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. Most of the Eagle Ridge GDP has been platted and/or developed. At this time, the applicant is proposing an amendment to the GDP to remove the connection of 4t6 Street SW. Removing the 41h St. connection will eliminate an access to this development. Two other accesses to the development exist, however. Access is available to Eagle Ridge from Wimbledon Hills Drive (which has access to Country Club Rd.) and from Aspen Lane SIN (through the Aspens Subdivision. The Construction of the segment of 4 h Street SW connecting the Hillcrest and Eagle Ridge Subdivisions can not be made without the reconstruction of 4'h Street SW from 23'd Avenue SW to Eagle Ridge Subdivision due to the insufficient width of the existing roadway. Currently there is no project budgeted in the City's Capital Improvement Program for the reconstruction of 4`h Street SW from Aspen Place SW to 23r°Avenue SW. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Utilities are in place to serve this part of the GDP. A 20' minimum public utility easement will be required for the existing water main in the area. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. Sidewalk will be required on both sides of all new public roadways. Page 5 General Development Plan Amendment August 17, 2001 Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and constrcction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have ceen identified. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64,100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. Removing the 4`h St. connection will eliminate an access to this development. Two other accesses to the development exist, however. Access is available to Eagle Ridge from Wimbledon Hills Drive (which has access to Country Club Rd.) and from Aspen Lane SW (through the Aspens Subdivision. Without the connection of 4th Street SW to Aspen Place SW, 4`h Street SW dead ends at the east property line of the Eagle Ridge Development. From its intersection with Highland Court SW, 4`h Street SW is approximately 280' to the easterly edge of the Eagle Ridge Development, Since the length of 4'h Street SW exceeds 150 feet from its intersection with Highland Court SW, a vehicle turn around is required to be constructed at the westerly end of 4`h Street SW, for maintenance and emergency vehicles. The GDP will need to be revised to accommodate a turn around on the Eagle Ridge development. Recommendation: Based on the above criteria, staff would recon- lend that the following conditions should be imposed in order to assure compliance with tie Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 1. The GDP shall be revised to accommodate a vehicle turn around, which meets City design standards, at the westerly end of 40 Street SW. 2. The property shall be platted and right-of-way dedicated for a turn around which meets city standards . The developer shall be responsible for the construction and cost of the turn around. 3. At the time of platting, a minimum 20' wide utility easement shall be plated for the existing water main in this area. F i Pu: eve pGelye, rve de6'lver .August 7, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Amendment to General Development Plan 4110 by Younge Development Company known as Eagle Ridge proposing to remove the connection to 41h St. SW. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. A 20' minimum public utility easement is required for the existing water main in this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 06-JA St, Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Yaggy Colby Associates Younge Development Company Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 ROCHESTER 8` Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 8/ 17/01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 0 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 an AMENDMENT to GDP#110 ( Eagle Ridge) property. The following are Public Works comments on this proposal from 8/31100. New comments are shown in BOLD, while prior comments that are no longer applicable are shown with 1. Public Works has reviewed the feasibility for extending of 4th St SW between the Hillcrest & Eagle Ridge Subdivisions. Public Works would not oppose the proposed GDP Amendment to eliminate the 4th St SW connection, based on the following findings of our review: a) The benefits of the connection of 4th St SW between Hillcrest & Eagle Ridge do not out weigh the estimated cost of $1,200,000, b) The geometrics of the intersection of 4th St and Highland Court would not be improved to a satisfactory level and there would likely be an increase in right angle collisions at this intersection due to remaining steep grade on Highland Court and the increase in east -west traffic on 4th St. c) The construction of the segment of 41h St SW connecting the Hillcrest and Eagle Ridge Subdivisions can not be made without the reconstruction of 4th St SW from 23rd Ave SW to Eagle Ridge Subdivision due to the insufficient width of the existing roadway. d) There does not appear to be any documented support by abutting property owners for the widening of 4th St SW and the associated special assessments of $31.95 per foot of frontage. The project would likely fail due to objection at the Project and Special Assessment Public Hearings or upon resident appeal to district court. C:\WINNT\Profiles\plabsven\Temporary Internet Files\OLK931GDP110 AMENDMENT Eagle Ridge 8-01.doc ROCHESTER Minnesota TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4'h Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 e) Speeding would likely be the resulting neighborhood impact of a reconstructed 4th St SW due to the downhill gradients in excess of 12%. f) The Eagle Ridge development currently meets the Ordinance requirements for two accesses without the 4ih St SW connection. C:IWINNTProfles\plabsven%Temporary Internet Files\OLK931GDP110 AMENDMENT Eagle Ridge 8-01.doc March 30, 2001 10 / Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rochester 201 SE 4`h Street Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Petition Requesting 4`h Street SW Connection Between Aspen Place SW and Highland Court SW Not Be Constructed Dear Mayor and Council: We the undersigned are opposed to the construction of 4`h Street SW, between Aspen Place SW and Highland Court SW, for the following reasons: 1. The existing connection between the Eagle Ridge development and 4`h Street SW, along Aspen Place SW and Highland Court SW, creates a "Traffic Calming" effect with reduced speeds rather than a direct shot out of the area. The construction of the 4`h Street connection would result in increased traffic and speeds with detrimental effects on property values and safety. 2. The 4`h Street SW connection cannot be built to city engineering standards due to existing right-of-way constrictions and steep grades. The grades at the proposed 4`h Street SW and Highland Court SW intersection would result in a dangerous situation with both stopping on icy roads in the winter and being able to see on- coming vehicles in time to avoid an accident. 3. There are currently several mature trees that would have to be removed to construct 4`h Street SW. We presently have a street connection that is causing no traffic problems and feel that it can handle future traffic. The construction of 4`h Street SW would create problems rather than solve any. Gregory Pressnall and Judith Pressnall 2510 SW 4 h Street rr Charles Gagnon (/t ct, - l7 Ct r /o . And Arlyn Gagnon 2500 SW 4`h Street �� `cJ Daniel Limkeman , J 2r c i� {/ /� �� d• And Erica Limkeman.r- 2509 SW 4 Street _ JUL 2 F 2001 I Baker Mitzi From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Freese, Richard [rfreese@ci.rochester.mn.us] Friday, January 05, 2001 11:24 AM Nigbur, Mike; Nelson, Doug;'baker.mitzi@co.olmsted.mn.us'; 'reiter.chartie@co. olmsted. m n.us' Neumann, Gary Eagle Ridge GDP I meet today with Rodney Younge, Don Borscherding and Wade DuMond to discuss the remaining unplatted area of the Eagle Ridge Subdivision. As you may recall, Younge had submitted a revised GDP for consideration last year and then withdrew the application because of staff concerns and a neighborhood petition both of which expressed concerns about the revised GDP not showing the connection of 4th Street SW between the Hillcrest and Eagle Ridge Subdivision. The Public Works Department has completed a Draft Feasibility Report on the reconstruction of 4th Street SW from 23rd Avenue westerly to the Eagle Ridge Subdivision. The conclusion that the Public Works Department has reached in the draft report is that the reconstruction of 4th Street SW is technically feasible, but that the City can not reconstruct the street to city standards for width and grades without the acquisition of 5 existing homes on the south side of 4th Street at a cost of approximately $1,000,000. The street reconstruction cost for 4th Street SW is estimated at $200,000. When asked today if I would support Younge's resubmittal of a revised GDP that did not show a connection of 4th Street SW between the Hillcrest and Eagle Ridge subdivision, I indicated that I would not oppose the request for the following reasons: 1. The benefits of the connection of 4th Street SW between the Hillcrest and Eagle Ridge Subdivisions do not outway the estimated cost of $1,200,000. 2. The geometrics of the intersection of 4th Street and Highland Court would not be improved to a satisfactory level and there would likely be an increase in right angle collisions at this intersection due to the remaining steep grade on Highland Court and the increase in east - west traffic on 4th Street. 3. The construction of the segment of 4th Street SW connecting the Hillcrest and Eagle Ridge Subdivisions can not be made without the reconstruction of 4th Avenue SW from 23rd Avenue to the Eagle Ridge Subdivision due to the insufficient width of the existing roadway. 4. There does not appear to be any documented support by abutting property owners for the widening of 4th Street SW and the associated special assessments of $30.90 per foot of frontage. The project would likely fail due to objection at the Project and Special Assessment Public Hearings or upon resident appeal to district court. 5. Speeding would likely be the resulting neighborhood impact of a reconstructed 4th Street SW due to the downhill gradients in excess of 12% between the Eagle Ridge Subdivision and Highland Court. 6. The Eagle Ridge currently meets the Subdivision Ordinance requirements for two accesses without the 4th Street SW connection. I suggested to Don and Wade that they request a meeting with Public Works and Planning staff to discuss the revised GDP application before they formally submitted it to Planning. Aspen Home Owners Association Petition to City of Rochester Mn. Council We the undersigned hereby petition the city council of Rochester Minnesota to have 4`h Street S. W. completed through the Eagle Ridge Subdivision. The current configuration has resulted in a significant increase in traffic into the Aspens Subdivision. Much of this traffic is not by the residents but of apparent sight seers attracted by the Eagle Ridge development. We feel this puts children in the area at risk due to the speeds of the cars leaving Eagle Ridge tlhru Aspen Lane. Many children of the area play or walk in the road to and from the Eagle Ridge Park. 9/o0 1 V Petitio !'p 4th I Street completion. Page 2 c , 1 20 / \ A e 21 a S3 7 22 1-4 s 23' 24 Eti s 25 C 26 a5a_ S �s 27 S.vv, 28 29 L 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 `1, 00 Page 9 r Cinv Pl:mning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Aug=ust 22, 2001 fy i 3. This property shall be pl led. Controlled access will need to be provided St. SW and 23`d Avenue S 4. The wet sedimentation po s on the north and west sides of the d elopment reconfigured so that more the pond area is located on the de opment property and less on the park prope The applicant will need to wor ith the City Pubhe �r7 Works Department and Park epartment on this issue. 5. The turning radius of all curbe corners will need to verified to the Fire Departmerl r' that fire apparatus can be acco modated: rt 6. The private roadways must be p ted "No Par g' -Fire Lane" so that there'will be N the minimum 20 foot clear width r emerge y vehicles. 7. Clarify on the GDP plan face, that t e n b'er of units in the second phase will�be75 as stated in the narrative for consis y and to remove confusion..It the plan -is other than that, the petitioner must dress the issue at this time' � ^» 8 Show dimensions on the GDP f the dth of all private streets s 9. Change the phasing bound 1es on the DP'to indicate that the private roadway connection to the east to `d Ave SW, al g the planned commercial area, 15 lobe built in Phase I. - K� 10. Make the following odifications as recom ended by Rochester Public Workz'k, x A) Remov the westernmost residential ccess to 2 b Street mtid thet T build' g cluster shown on the potenti I Fire Station site;n _ B) Re ve the new driveway approach o 23'd Ave SW'into thij­e'commercia p pertybecause it doesn't meet the m imum 185' separation from`<2"d S C Show two southerly or exit lanes on the jor entrance road into the probe off 2ntl St 51N; and: $ .� 1 Verify on the plan that the main entrance in the project lines up with t -0 existing driveway approach to 2nd St SW for a property on the south si e the road.Y Amendment to General development Plan (GDP) #110 known as Eagle Ridge. The applicant is proposing to revise a portion of the approved GDP by removing a connection to 4' Street SW. The property is located west of Hillcrest Subdivision and the current west end of 41Street SW located west of Highland Court SW. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated August 17, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Quinn asked when the study was done to determine the cost feasibility to extend 4th Street. Mr. Svenby responded last year, when the applicant first petitioned to remove the connection. Page 10 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 22, 2001 L/ Mr. Quinn asked when the original general development plan was approved. / Mr. Svenby responded 1992. Mr. Quinn asked when the Aspens development was constructed. Mr. Ellerbusch responded 10 to 12 years ago. He explained the history of the surrounding developments. Mr. Svenby stated that, if the connection is made to the development, the City feels that it would be their responsibility to bring 4'h Street up to the City standards. He stated that the cost of upgrading the road would be approximately 1.2 million. Discussion ensued regarding what portion of 4'h Street would need to be upgraded and where the expenses would occur. Ms. Wiesner asked why the road was not improved in 1992 when the original general development plan was approved. Mr. Ellerbusch responded that Public Works did not recommend the reconstruction of 4'h Street at that time. Mr. Burke asked if 4'h Street would be reconstructed if the connection was not made. Mr. Svenby responded that he did not think so. Discussion ensued regarding a possible location of a turn -a -round. Mr. Cary Stewart, of 2547 Aspen Lane SW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that the City completed the north side from Hillcrest to 4'h Street. He stated that the connection is needed for safety reasons. He stated that they have tried to get stop signs put at the corner of Aspen Lane and Hillcrest, but need to get concurrence of everyone in the area. He stated that a lot of traffic is going to the park. He stated that the connection would help with the congestion near the park. Mr. Wade Dumond, of Yaggy Colby Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that a feasibility report was prepared by Public Works. As a result of the preparation of the report, they found considerable problems makin? the connection. Some of these include sight distance, grade, and cost of upgrading 4t Street. Mr. Dumond stated that the 1.2 million is only for the construction fees between the two intersections. He explained that it did not include the entire 4'h Street reconstruction. Mr. Dumond stated that retaining walls would need to be constructed, if the connection were made. Also, five homes would need to be moved from 4h Street. Mr. Dumond showed layouts of a turn -a -round. He explained that he did not think it would be feasible. Ms. Wiesner asked why the consultants did not know that the layout would not work when they did the general development plan in 1992. r. Page t I City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes �, J Hearing Date: August 22. 2001 r Mr. Dumond responded that they did not have the data that they currently have. Mr. Quinn asked if Mr. Dumond is stating that he could not comply with staff -recommended Conditions 1 and 2. Mr. Dumond responded that he was correct. Mr. Quinn asked what would happen if the applicant cannot comply with the two conditions. Mr. Svenby responded that he would like to meet with Mr. Dumond and Public Works to discuss the conditions. He stated that another possible option would to have the property owners on 41h Street make a petition for vacation of the right-of-way westerly of Highland Court SW so that it isn't over 150 feet from the intersection of Highland Court SW westerly. If this part of 4u' Street SW is less than 150 feet, a turn -a -round would not be required. Mr. Slaver asked Mr. Dumond if he would agree to continue the item Mr. Dumond stated that there is probably enough time to work out the issues prior to the city Council meeting. Mr. Cary Stewart, of 2547 Aspen Lane SW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has a set of plans that show the lots along Aspen Lane to the east and to north of the road. His plans showed four houses. Mr. Dumond responded that they do three homes with a hammerhead Mr. Edward Fritz, of 2503 Aspen Lane SW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is President of the Aspen Home Owners Association. He stated that people were in agreement with the connection from the beginning. He explained it would be difficult for the fire department and police to get through to Eagle Ridge. He stated that 4In Street should be reconstructed. Mr. Clayton Daugherty, of 2409 41h Street SW, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was also present to represent Raymond Berg, who resides at 2406 4'h Street SW, Rochester MN. He stated that the flow of traffic has doubled in last two years. If 41h Street were opened up, it would be a raceway, He expressed concern that the road would be steep. He stated that it is a good idea to close the road and add two homes at end. He stated that it would be unfair to loose part of their homes to open 41h Street to higher priced homes on the hill. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding a turn -a -round. Mr. Slaver stated that he was unsure how to address the conditions. Page 12 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes �� Hearing Date: August 22, 2001 Ms. Petersson stated that they could state that they work it out with staff and applicant and/or property owners in the vicinity. Mr. Burke asked what the fees would be relating to the vacation of the roadway. He questioned if they could put a stipulation on the development that they pay for the vacation. Mr. Svenby responded that it could not be a condition of the general development plan. He stated that the application fee for a right-of-way vacation is $375, but wasn't sure on the cost without looking at the fee chart. Discussion ensued regarding vacating the right-of-way. Ms. Wiesner suggested the following: ➢ 4-way stop signs at Aspen Place and Fourth Street and Eagle Nest Lane ➢ 3-way stop sign at Aspen Place SW and Fourth Street and Hyland Court Mr. Burke seconded the. motion Ms. Wiesner stated that the road was planned to go through and should be able to continue to do so. Mr. Slaver stated that stop signs would not be adequate. Mr. Quinn stated that it has been a standing condition and should not be abandoned at this time. Ms. Wiesner stated that she would rather the road be vacated. Mr. Ohly stated that he was uncomfortable leaving the developer to work the issue out with the Planning Department. The entire area was constructed with the idea that the connection would be made. He stated that the City should have recognized the situation when the plan was approved in the beginning. The decision was made a long time ago when plan first approved so the upgrade for 41h Street should be made. Mr. Slaver asked 0 five homes on the south side of 4`h Street would need to be acquired. Mr. Svenby responded that five homes would be impacted according to the feasibility report. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Initiate Text Amendment REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING �p DATE: 9-17-01 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: NO. PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNRgG / N DESCRIPTION: Amendment to General Development Plan # 155 approved as "The BY: :,rand Reserve at Cascade Lake" now to be known as "Grandville at Cascade Lake". TheEllerbusch, 1PREPARED property is located along the North side of Country Club Rd. SW (2nd St SW), west of the ior Planner 23` Ave. SW intersection and the new Shorewood senior housing and commercial development. September 10, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: On August 22, 2001 the City Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this amendment to the General Development Plan filed by the LeCesse Development Corporation, the remaining sole developer now proceeding without former partner in the development - Del -American. Bill Tointon, McGhie & Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. He explained the proposed amendment to the GDP. He stated that they are in agreement with the conditions suggested in the staff report. On 8/27/01 Mr. Tointon submitted a revised GDP drawing which already addresses Conditions 7,8,9,10 (A),10(B),and the first half of 10(D) of the conditions of approval adopted by the CP&ZC. The Commission reviewed this proposal according to the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215 of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. Ms. Wiesner made a motion to approve the amendment to General Development Plan #155 with the staff - recommended findings and conditions subject to the staff working on the wording of Condition 10(A) prior to going 'is Council. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. ..,., iditions: 1. Construction of a 10•foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along 2nd St. SW and typical sidewalk along 23rd Ave. SW. 2. Parkland dedication for this development shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land as outlined in the July 31, 2001 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. 3. This property shall be platted. Controlled access will need to be provided along 2nd St. SW and 23`d Avenue SW. 4. The wet sedimentation ponds on the north and west sides of the development be reconfigured so that more of the pond area is located on the development property and less on the park property. The applicant will need to work with the City Public Works Department and Park Department on this issue. 5. The turning radius of all curbed corners will need to be verified to the Fire Department that fire apparatus can be accommodated. 6. The private roadways must be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane" so that there will be the minimum 20 foot clear width for emeryency vehicles. 7. Clarify on the GDP plan face, that the number of units in the second phase will be 150 as stated in the narrative for consistency and to remove confusion. if the plan is other than that, the petitioner must address the issue at this time. )UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: second by: 11 O to: d o'd" Page 2 RCA -71 September 11, 2001 8. Show dimensions on the GDP for the width of all private streets. Q 9. Change the phasing boundaries on the GDP to indicate that the private roadway connection to the east to 2P Ave SIN, along the planned commercial area, is to be built in Phase 1. 10. Make the following modifications as recommended by Rochester Public Works: A) Remove the westernmost residential access to 2"d Street into the three building cluster shown on the potential Fire Station site; 8) Remove the new driveway approach off 23rd Ave S W into the commercial property because it doesn't meet the minimum 185'separation from fd St SW; C) Show two southerly or exit lanes on the major entrance road into the project off 2"d St SIN; and Dj Verify on the plan that the main entrance into the project lines up with the existing driveway approach to 2Id St SW for the property on the south side of the road and insure that there is enough lot frontage with the future fire station site that a future road access into the site will line up with the west entrance into the golf and tennis center on the south side of the street. Note that the underlined conditions are those that remain valid after taking into account of the revised documents already submitted by McGhie it Betts. Planning Staff Recommendation: See attached staff report dated August 16, 2001. 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the general development plan. The Council must make findings based on the criteria listed in Paragraph 61.215. 2. If the Council wishes to proceed with approval of the general development plan amendment as proposed, it should instruct the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution for Council approval. Attachments: 1. Staff Report dated August 16, 2001 2. Minutes of the August 22, 2001 CPZC Meeting Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Attorney 3. Planning Department File 4. Planning Department GIS Division 5. Applicant: This item will be considered some time after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 2001 in the Council/Board Chambers in the Government Center at 151 4th Street SE. 6. McGhie & Betts, Inc. CJ �. C. ROCHESTER-OLAISTED PLANNLNG DEPARTMENT J 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 of•0.ccN TER•.%/7.y4F c a o e T r OF www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jeff Ellerbusch, Senior Planner. DATE: August l6, 2001 RE: Amendment to General Development Plan #155 approved as "The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake". The amendment changes the name to "Grandville at Cascade Lake". Planning Department Review: Petitioner: Property Owners: LeCesse Development Corporation 2221 Lee Road, Suite 28 Winter Park. FI 32789 City of Rochester C/O City Administration 401 City Hall Rochester. MN 55904 Western Walls, Inc. 604 11`"Ave. NW, Suite 100 Rochester. MN 55901 Consultant: McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 Third Ave. SE Rochester, MN 55904 Location of Property: The property is located along the north side of 2nd St. SW/Country Club Road, west of the 23r0 Ave. SW intersection and the new Shorewood senior housing and commercial development. The Mayo shuttle parking lot is adjacent to the west of the site. Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment to this approved General Development Plan #155 has the exact same property boundaries as presently approved on 9/6100. This application is a major amendment, as referenced in sub -paragraph 61.217(2) of the LDM, requiring reconsideration by the CPSZC and City Council at BUILDING CODE 5071285-8213 • GIS/ADDRESSING/MAPPING 507/265-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 PLANNING/ZONING 507/205-8232 • wELUSEPTIC 5071285-8345 FAx 5071287-2275 CCC777 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 General Development Plan August 17, 2001 /D/ The major changes to the approved plan result from a decision by the developer to modify the specific multi- family building architecture on which the approved general development plan layout was originally designed. The approved plan had a potential for 414 units (388 if the southwest portion of the site is acquired for a new fire station) and the proposed amendment has the exact same number of units and continues to identify the potential fire station site. In the amended version there will be 390 net units if the fire station site is removed. The amended plan shows 264 units in Phase I, versus 316 in the approved version. In the applicant's general development plan narrative report, page 2, it is noted that the second phase in the amended plan has not been conceptually designed for building location, but it sets a maximum limit of 150 more units which brings the potential total unit count to the same as presently approved. The approved plan was designed around a total of 48 townhome style buildings on the whole site all with either one or two -stall attached garages for each unit. The amended version only shows the building styles in the proposed first phase of 33 buildings and now there are only attached garages for half of the units. The approved plan had 28, 10-unit; 7, 8-unit; and 13, 6-unit buildings; whereas the amendment shows all 8- unit buildings in three different sizes dependent on the floor area of the apartment units. The proposed site layout is very similar to the approved, but the private street layout had to be modified to account for 13 detached garages providing 65 more covered parking spaces and 350 surface spaces for the future residents. The public street access points are unchanged, as well as the planned access to the Shorewood development. The clubhouse and pool shown in the approved plan has been moved to a more southerly site opposite the major entrance feature in the amended plan. The wet sedimentation basins are shown in approximately the same locations on each plan, but still too much on the future parklands and not enough on the developer's property. The proposed commercial area along 2n0 Street next to the new Credit Union office and 23' Avenue remains unchanged in the amended plan. NOTE: Because there are fewer garages in the revised plan, the total number of potential parking spaces is much lower in the amendment than in the approved plan. The parking requirement for 264 performance residential townhome units is two per Page 3 General Development Plan August 17, 2001 unit plus 212 spillover spaces for a total of 740. If evaluated as multifamily apartments, the total number required will be lower, but by how much cannot be known until the # of bedrooms per unit is known. This issue will have to be addressed by the designers before any site plan review can be approved in the future. Land Use Plan: The Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan was amended last September to designate this property as suitable for "medium density residential" use. This re -designation was approved at the same time as the GDP. Zoning: The residential portion of this project is presently zoned R-3 (Medium Density Residential). The commercial portion of the project along 2nd Street in the southeast corner of the development is zoned B-5 (Residential Business). These districts were established last year at the time of consideration of the GDP. Streets: The GDP reposes to take access from the public streets 2 St. SW (CSAH 34) and 23rtl Ave. SW. All roadways within the development are still proposed to be private, as previously approved, and are shown with a driving surface of at least 20 feet in width. The detailed site plan design to be done in the future for site plan review must insure that the parking area in front of any garage door will not interfere with the clear width of the private street. A private street connection to 2nd Street, serving the residential units in the potential fire station portion of the site, is shown on the amended plan in error. This residential access must be removed from the plan. Access to the property from 2nd Street, if developed for a fire station, will be determined separately through City negotiations with the County. Also, the revised plan shows a new driveway approach into the commercial area off 23 d Avenue which is too close to the intersection, and based on access requirements must be moved northerly as previously shown on the approved plan to line up with the access into the Shorewood retail development. Also, the plan should identify that the major access into the site must line up with existing access to the property on the south side of the street. A secondary means of access to the proposed 264 unit first phase for emergency purposes and trip distribution must be provided. The phasing plan must show, as it did in the approved version, that the easterly connection of the private road system along the north boundary of the commercial area over to 23'd Avenue will be completed with the first phase. Page 4 General Development Plan August 17, 2001 103 Note: Any private or public roadways included when the area is platted will need acceptance of roadway naming designation through the Planning Department - GIS Division, as well as the need for any supplementary address signage. Sidewalks: Pedestrian facilities will be required along 2n0 St. SW in the form of a 10-foot wide bituminous pedestrian path, as well as typical city sidewalk along 23"Ave SW. Pedestrian and bike paths will also be constructed along the lakeshore in the future on City parkland. Drainage: According to the submittal, the methodology of storm water detention has not changed in the amended plan. The storm sewer system will collect surface storm drainage and direct it into the two, wet sedimentation ponds proposed in same general locations as shown on the approved plan. The shape of the ponds is slightly different, and as previously noted, still situated to far onto the City land. The wet ponds will drain to Cascade Lake. The previous plan showed four other potential detention areas in Phase ll. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Wetlands: A wetland delineation was previously carried out for the property. No wetlands exist, based on the on -site surveys conducted several years ago. Public Utilities: The amended application states that the modifications to the plan have not changed the routes of service for utilities. Services are, or will be, available to serve this property. Please note the specific conditions for the provision of water service to the site in the attached memo from RPU dated8/7/01. Parkland Dedication: Parkland dedication requirements for this development (6.54 acres) will need to be satisfied through a combination of land dedication of 50' corridor along the lake (2.6 acres) and cash in lieu of land. Please refer to the attached memo from the Rochester Park and Recreation Department dated 7131 /01. Again, the stormwater ponds on the west and north sides of the development need to be reconfigured such that more of the pond area is located on the development property and less on the park property. Environmental Review: In accordance with the Minnesota Rules, 4410.4300 subp.19, Item D, development of this property would f Page 5 General Development Plan August 17, 2001 require preparation of a Mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet since the total number of attached units exceeds the 375-unit threshold. Referral Comments 1. Rochester Public Works 2. Rochester Park & Recreation 3. RPU Water Division 4. Planning Department - GIS Division Repot Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Copy of Proposed Amended GDP 3. Proposed General Development Plan Narrative (8 pages) 4. Reduced Copy of the Approved GDP 5. Excerpt form the Resolution Approving the GDP 6. Referral Letters (4) 7. Copy of Amended Site Plan Showing Some of the Recommended Conditions Analysis: 1) Previous Variance At the time of the earlier consideration of this General Development Plan on August 9, 2000, the CP&ZC also acted on a specific zoning variance request applicable to the design of the project. The applicant requested and was granted a variance to Section 63.110 (5a) of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. This section addresses how to establish the front lot line on private roadway and would require that the front lot line from the internal roadways within this development be established as follows: a) In the case of an access roadway, a line parallel to the edge of the roadway at a distance from the roadway equal to one foot for every rive feet of roadway surface width. The variance granted was to permit the front setbacks to be measured from the curb line of the 24' wide private paved roads in the development, rather than from an imaginary line at 4.8 feet behind the curb as required by 63.110 (5a). If the private roads in this development maintain a minimum of 24 feet in paved width, this variance is still valid and can be continued to be used in the future design of the site plan for this development. 2) General Comments on the Amendment This amended GDP is so similar in character to the previously approved plan that the findings of fact from last year still are still valid and with minor modification can be applied to this amended project. An existing development agreement is still in effect on the property. The land use plan has been amended to "Medium Density Residential" and the appropriate zoning (R-3 and B-5)) has already been established on the property. The previous six conditions placed on the approval of the GDP are also still valid. It should be made clear that this GDP does not replace the need for a detailed site plan and the requirement for site plan review in the future. In fact, the rudimentary site planning shown on this Page 6 General Development Plan � August 17, 2001 /0 GDP points out some issues such as building siting and off-street parking requirements that must be appropriately addressed before permits to begin construction can be issued. Criteria & Staff Suggested Findings: Paragraph 61.215 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual lists the Criteria for approval of a general development plan. The criteria and the staff suggested findings are as follows: Criteria 1. The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and zoning map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. The land uses within the amended GDP are consistent with the land use designation and zoning districts on the property. Criteria 2. The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, accesses and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. The proposed residential density of 9 to 10 units per acre is consistent with permissible uses of the property. Access and circulation, if revised as recommended in the staff conditions, is compatible with the existing adjacent commercial, multi -family, medical and park uses. Criteria 3. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans The policies and goals found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Rochester Urban Service Area Land Use Plan encourage developing a range of densities and development styles. This development will help to further the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan and also those found within Chapter 3 of the Housing Plan. Criteria 4. The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-Year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. A Development Agreement has been executed between the developer and City for the development of this property. The Development Agreement outlines requirements for installation of turn lanes from 2nd St. SW, contribution toward a future traffic signal on 2nd St. SW and reservation of land for 23rd Ave. SW. This development makes accommodations for construction of a trunkmain sanitary sewer through the site. The City has hired an engineer to design relocation of the existing trunkmain that dissects the future Lake. Page 7 General Development Plan August 17, 2001 Access to the site as generally proposed and specifically modified following staff recommendations should provide adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. With the connection of this development to 23rd Ave in the first phase, and the future extension of 2P Ave as a collector street south of 2"d St into the Orchard Hills and Foxcroft area, we would expect a traffic signal to be warranted at some point in the future as development occurs and volumes on the intersecting legs of 2P Ave continue to grow. This location would be consistent with general guidelines on the signal spacing needed to maintain adequate traffic flow along the 2 d St SW corridor, being approximately % mile west of the TH 52 Frontage Road, and % mile east of the next logical signal location to the west, which would be the entrance to the Wimbledon Hills area. Signals will typically not be improved for installation until in can be demonstrated that warrants are met or will be met within a year of installation. Thus, while no signal is programmed for installation, we expect that development will create the conditions that warrant the installation of a signal in the future. To facilitate left and right turning traffic on and off of 2"d St in the future at unsignalized access locations, it is likely that conversion of 2"d St into a five lane section, with a center two-way left turn lane, similar to that found east of 23rd Avenue, will be needed at some time in the future. This is based in part on the expectation that the daily traffic on 2"d St will grow from a current level of approximately 8500 vehicles per day to approximately 15,000-16,000 vehicles per day over the next 20 years. The applicant should consult with the City and County Public Works Department to determine if any additional right of way to facilitate this conversion will be needed or whether it can be accomplished within the existing right of way of 20d St SW. Criteria 5. On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(C). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. Access to this property will be from 2"d St. SW and 23'd Ave. SW. A Development Agreement has been executed between the developer and City for the development of this property. The Development Agreement outlines requirements for installation of turn lanes from 2"d St. SW, contribution toward a future traffic signal on 2"d St. SW and reservation of land for 23'd Ave. SW. The order of magnitude in terms of trip generation for the proposed amended "Grandville at Cascade Lake" development is approximately 2800 vehicles per day. This value is arrived at by comparing the trip generation of a standard townhouse development (3200 trips per day for 400 units) Page 8 General Development Plan /��% August 17, 2001 /0 + which typically assumes a negligible percentage of transit or walking trips, with the trip generation of a low rise apartment (2600 trips per day for 400 units) which typically will assume a higher percentage of transit or walking trips along with a lower dwelling unit size. Given the proximity of this development to the St Mary's area and the presence of convenient transit service to downtown, we would expect the trip generation to trend towards the lower level typical of an apartment type complex. The overall trip generation of -2800 ADT compares with a projected level of 1550 ADT if the property was developed with single family dwellings at 3+ units per acre. Access to the site as proposed should provide adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. With the connection of this development to 23'd Ave, and the future extension of 23Id Ave as a collector street south of 2nd St into the Orchard Hills and Foxcroft area, we would expect a traffic signal to be warranted at some point in the future as development occurs and volumes on the intersecting legs of 23rd Ave continue to grow. This location would be consistent with general guidelines on the signal spacing needed to maintain adequate traffic flow along the 2nd St SW corridor, being approximately % mile west of the TH 52 Frontage Road, and % mile east of the next logical signal location to the west, which would be the entrance to the Wimbledon Hills area. Signals will typically not be improved for installation until in can be demonstrated that warrants are met or will be met within a year of installation. Thus, while no signal is programmed for installation, we expect that development will create the conditions that warrant the installation of a signal in the future. To facilitate left and right turning traffic on and off of 20d St in the future at unsignalized access locations, it is likely that conversion of 2nd St into a five lane section, with a center two-way left turn lane, similar to that found east of 23'd Avenue, will be needed at some time in the future. This is based in part on the expectation that the daily traffic on 2nd St will grow from a current level of approximately 8500 vehicles per day to approximately 15,000-16,000 vehicles per day over the next 20 years. The applicant should consult with the City and County Public Works Department to determine if any additional right of way to facilitate this conversion will be needed or whether it can be accomplished within the existing right of way of 2nd St SW. 2. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Services are, or will be available to serve this property. This development makes accommodations for construction of a trunkmain sanitary sewer through the site. The City has hired an engineer to design relocation of the existing trunkmain that dissects the future Lake. Page 9 General Development Plan August 17, 2001 The developer will be required to construct in the first phase watermain through the development to connect to two segments of existing watermain in the southeast and southwest corners of the site in order to obtain the fire flows necessary for this type of development. 3. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. Pedestrian facilities will be required along fd St. SW and 2PAve. SW. A trail system will also be constructed within the future City parkland along the future Lake. Pedestrian trail connections from within the development to the City trails are possible. According to the developers submittal, the developer will dedicate a 150 foot strip of land along the north and west sides of the property adequate for the needs of the Park Departments plans for the Cascade Lake park project with the balance of dedication requirements in the form of cash in lieu. Wet sedimentation basins are provided in the project, which will assist water quality efforts for Cascade Lake as referenced in the Storm Water Management Plan. Criteria F. The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that, at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. A storm sewer system willbe designed for the site that will collect surface storm drainage and direct this drainage into the wet sedimentation basins that will attempt to clean the runoff before entering Cascade Lake. Detailed grading and drainage plans will also be required when the property is platted or developed. Criteria G. The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and ccmpatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. This development proposes private roadways. As recommended by staff, the amended first phase of up to 264 units must connect by its private streets to both to 2n° Street and 2r Avenue SW. A variance was granted previously to permit the setbacks from the private roadways to be modified. Detailed site plans (Site Development Plans) will need to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to development of the property. Access streets and roadways will need to be in accordance with the fire codes, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual. The turning radius of all curbed corners will need to be verified that fire apparatus can be accommodated. Page 10 //�y General Development Plan /0 Ijfq August 17, 2001 Recommendation: Staff recommends the following conditions or modifications to assure compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual and applicable criteria: (the first six conditions are updated carryovers from the approved plan of 916100) 1. Construction of a 10-foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along 2nd St. SW and typical sidewalk along 23'd Ave. SW. 2. Parkland dedication for this development shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu of land as outlined in the July 31, 2001 memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. 3. This property shall be platted. Controlled access will need to be provided along 2nd St. SW and 23'd Avenue SW. 4. The wet sedimentation ponds on the north and west sides of the development be reconfigured so that more of the pond area is located on the development property and less on the park property. The applicant will need to work with the City Public Works Department and Park Department on this issue. 5. The turning radius of all curbed corners will need to be verified to the Fire Department that fire apparatus can be accommodated. 6. The private roadways must be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane" so that there will be the minimum 20 foot clear width for emergency vehicles. 7. Clarify on the GDP plan face, that the number of units in the second phase will be 150 as stated in the narrative for consistency and to remove confusion. If the plan is other than that, the petitioner must address the issue at this time. 8. Show dimensions on the GDP for the width of all private streets. 9. Change the phasing boundaries on the GDP to indicate that the private roadway connection to the east to 2P Ave SW, along the planned commercial area, is to be built in Phase 1. 10. Make the following modifications as recommended by Rochester Public Works: A) Remove the westernmost residential access to 2nd Street into the three building cluster shown on the potential Fire Station site; 8) Remove the new driveway approach off 23'd Ave SW into the commercial property because it doesn't meet the minimum 185' separation from 2"d St S W; C) Show two southerly or exit lanes on the major entrance road into the project off 2"d Si SW; and D) Verify on the plan that the main entrance into the project lines up with the existing driveway approach to 2nd St SW for the property on the south side of the road. I Page 11 Igo General Development Plan August 17, 2001 NOTE: Prior to development of this property, Site Development Plans will need to be submitted to the City and approved. This GDP review did not include enough detail site plan review for compliance with all regulations applicable to permit issuance (i.e. parking, lighting, building separations, recreation space, landscape areas, signage, multi -family vs. performance residential design standards etc). I I AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT • �Iii Iff WA� CASCADE LAKE (formerly The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake) Prepared For. LeCESSE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 2221 Lee Boulevard - Suite 28 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Prepared By. McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 SE Third Avenue _ Rochester, N mesota 5590�4 e JULY 25, 2001 'JI 7 F 2001 u 112 General Development Plan For The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake Pae�e 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This amended report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual of the City of Rochester. An amendment is necessary to modify the General Development Plan in reaction to some of the comments previously made by the Planning Commission as well as changes in market conditions, which necessitated a reduction in building size. The major changes to the plan are listed in a comparison chart in subsequent sections of this report. 2.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION The amended plan proposes that the project will be phased. There will be two phases with Phase One consisting of 64 units including units on the potential fire station site. 264(.stc) In discussions with W. Knott, it appears that the fire department probably will elect to locate a new station on this site. A prototype facility has been designed and discussions are continuing. The tri-party agreement addresses the process of obtaining the 2+ acres site for the station. At this time, the modified plan has shown residential structures on the potential site of the station, as it has not been acquired by the City. Provided the City exercises the option to obtain the site, the number of units would be reduced, accordingly. Modifications to the plan have not changed the routes of service with public utilities, the methaology of storm water detention, access to the project site or general land use concepts. A The plan still incorporates a 2-acre commercial site, which is a part of Phase Two. ■ General Development Plan For The Grand Rr,5 r: at Cascade T aU Paee 2 The following section provides a summary of the major changes to the plan. 3.0 SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN /0 ITEM ORIGINAL PLAN AMENDED PLAN Unit Count Phase 316 tN«ub'044 26 w.t ITS ou Ft" VC&T1DN SITE(510 264 tNe.upwL Z4 umlrs oN IZCSTiLnON51TE Phase II 98 150 Project Area Phase I (ac) 17.5 17.5 + 2.1 (proposed fire station) = 19.6 Phase Il (ac) 19.96 19.96 Land Use (bv acre) Fire station 2.1 2.1 Commercial 2.0 2.0 Parallel Dedication 2.6 2.6 Parking - Phase I Attached Garage Units 552 132 Detached Garage Units 0 65 0) Tandem Parking 392 132 Stalls 92 1 350 (1) There are 13 garage structures. The clubhouse has been moved from the north central portion of Phase I to the south central near the main entrance. It should be noted, at this time, Phase H has not been conceptually designed to provide 3 11 General Development Plan Fat The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake Paee 3 4.0 R I k building locations. However, the major road pattems, intensity of use, and ranges of density are shown. The future site plan will define the structure location, exact size, and style of units. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In approving a General Development Plan, the Commission and Council will review the plan for compliance with the criteria for approval listed in Section 61.215, which became effective May 15, 1999. The seven (7) criteria are listed below and are followed by our responses as to compliance: Criteria 1: The proposed land uses are generally in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map, or that the means for reconciling any differences have been addressed. A GDP may be processed simultaneously with a rezoning or plan amendment request. A General Development Plan for the site has been prepared and submitted with this application. The plan indicates that the site is proposed as a multifamily (2 story attached) housing project at a density of over 9 units per acre. The number of units per structure will be eight. The property has already gone through the appropriate rezoning process and is currently zoned R-3. The property has also been rezoned to residential commercial B-S as planned with the original General Development Plan. Criteria 2: The proposed development, including its lot sizes, density, access and circulation are compatible with the existing and/or permissible future use of adjacent property. The density of the proposed development is consistent with the current land 11S General Development Plan For The aand Reserve at Casgade Lake Paee 4 use and zoning district for the property. The vehicular circulation consists of a number of private roadways that access 2nd Street S.W. at a defined point. Access to the site is limited to only one location onto 2nd Street S.W. Two secondary accesses are proposed to 23rd Avenue S.W. The adjacent property to the north and west border public parkland and no vehicular access is necessary. The lands to the east also border the future parkland and no vehicular access is necessary. Criteria 3: The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The mix of housing is consistent with adopted Land Use and Housing Plans. The development is proposed as a multifamily housing project and residential commer- cial uses, which will be consistent with the current land uses and zoning for the property. The proposed multifamily housing provides for a variety of housing styles at a greater density which is encouraged in the adopted housing plan. Criteria 4: The proposed plan makes provisions for planned capital improvements and streets reflected in the City of Rochester's current 6-year Capital Improvement Program, adopted Thoroughfare Plan, the ROCOG Long -Range Transportation Plan, Official Maps, and any other public facilities plans adopted by the City. Street system improvements required to accommodate proposed land uses and projected background traffic are compatible with the existing uses and uses shown in the adopted Land Use Plan for the subject and adjacent properties. The six -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) does not provide for any planned improvements to this development. However, a sanitary sewer tine will be constructed to 1 s /A0 General Development Plan Far The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake Paee 5 serve the site by the City of Rochester and watermain will be extended to the site. The right of way will be dedicated for 23rd Avenue S.W. across their property. This will allow far upgrades to 2nd Street S.W. in the future. A bike path is planned along 2nd Street S.W. Criteria 5: On and off -site public facilities are adequate, or will be adequate if the development is phased in, to serve the properties under consideration and will provide access to adjoining land in a manner that will allow development of those adjoining lands in accord with this ordinance. a. Street system adequacy shall be based on the street system's ability to safely accommodate trips from existing and planned land uses on the existing and proposed street system without creating safety hazards, generating auto stacking that blocks driveways or intersections, or disrupting traffic flow on any street, as identified in the traffic impact report, if required by Section 61.523(c). Capacity from improvements in the first 3 years of the 6-year CIP shall be included in the assessment of adequacy. Currently, 2nd Street S.W. functions as an arterial roadway with sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic from this development. There are plans to upgrade 2nd Street S.W. in the near future within the existing right of way. Access to 23 d Avenue SW is also planned for the project. b. Utilities are now available to directly serve the area of the proposed land use, or that the City of Rochester is planning for the extension of utilities to serve the area of the proposed development and such utilities are in the first three years of the City's ' current 6-Year Capital Improvements Program, or that other arrangements (contractual, development agreement, performance bond, etc.) have been made to ' ensure that adequate utilities will be available concurrently with development. If needed utilities will not be available concurrent with the proposed development, the applicant for the development approval shall stipulate to a condition that no e !/ 7 General Development Plan For The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake Paee 6 development will occur and no further development permit will be issued until concurrency has been evidenced. Utilities are available to serve the site. The City of Rochester has contracted with a Consultant to design a sanitary sewer line to the east property line of the development. Rochester Public Utilities plans on crossing 2nd Street S.W. at the southwest corner of the development with an 8" watermain to serve the site. The developer will be required to connect the 8" watermain at the southwest corner with an inplace 8" main at the south- east corner of the project in order to have sufficient water capacity for fire flows. All other utilities are available to serve the site and have sufficient capacity. C. The adequacy of other public facilities shall be based on the level of service standards in Section 64.130 and the proposed phasing plan for development. The development plan provides for wet sedimentation basins for water qualitypurposes as required in the City's Storm Water Management Plan. Cascade Lake will serve as the detention basin facility. The developer will dedicate a 50 foot strip along the north and west sides of the project for parkland purposes and also will dedicate at no charge to the city an additional 100 foot strip for parkland. The dedication of this area will be sufficient to meet the needs of the park department and the balance of parkland dedication will be in the form of a cash contribution. Criteria 6: The drainage, erosion, and construction in the area can be handled through normal engineering and construction practices, or that at the time of land subdivision, a more detailed investigation of these matters will be provided to solve unusual problems that have been identified. 1 General Development Plan For The Grand Reserve at Cascade take Pae 7 The design of the storm water facilities are in conformance with the requirements of the City of Rochester proposed Storm Water Management Plan. On -site wet sedimentation will be provided. The design of these facilities and the erosion control will be in accordance with the standard requirements of the City of Rochester. Grading and drainage plans will be submitted to the City of Rochester. Criteria 7: The lot, block, and street layout for all development and the lot density for residential development are consistent with the subdivision design standards contained in Section 64.100 and compatible with existing and planned development of adjacent parcels. The density, lot pattern, and street layout are consistent with a multifamily development complex in the R-3 zoning. The internal road system is planned to be private with a connection to 2id Street and 23'd Avenue SW. k e BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA In Re: General Development Plan #155 (The Grand Reserve) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. On September 6, 2000, the Common Council of the City of Rochester held a public hearing, upon notice to the public, to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission's findings of the public hearing held on August 9, 2000, in response to General Development Plan #155. At the hearing, public testimony was offered on the application. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Common Council of the City of Rochester does hereby make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order. A. Pedestrian facilities are required along Second Street S.W., and 23id Avenue S.W. B. Parkland dedication for this development shall be met via a combination of land and cash in lieu as outlined in the July 20, 2000, memo from Rochester Park and Recreation. C. This property shall be platted. Controlled access will need to be provided along Second Street S.W., and 23rd Avenue S.W. D. The wet sedimentation ponds on the north and west sides of the development be reconfigured so that more of the pond area is located on the development property and less on the park property. The applicant will need to work with the City Public Works Department and Park Department on this issue. E. The turning radius of all curbed corners will need to be verified that fire apparatus can be accomplished. F. The private roadways must be posted "No Parking — Fire Lane" so that there will be the minimum 20 foot clear width for emergency vehicles. ORDER The Common Council of the City of Rochester, pursuant to R.C.O. §61.215 does hereby approve General Development Plan #155 subject to the above six conditions described above. Dated at Rochester, Minnesota this 67X day of September, 2000. Clolin Hunziker, President of the Rochester City Council ROCHESTE`Z lay iV/innedola 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 Roam 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX - 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for an AMENDMENT to General Development Plan #155 on the Grandville at Cascade Lake (flea — The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake) property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. There is an executed Development Agreement for this property. 2. The westerly area of this property is still planned as an optional site for a Fire Station. Access to serve the Fire Station shall be determined separately. 3. Access off of 2nd St to serve the westerly units is not allowed. 4. The Storm Water Detention Facilities shall be designed to minimize the encroachment onto City lands. Modifications shall be reviewed / approved by the City Engineer and Director of Park & Recreation. 5. The southerly driveway into the commercial area is not allowed. A minimum distance of 185 feet is required, to match the access serving the Shorewood Retail complex. 6. The main entrance shall line up with the access across 2"d St. 7. The exit entry design should include two (2) exit lanes, and the 23`d Ave access should be built as part of Phase I. 8. Construction of a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path is required along the entire frontage on 2"d St. C:ltemp\GDP155 AMENDMENT Grandville at Cascade Lake.doc Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department GISlAddressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 559044744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507)287-2275 PLAT REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: August 9, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: RE: SOUTHERN WOODS FOURTH A review of the preliminary plat has turned up the following ADDRESS and ROADWAY related issues. 1. The roadway illustrated as 53 Street SW needs to be a named roadway, as it does not fit the grid to be designated as a numbered street. RECOMMENDATION: Name the roadway and use DRIVE as the roadway type along with SW as the directional. 2. The roadway illustrated as Southern Ridge Drive SW is using the incorrect roadway type. RECOMMENDATION: Change the roadway type from Drive to LANE. ROCHESTER PARK AND 'REATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM /a3 DATE: July 31, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning FROM: Denny Stotz SUBJECT: Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake (Grandville at Cascade Lake) GDP # 155 Amendment Parkland dedication for the proposed 414 unit development will be 6.54 acres, depending on the number of dwelling units. Dedication will be met via a combination of dedication of the 50' corridor along the lake (2.6 acres) and the balance of the dedication in the form of cash. No dedication credit should be extended for storm water management ponds located within the 50' corridor. The fair market value for the land has been established at $35,000 per acre. The estimated cash dedication due is $137,900. The final determination of cash dedication is dependent on the exact number of dwelling units in the development . Payment of dedication is due prior to recordation of the final plat. The applicant and City staff have agreed to coordinate grading and landscape plans. The stormwater ponds on the west and north sides of the development should be reconfigured such that the ponds are located on the development property and not on the property to be dedicated for park purposes. 0:\DST0TZ\2001\DEDICATI0N\NM 2898\GRAND RESERVE GDP AMEND.DOC - i - 1aLI wa �led�e, we deltvee August 7, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Amendment to General Development Plan #155 by LeCesse Development Corp. to be known as Grandville at Cascade Lake (formerly The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake), townhome style rental unit residential development. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced general development plan is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. The Main Level Water System is available for connection at the southeast comer of the site on the west side of 23 d Ave. SW and at the south west comer of the site on the south side of 2nd St. SW. RPU will reimburse the owner for the necessary 2nd St. water main crossing construction costs. 3. To obtain the fire flows necessary for this type of development the water system must be constructed through this development to connect into both these locations within the first phase of construction. 4. We will work with the applicant's engineering firm to develop the necessary water system layout to serve this area. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly youWM&� s,(2O4AA Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention McGhie & Betts, Inc. LeCesse Development Corporation Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 z Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department GIS/Addressing Division 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-4744 Phone: (507)285-8232 Fax: (507) 287-2275 GDP REFERRAL RESPONSE DATE: August 9, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness FROM: Planning Dept. Addressing Staff CC: Lyle Felsch RE: AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN # 155 GRANDVILLE AT CASCADE LAKE A review of the GDP has turned up the following ROADWAY or ADDRESS related issues: 1. The official designation of all public and/or private roadways must have approval of the GISIE911 Addressing Staff. 1. Supplementary Address Signage and the incurred costs may be required to eliminate complicated or confusing addressing situations. This signage must be coordinated with the GIS/ E-911 Addressing Staff in cooperation with the Rochester Fire Department. If required, this signage will be determined at the time of address review. µp CNESTE R: tilt 1�L/ 0�_ ,.. ROCHESTERvz .., ALLA.NEa1G CnY :� ^----`—...—�•- fh iiz�edaL� 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: August 15, 2000 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: Lyle Felsch, Deputy Chief SUBJECT: Amendment to GDP #155, Grandville at Cascade Lake, located south of 2nd street SW and west of 23`d Avenue SW and Shorewood Development and east of Mayo Clinic parking lot. With regard to the above noted general development plan, the fire department has the following requirements: 1. An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including hydrants properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. Hydrants 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 LeCesse Development Corp. 2221 Lee Road, Suite 28, Winter Park, FI. 32789 McGhie & Betts, Inc. 1648 3rd Avenue SE, Rochester, MN 55904 "1497-ma f I � Awm9Na'Q ` 3AOW��f .� 101 0 VUM5 41 1Z' rOJA Ia ru. i M d n ON) 1 Qd©?1 Ad j 9A 7 ac�1Q33�j -*IOWgd Page 6 City Planning and Zonins Commission Minutes r Hearing Date: August 22. 2001 Mr. Quinn asked if t ere was supposed to be a bike path along Willow Creek Golf Course on �( (� 11'" Avenue. He staved that he understood that it was not constructed due to the rock. Mr. Svenby respcnde that, when the golf course expanded, a condition placed on the conditional use permit quired them to construct a path along the east side of 11th Avenu SW. He stated that he was n t sure if the condition was removed but would check on it. He ted that he would work with e applicant and Public Works on the issue prior to the City until meeting. With no one else wishingXo be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hp6ring. Mr. Burke moved to recomi end approval of Preliminary Plat #01-31 y Souther Development Corp. to be kinwn as Southern Woods Fourth Addi ' n ands Sub Land Alteration permit with s ff recommended conditions and dings.` Mr. Ch seconded the motion. The m ion carried 6-0. CONDITIONS 1 The Plat shall be revised::'t rA a. To dedicate a Drainage& tili b.. Changin.g the roadway iden if "Drive" along with SW as th _ c. Changing the roadway type f Lane SW".:' d.' Providing a minimum 20publ shown through Lots 41, Bloy) Water Management Fee,wi graded, do m not drain to c 3. Pedestrian facilities ncri Developer, along t entire; tasem t over vutlot A. I as!' ° Street" SW to a row rect' nal "S them Ridge Drive SW" tc ►utility easement for the 8" w. Amendment to General development Plan (GDP) #155 known as Grandville at Cascade Lake (formerly The Grand Reserve at Cascade Lake). The applicant is proposing to revise the type and intensity of the development originally presented for the approval for 4 / Page i City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 1 ^� Hearing Date: August 22, 2001 1V,j�VjJ lot. Mr. Jeff Ellerbusch presented the staff report, dated August 16, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Ellerbusch showed proposed plans on an overhead projector. He explained that the City plans to acquire the southwest corner of the site to relocate the fire station from Second Street. Mr. Ellerbusch explained that the main difference between the original plan and the proposed plan is the phasing. He explained that the difference in layouts is due to the different architecture. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the location of sedimentation ponds needed to be reevaluated. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that he spoke with City Administration regarding acquiring the southwest corner. He stated that they want to make sure the boundaries include enough frontage along Second Street so that the driveway into site to be used as fire department will align with driveway with golf and tennis club. He asked that it be included in Condition Number 10. Mr. Quinn stated that the entrance into the complex would have a similar exit and entrance lane. Mr. Ellerbusch responded that it is a part of the development agreement. Mr. Quinn stated that he thought a bike lane would be constructed along the south side of Second Street. Mr. Ellerbusch responded that it was planned. Ms. Wiesner asked why the access points would be removed to the proposed fire station site. Mr. Ellerbusch responded that the County will not permit a driveway for residential purposes and that the access has not been approved yet for the fire station. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the development will not allow the fire station to be accessed from the development. The City will not finish the project of acquiring the land until they receive access to Second Street. He stated that they plan to put an actuated stop light in the entrance of the fire station. Mr. Quinn asked if Second Street would be widened to 5 lanes to Circle Drive, Mr. Ellerbusch responded that he believed it would be a future project. Discussion ensued regarding elevation. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that the applicant would need to go through the site plan process. Mr. Ellerbusch stated that they plan to develop it as a multi -family housing development. The applicant's representative showed him that they evaluated the parking closer and it appears that they can meet standards. Page 8 f r / City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 22, 2001 13D Mr. Bill Tointcn, of McGhie and Betts, Inc., addressed the Commission. He showed a chart comparing the previous plan to the proposed amended plan. He discussed the different building styles and parking. Mr. Tointon sated that the main reason for the amendment is to address the market in the area. Mr. Tointon sated that they showed units on the site plan where the fire station is planned to be constructed as they are not 100 percent positive that the City will acquire the site. Mr. Tointon stated that they agree to the staff -recommended conditions, except for condition number 10 a). He stated that, in the original approval, there was a statement indicating that it was an optional driveway for a fire station. He asked that the same statement be forwarded to the amendment. Mr. Tointon stated that the Tri-party Development Agreement requires a pedestrian path system to be provided on the north side. Ms. Wiesner asked H the club house would be private. Mr. Tointon responded it would be private to Phase I and Phase II. Discussion ensued regarding parking in front of the club house. Ms. Wiesner expressed concern with the lack of parking in front of the club house. Mr. Ralph Sanderhoe, of LeCesse Development Corporation, addressed the Commission. He stated that he did not disagree with adding more parking for the club house, however, he does not personally manage the property. He stated that Mr. LeCesse normally plans the amount of parking in front of the club house as necessary for the employees, visitor access, and for a few additional people who want to drive to the club house. However, he has found that you cannot put enough parking in. He stated that there should be enough parking to handle the traffic. Mr. Sandencce stated that he would pass Ms. Wiesner's comment to Mr. LeCesse. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. Pa,>e 9 City Plannima and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 23— 2001 j31 3. This property shall be platted. Controlled access will need to be provided along St. SW and 23`d Avenue SW. 4. The wet sedimentation ponds on the north and west sides of the development b reconfigured so that more of the pond area is located on the development pro pe and less on the park property. The applicant will need to work with the City Pub Works Department and Park Department on this issue. 5. The turning radius of all curbed corners will need to be verified to the Fire Depai that flee apparatus can be accommodated. r; 6. The private roadways must be posted "No Parking— Fire Lane" so that there will the minimum 20 foot clear width for emergency vehicles. 7. Clarify on the GDP plan face, that the number of units in the second phase will b as stated in the narrative for consistency and to remove confusion.'. If the pIan-is other than that, the petitioner must address the issue at this time > 8. Show dimensions on the GDP for the width of all private streets � 9: Change the phasing boundaries on the GDP to indicate that the private roadway3 connection to the east to 23rd Ave SW, along the planned commercial area, is toa built in Phase 1. a 2 10. Make the following modifications as recommended by Rochester. Public Works —A )'.-, Remove the westernmostresidential acce building cluster shown on the potential Fi aertv because it doesn't meet the min lev y C) Show, two southerly or exit lanes on r ;off 2nd St ;'an „ Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, staff report is on file at the Rochester-Olmst Mr. Quinn asked when the study was August 17, 2001, to the Commission. The ining Department. the cost feasibility to extend 4 ° Street. Mr, Svenby responded last year, when f e applic;it first petitioned to remove the connection. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING A DESCRIPTION: Preliminary Plat #01.31 by Southern Woods Development Corp, to be known as Southern Woods Fourth Addition. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 36.09 acres into 46lots for single family development, 50 lots for a townhouse development and 1 outlot. The Plat also includes the dedication of right-of-way for a number of new public roadways. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet in certain areas within the development. The property is located along the east side of W' Avenue SW (Co. Rd. 147), south of 48d' Street SW and south of Southern Woods First and Third Addition. September 12, 2001 City Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation: MEETING DATE: 09-17-01 (" ITEM- NO. 7 Theresa Fogarty, Planner The City Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on August 22, 2001 to consider this preliminary plat. Mr. Mark Welch of GGG Engineering, representing the applicant, expressed concern with Condition #3 stating that there is rock on both sides of 11° Avenue SW and that it would not be feasible to put a 10 foot wide bituminous path along the roadway. He stated that he will work with Public Works on a different way to get a path in. The Planning Commission found that this preliminary plat will conform with the applicable criteria with the following conditions or modifications: f. The Plat shall be revised to: a. To dedicate a Drainage & Utility Easement over Outlot A. b. Changing the roadway identified as "53'd Street" SIN to a roadway name using "Drive" along with SW as the directional. c. Changing the roadway type for "Southern Ridge Drive SW" to "Southern Ridge Lane SW". d. Providing a minimum 20' public utility easement for the 8" water main loop shown through Lots 41, Block 4. 2. Stormwater Management must provided for this development. A voluntary Storm Water Management Fee will apply to any areas of this subdivision that, when graded, do not drain to an on -site detention facility. 3. Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalk) are required, at the expense of the Developer, along the entire frontages of bo£h sides of all new public roadways within this development. In addition, the Owner is required toilAurC"oncurrent with construction for this subdivision, a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path, along the entire frontage of 110 Avenue SW. 4. The Developer shall execute a Supplement to the Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that includes the southerly 20 acres of this proposed subdivision. The Supplement to the Development Agreement must be executed prior to submitting the Final Plat. i1f4, 5. Parking shall not be permitted at anytime along either side of 1153rd Street SW, from'fe Avenue SW to 100 feet east of4*rAvenue SW This area must be posted "No Parking". COUNCIL ACTION: Mo5on -7-0 Page 2 RCA September 12, 2001 133 Mr. Burke moved to recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #01.31 by Southern Woods Development Corp. to be known as Southern Woods Fourth Addition and a Substantial Land Alteration permit with staff recommended conditions and findings. Mr. Quinn seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Planning Department Recommendation: See attached staff report dated August 17, 2001. Council Action Needed '�- ,, ,r-. ;; • 1. The Council may approve, approve with conditions, or denytheland subdivision permit, The, Council must make findings, of fact based; on the criteria included in the staff report A`, motion to deny must include support►ng reasons fora conclusion that at least one of the: i v�, 'F a T ao # `k rA y _ 9 t Sw+�r;,_yri i t-.Vt'• �`t ^�'0. fifteen fndmgs for denial in paragraph,6f 225 can be made 7<r , ,� ° �z'��$ .,,s2: r r r *�-+E.'+sii�•s �K�.s. .'•� gy *w,�'�Cy�-i Fi` i �s} ',•�"r7-f.`. ' �'t t f aa3 "'�± :r�...f,�e °`4"{f>� fisr Y r , 3� � Si r✓� C.'("� � fy� x ��4`irti7�'t5.'�� +�s. y �"� �4��� 2.The Councci! should include a motion to adopf�fndmgs to support either approval or, tlen/al,of; the proposed Substantial 4; nk terabon e Attachments: 1. Staff Report, dated September 6, 2000. 2. Minutes of the August 22, 2001 CPZC Meeting. Distribution: 1. City Administrator 2. City Clerk 3, City Attorney 4. Planning Department File 5. Planning Department, GIS Division 6. Applicant: This item will be considered sometime after 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 17, 2001, in the Council Chambers at the Rochester 1 Olmsted County Government Center. 7. GGG Engineering @p g iii •1 al �I .t•gi b h9li S3�Si:.e �: t,: €r€€€€€€€€€ - GIK��LCLN.Y��YNYYYYLY �tt€€tt€ttttttttt�€ttt€tt€t k I z 9 �9i ij 9 r? ` `'S s Y• �e5 _ i! 1._ F x ai fjls s99! x9ee z :7 'I fill O cv Lr N —' �k}}�a,,�l{nn �{■.�11 }�a FIg``F1FF1FF1 {. Y�1�YYY� EaMMIN S:SM 9 93�9 13� REVISED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SOur miN WOODS SUBDMSION SECTIONS 26.35 ROCHLSIU TOWNSIY AppRv o L g REVI E puW1 A lWTdl RCOS TFD ADYIpV, eempYy N_ W �weaaa pal IMrw( Uwpw CwnIR VM�aetn MM wa IYII M IM 3rIM�1 P+1� M M YnIM.� Ow. F+Irw \t����a sW Preliminary Plat #01-31 Southern Woods 4th Addition 1,000' Notification Distance Ward 1 Hanson 07/30/01 ROAD 90M 'r ROCHESTER-OLNISTED PLANNING DEPARTMENT L 2122 Campus Drive SE, Suite 100 • Rochester, MN 55904-4744 C O U N T Y O f www.olmstedcounty.com/planning TO: City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Theresa Fogarty, Planner DATE: August 17, 2001 s r■...Jaa ... �t ■... ■.. a��,�si� &�nn■y RE: Preliminary Plat#01-31 by Southern Woods Development Corp. to be known as Southern Woods Fourth Addition. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 36.09 acres into 46 lots for single family development, 50 lots for a townhouse development and 1 outlot. The Plat also includes the dedication of right-of-way for a number of new public roadways. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Substantial Lane Alteration permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet in certain areas within the development. The property is located along the east side of 11th Avenue SW (Co. Road 147), south of 48th Street SW and south of Southern Woods First and Third Additions. Planning Department Review: Applicant/Owner: Southern Woods Development Corp. 3552 West River Parkway NW Rochester. MN 55901 Surveyors/Engineers: GGG, Inc. 14070 Highway 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 Referral Comments: Park and Rec. Department Rochester Public Works Department Planning Department - Addressing staff Public Utilities - Water Division Rochester Fire Department Report Attachments: 1. Land Development Manual Excerpts 2. Referral Comments ( 5 letters) 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Southern Woods Approved General Development Plan 5. Memo from GGG, dated July 25, 2001. 6. Copy of Substantial Land Alternation Map BUILDING CODE 507/285-8213 • GIVADDRESSING/MAPPING 5071285-8232 • HOUSING/HRA 5071285-8224 o.o., PLANNING20NING 5071285-8232 • WELUSEPTIC 507/285-8345 FAX 507/267-2275 �� AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITYIAFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER Page 2 , • Preliminary Plat 01-31 Southern Woods Fourth Addition September 11, 2001 Development Review: Location of Property: The property is located along the east side of 111" Avenue SW (Co. Road 147), south of 481" Street SW and south of Southern Woods First and Third Additions. Zoning: The property north of "53rd Street SW" and Lots 1-3, Block 3 is zoned R-1 (Mixed Single Family Residential) district and the area south of "53 d Street SW" , less Lots 1-3, Block 3 is zoned R-1x (Mixed Single Family Extra) on the City of Rochester Zoning Map. Proposed Development: This development consists of 25.72 acres being subdivided into 46 lots for single family residential development, the remaining acres for 50 lots for townhome development, one outlot, and also proposes to dedicate right-of-way for new public roadways. Roadways: This plat proposes to dedicate right-of-way for six new roadways and one-half of the right-of-way for 11'h Avenue SW (County Road 144). The first roadway named "Southwood Drive SW" is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The second roadway named "Southern Place SW" is a cul-de-sac designed with a 50' right-of-way. The third roadway named "53'd Street SW" is designed with a 60' right-of-way. The name of this roadway must be changed to using "Drive" as the roadway type along with SW as the directional. The fourth roadway named "Southern Ridge Drive SW" is designed with a 56' right-of-way. The roadway type is incorrect and shall be changed from "Drive" to "Lane". The fifth roadway named "Southern View Lane SW is a cul-de-sac designed with a 50' right-of-way. The sixth roadway named "Southern Ridge Lane SW" is a cul-de-sac designed with a 50' right-of-way. Dedication of Controlled Access, as indicated on the Preliminary Plat, shall be shown on the Final Plat. Parking will not be permitted on either side of "53'd Street SW" from 18'" Avenue SW, to 100 feet east of 18'" Avenue SW. Page 3 Preliminary Plat 01-31 Southern Woods Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities are required, at the expense of the Developer, along the entire frontages of both sides of all new public roadways within this development. The Owner is required to construct, concurrent with construction for this subdivision, a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path, along the entire frontage of 11mAvenue SW (CR144). Execution of a Supplement to the executed Development Agreement is required to include the southerly 20 acres of this proposed subdivision. Drainage: The Plat is designed with storm sewer collection pipes that will convey storm water into an existing stormwater pond in Southern Woods. Stone Water Management must be provided for the development of this property. A voluntary Storm Water Management Fee will apply to any areas of this subdivision that, when graded, do not drain to an on -site detention facility. Outlot A shall be designated as a Drainage & Utility Easement. Grading and drainage plans will need to be approved by the City Public Works Department prior to the submittal of the final plat. Wetlands: Minnesota Statutes now require that all developments be reviewed for the presence of wetlands or hydric soils. The Soils Survey does not indicate hydric soils within this Plat. Public Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water lines will be extended from their present ends to accommodate this development. A 20' minimum public utility easement is required for the 8" water main loop shown through Lots 41, Block 4. 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 113 spillover parking stalls. It appears as though the additional parking can be accommodated on the roadways and most likely within private driveways, as well. Parkland Dedication: The Park & Recreation Department stated that dedication requirements for this plat be met via: Reduction in previously established parkland dedication credits as a result of dedication of 12.0 acre Outlot A Southern Woods. lqb Page 4 Preliminary Plat 01-31 Southern Woods Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 General Development Plan: This property is included within the Amended Southern Wood General Development Plan, approved August 6, 2001. Substantial Land Alteration: This application includes a request for approval of land disturbing activities defined as Substantial Land Alteration according to Section 61.1101, B of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual (LDM). Section 62.1102 of the LDM allows the City to consider a request for excavation or substantial land alteration as part of a Type III application subject to making findings established in Section 62.1105 and 61.146 of the LDM. This development includes a proposal for cut and fill work which involves a grade change of 10- feet or more from the pre-existing grades. The area where grade is proposed to be changed, approximately over 10' will occur at the intersection of 11`" Avenue SW and 53i1 Street SW, Lot 25, Block 1 (the stormwater pond) and in the area of the town home development on Lots 27 and 28, Block 4. Sections 61.146, 62.1102 and 62.1105 of the LDM are attached. Staff Suaaested Findings: If the City Council approves the proposed substantial land alteration, staff recommends the following findings to Section 62.1105 and 61.146 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual: 62.1105 1) The activity should not result in danger to life or property. The storm water pond being constructed will aid in containing any runoff and the ditch along 11`" Avenue SW will provide an area where a silt fence can be placed to ensure any runoff is controlled. The grading and drainage plans will need to comply with City standards and be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department. 2) The grading plan for this project needs to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department and it will document the extent of the work. All cut material will be used to fill in the area of the stormwater pond. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 3) The equipment conducting the grading work on the property will also be the equipment utilized to move the earth. All excess material will be used on the site. It will not be necessary to truck in fill or haul fill from the site, which will minimize the impact on the surroundings roads. 4) The proposed excavation work should not affect air quality or ground and surface water quality. 5) The proposed grading work should not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester. There will not be any steep slopes or exposed rock faces. The natural topography of the area is being re -graded to provide adequate slopes for single family and town home dwellings. R r' Page 5 Preliminary Plat 01-31 Southern Woods Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 6) The result of the proposed activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future. The finished result of the grading work will allow for development that is consistent with the land use plan. 7) The grading will be confined to the property and should not affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. The duration of the excavation activity is expected to be completed during the same year as construction starts. The area disturbed will be seeded as soon as grading is completed. 8) The grading will only take place during the same year as construction starts. There are homes in the immediate area that will be visually affected by the grading activity for only a short time during the grading process. Noise and dust control will need to comply with City standards. 9) The grading and drainage plan will need to provide the proper restoration and stabilization in accordance with the adopted codes for the City of Rochester. 10) The grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater management will be required for the development. 11) The areas of grading do not contain sinkholes or wetlands and should not effect the ground water or surface quality once restoration and stabilization is completed. 12) The grading work is expected to be completed during the same year as construction starts. The duration seems appropriate for this type of activity and the size of the project. 13) The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. 14) Surety will need to be provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored after the completion of the excavation activity. This surety can be provided through the owner -contract process for this development. If grading is to occur prior to an owner -contract, a separate surety will need to be provided. 15) The grading and drainage plan will need to be approved by the Rochester Public Works Department prior to any grading on the property. The Planning Staff would suggest the following findings for Section 61.146: #1 — 3, Not applicable #4. The Rochester Public Works Department will need to review and approve the grading and drainage plan for this work. This plan must accommodate permanent and interim erosion and sediment control. #5 — 8, Not applicable. Page 6 Preliminary Plat 01-31 '�� Southern Woods Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 Staff Review and Recommendation: Section 61.225 of the Land Development Manual lists the findings which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the Council when reviewing a land subdivision permit application. This section is attached for your information. The Planning staff has reviewed this preliminary plat request for compliance with the Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including Section 61.225 of the LDM. The staff recommends approval with the following conditions I modifications: 1. The Plat shall be revised: a. To dedicate a Drainage & Utility Easement over Outlot A. b. Changing the roadway identified as "53i0 Street" SIN to a roadway name using "Drive" along with SW as the directional. c. Changing the roadway type for "Southern Ridge Drive SW" to "Southern Ridge Lane SW". d. Providing a minimum 20' public utility easement for the 8" water main loop shown through Lots 41, Block 4. 2. Stormwater Management must provided for this development. A voluntary Storm Water Management Fee will apply to any areas of this subdivision that, when graded, do not drain to an on -site detention facility. 3. Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalk) are required, at the expense of the Developer, along the entire frontages of both sides of all new public roadways within this development. In addition, the Owner is required to construct, concurrent with construction for this subdivision, a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path, along the entire frontage of 11'h Avenue SW. 4. The Developer shall execute a Supplement to the Development Agreement with the City of Rochester that includes the southerly 20 acres of this proposed subdivision. The Supplement to the Development Agreement must be executed prior to submitting the Final Plat. 5. Parking shall not be permitted at any time along either side of "53r" Street SW, from 18`h Avenue SW to 100 feet east of 181h Avenue SW. This area must be posted "No Parking". Reminder to Applicant: Prior to development, the property owner will need to execute a City I Owner Contract for construction of all public infrastructure and utilities to serve this subdivision. This Plat is subject to the Subdivision regulations which became effective May 15, 1999. Approved grading, drainage and construction plans will need to be submitted with the final plat application, if the applicant intends to record the final plat documents prior to completion of Infrastructure Improvements. Page 7 Preliminary Plat 01-31 Southern Woods Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 CITY OF ROCHESTER ZONING ORDINANCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MANUAL EXCERPTS 61.225 Finding for Land Subdivision: The Zoning Administrator, Commission or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a land subdivision if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed development are made: A. The proposed land subdivision conforms to all relevant requirements of this ordinance and variances have been granted to permit any nonconformance. B. That the proposed water system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve the normal and fire protection demands of proposed development and to provide for the efficient and timely extension to serve future development. C. That the plan for soil erosion and stormwater management meets the adopted standards of the City of Rochester and is consistent with the adopted Stormwater Management Plan or adopted drainage or stormwater policies. D. That the vehicular and non -motorized system is consistent with adopted transportation plans and is consistent with the street layout standards listed in Section 64.120 and traffic service standards in Section 61.526. E. That the lot and block layout provide for safe and convenient vehicular, service and emergency access, efficient utility service connections, and adequate buildable area in each lot for planned uses. F. That the proposed land subdivision has taken into account the current 6-Year and other Long -Range Capital Improvements Programs and the elements listed therein in the design of the subdivision. G. That the proposed subdivision, if in a resident zoning district, -addresses the need for spillover parking consistent with the requirements of Section 63.426. H. That right-of-ways and easements of adequate size and dimensions are -provided for the purpose of constructing the street, utility, and drainage facilities needed to serve the development. I. That the proposed parks, trail thoroughfares and open space dedications are consistent with adopted plans, policies and regulations. J. That the proposed subdivision will not have off -site impacts on the street, drainage, water or wastewater systems that exceed adopted standards. K. That the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impacts an the safety or viability of permitted uses on adjacent properties. L. That the proposed land subdivision is designed in such a manner as to allow for continued development in an efficient manner on adjacent undeveloped lands. Effective May 15, 1999 ly4 Page 8 Preliminary Plat 0 1 -31 Southern Woods Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 M. That the soils, topography and water tables have been adequately studied to ensure that all lots are developable for their designated purposes. N. That the proposed land subdivision is consistent with the standards of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. O. That any land located within Zone A as shown as on the currently adopted Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps of the Flood Insurance Study, Rochester, Minnesota prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is -determined to be suitable for its intended use and that the proposed subdivision adequately mitigates the risks of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitation for development, severe erosion potential or any other Floodplain related risks to the health, safety or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision in a manner consistent with this ordinance. 61.226 Conditions on Approvals: In considering an application for development permit to allow a land subdivision, the approving body shall consider and may impose modification or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Section 61.225. Effective May 15, 1999 195 Page 9 Preliminary Plat 01-31 Southern Woods Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 Land Development Manual Excerpts Substantial Land Alteration 62.1102 Exempt Activities: 1) Except as required for a reclamation plan, which may be imposed on any of the following activities as part of any required City permit or approval process, the provisions of these Sections 62.1100 through 62.1113 shall not apply to the following activities: a) The land area included within 15' or as reasonably defined by the City Engineer to allow soil stabilization of the identified boundaries of a building submitted for a building footing and foundation permit. b) Stormwater management facilities or other public infrastructure approved by the City. c) Excavations or blasting for wells, tunnels or utilities that have received all necessary governmental approvals. d) Refuse disposal sites controlled by other applicable City, State or federal regulations. e) On -going cemetery (burial) operations. f) Development activity for which a general development plan, subdivision permit or other Type III approval has resulted in the review of the proposed cut and fill work and for which a grading permit is required. To qualify for this exemption, the Council shall have made the findings established in Section 62.1105. g) Uses in the Central Development Core (CDC) District. 62.1105 Findings Necessary for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: The City shall approve a conditional use permit authorizing an excavation activity only if all of the following findings with respect to the proposed activity are made, in addition to those listed in Section 61.146: 1) The activity will not result in a danger to life or property due to (1) steep or unstable slopes, (2) unsafe access to the property, (3) excessive traffic, or (4) proximity to existing or planned residential areas, parks and roadways; 2) Visual, noise, dust, and/or excessive on- or off -site environmental impacts on public parks, roadways and residential areas can be adequately mitigated by the Applicant and a fully detailed plan is submitted by the Applicant to demonstrate the mitigation methods to be used, the cost of such mitigation, the source of funds for such mitigation, and adequate legal assurance that all of such mitigation activities are carried out; 3) The use of trucks and heavy equipment will not adversely impact the safety and maintenance of public roads providing access to the site, or such impacts will be mitigated; r. Page 10 Preliminary Plat 01-31 Southern Woods Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 4) The proposed use will not adversely affect air quality or ground water or surface water quality; 5) The proposed use will not adversely affect the scenic quality of Rochester or the natural landscapes, environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat; or if such effects are anticipated to occur, the reclamation plan provides for adequate restoration of the site following completion of the excavation activity; 6) The activity will be compatible with existing development and development anticipated in the future, including other uses as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: patterns of land use, recreational uses, existing or planned development, public facilities, open space resources and other natural resources; 7) The activity will not unduly affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties; 8) The site plan provides for adequate buffers and screening year-round from unsightly features of the excavation operation; 9) The reclamation plan provides for adequate and appropriate restoration and stabilization of cut and fill areas; 10) The excavation activity will not result in negative impacts on drainage patterns or stormwater management facilities; 11) The proposed activity will minimize impacts on sinkholes, wetlands and other natural features affecting ground water or surface water quality; 12) The intensity and the anticipated duration of the proposed excavation activity is appropriate for the size and location of the activity; 13) Permanent and interim erosion and sediment control plans have been approved by the City; 14) Surety has been provided that guarantees the site will be fully restored, after completion of the excavation activity, to a safe condition, and one that permits reuse of the site in a manner compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans, the Land Use Plan and applicable City policies. 15) The proposed activity complies with the requirements of the adopted building code. 61.146 Standards for Conditional Uses: The zoning administrator, Commission, or Council shall approve a development permit authorizing a conditional use unless one or more of the following findings with respect to the proposed development is made: 147 Page 11 Preliminary Piatsou ' � Southern Woods s Fourth Addition August 17, 2001 1) Provisions for vehicular loading, unloading, parking and for vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site and onto adjacent public streets and ways will create hazards to safety, or will impose a significant burden upon public facilities. 2) The intensity, location, operation, or height of proposed buildings and structures will be detrimental to other private development in the neighborhood or will impose undue burdens on the sewers, sanitary and storm drains, water or similar public facilities. 3) The provision for on -site bufferyards and landscaping does not provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development. 4) The site plan fails to provide for the soil erosion and drainage problems that may be created by the development. 5) The provisions for exterior lighting create undue hazards to motorists traveling on adjacent public streets or are inadequate for the safety of occupants or users of the site or such provisions damage the value and diminish the usability of adjacent properties. 6) The proposed development will create undue fire safety hazards by not providing adequate access to the site, or to the buildings on the site, for emergency vehicles. 7) In cases where a Phase I plan has been approved, there is a substantial change in the Phase 11 site plan from the approved Phase I site plan, such that the revised plans will not meet the standards provided by this paragraph. 8) The proposed conditional use does not comply with all the standards applying to permitted uses within the underlying zoning district, or with standards specifically applicable to the type of conditional use under consideration, or with specific ordinance standards dealing with matters such as signs which are part of the proposed development, and a variance to allow such deviation has not been secured by the applicant. 61.147 Conditions on Approval: In considering an application for a development permit to allow a Conditional Use, the designated hearing body shall consider and may impose modifications or conditions to the extent that such modifications or conditions are necessary to insure compliance with the criteria of Paragraph 61.146. % ROCHESTER PARK AND RISREATION DEPARTMENT 201 FOURTH STREET SE ROCHESTER MINNESOTA 55904-3769 TELE 507-281-6160 FAX 507-281-6165 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness Planning RE: Southern Woods 4th Preliminary Plat #01-31 Acreageof plat.......................................................... Number of dwelling units ............................................. Dwelling unit density ................................................... Densityfactor............................................................ Dedication............................................................... Fair market value of land ............................................. 36.09 a 96 units 2.66 units/a .0244 2.34 acres NA The Park and Recreation Department recommends that dedication requirements be met via: Reduction in previously established parkland dedication credits as a result of dedication of 12.0 acre Outlot A Southern Woods 15t Applicant: Southern Woods Development 3552 W River Parkway 0:\DSTOTZ\2001\1)EDICATION\SW 2897\SO WOODS 4TH.DOC i we pledge, we delver AuOust 6, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted CONSOLIDATED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904-7996 REFERENCE: Preliminary Plat #01-31 by Southern Woods Development Corp. to be known as Southern Woods Fourth Addition. Dear Ms. Gamess: Our review of the referenced preliminary plat is complete and our comments follow: 1. The property may be subject to the water availability fee, connection fees or assessments. The Land Development Manager (507-281-6198) at the Public Works Department determines the applicability of these fees. 2. A 20' minimum public utility easement is required for the 8" water main loop shown through Lot 41, Block 4 (R-lx area) 3. Minor revisions to the proposed water system layout are required. We have provided the . applicant's engineering firm with these comments. Please contact us at 507-280-1600 if you have questions. Very truly yours, 064AA P Donn Richardson Water C: Doug Rovang, RPU Mike Engle, RPU Mark Baker, City Public Works Vance Swisher, Fire Prevention Bureau Geoffrey Griffin, GGG Engineering Southern Woods Development Corp. Rochester Public Utilities, 4000 East River Road NE, Rochester, Minnesota 55906-2813 telephone 507-280-1540 facsimile 507-280-1542 Ed f OCHESTE'R /i'/inne3ola TO: Consolidated Planning Department 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 FROM: Michael J. Nigbur DATE: 8/13/01 151 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 201 4" Street SE Room 108 Rochester, MN 55904-3740 507-287-7800 FAX — 507-281-6216 The Department of Public Works has reviewed the application for PP#01-31, on the Southern Woods Fourth property. The following are Public Works comments on the proposal: 1. Execution of a Supplement to the Development Agreement is required to include the southerly 20 acres of this proposed subdivision. 2. Grading, Drainage, and Construction Plan approval is required prior to Final Plat submittal. 3. Storm Water Management must be provided for this development. A voluntary Storm Water Management Fee will apply to any areas of this subdivision that, when graded, do not drain to an on -site detention facility. 4. Outer 'A' should be designated as a Drainage & Utility Easement. S. Dedication of Controlled Access, as indicated on the Preliminary Plat, shall be shown on the Final Plat. 6. Pedestrian facilities (concrete sidewalk) are required, at the expense of the Developer, along the entire frontages of both sides of all new public roads within this development. 7. In addition, the Owner is required to construct, concurrent with construction for this subdivision, a 10 foot wide bituminous pedestrian path, along the entire frontage of I Vh Ave SW. 8. Execution of a City -Owner Contract will be required prior to construction of public infrastructure. 9. Preliminary Construction Plan comments will be provided separately to the Developer's Engineer. Note: The proposed sanitary sewer routing along the east side of 11'h Ave SW is not acceptable. 10. No parking should be permitted on either side of 53rd St SW from 18th Ave SW, to 100 feet east of 1 ath Ave Charges/fees applicable to the development of this property will be outlined in the Amended Development Agreement with the exception of Street Signs as follows: 10 Street Name Signs 4 No Parking Signs 1 Stop Sign 2 Street Ends Signs C:\temp\PP01.31 Southem Woods 4th.doc GGG In c. Engineering Surveying & Planning 'sot 14070 Hwy 52 SE Chatfield, MN 55923 phone 507-867-1666 fax 507-867-1665 July 25, 2001 Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department Attn: Brent Svenby 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904 RE: Substantial Land Alteration Dear Mr. Svenby, Our firm is currently designing Southern Woods Fourth Addition in southwest Rochester. This letter shall serve as our application for a substantial land alteration, which can run concurrent with the preliminary platting process. This project falls under Section 62.1102 (f) of the City of Rochester Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual, which refers to the findings, established in Section 62.1105. The substantial land alteration is necessary due to the extreme slope of the existing ground. One area is where we will be taking access off I I" Ave SE. This area has a lot of slope and to make the road and lots through that area work, there is a small area which may need a little over 10' of fill. The other area that will need over 10 feet of cut/fill is the stormwater pond. The construction of the pond will require substantial grading to provide the needed stormwater detention volume. The following is our comments to the 15 findings in Section 62.1105. 1.) This project is not a danger to life or property since the area of grading isn't developed yet. The stormwater pond being constructed will aid in containing any runoff and the ditch along 11`' Ave SW will provide an area where silt fence can be placed to ensure runoff is controlled. In addition, all steep slopes will be stabilized as required by city standards. 2.) Construction activities and the nuisances associated can be minimized to lessen the effect on the residents who have bought homes in Southern Hills and Southern Woods which are the closest developed areas. The construction activity for the substantial land alteration is no different that what was used to construct the existing subdivisions in that area. 3.) Public road access will not be compromised since all material will be from onsite. 4.) Construction activities that will take place are common and pose no threat to air or water quality at the site. 5.) The scenic quality and wildlife in the area will not be affected any more than.a couttn_a,,_,..__ development. JL 2 r; 2001 2 6.) This development is the final development as shown on the General Development for 153 Southern Woods. This final phase will provide access for future subdivisions in the area and provide watermain looping for better water pressures and quality in the area. 7.) Adjacent properties are currently residential or agricultural and will continue to be as such except for further development of the agricultural property. 8.) The area disturbed will be seeded as soon as grading is completed. This will be completed during the same year as construction starts. 9.) Reclamation Plan — Not Applicable 10.) A stormwater detention pond is being constructed for this project. Should a problem occur, this developer is required to maintain the site during the city/owner contract. 11.) This grading activity will not affect the groundwater in the area any differently than the other developments in the area. 12.) This site is not much different than any other land development in the Rochester area in regards to the intensity and anticipate duration of the proposed excavation activity. 13.) A complete grading plan will be submitted in conjunction with construction plans, which will need to be approved by the city. 14.) Surety will be provided in the city owner contract, which will guarantee the site, be developed to city standards. 15.) This construction activity will/does comply with the requirements of the adopted building code. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call at any time. Sincerely, Mark R. Welch Design Engineer Cc: Jerry Schultz. — Southern Woods Development r ?.001 A eem W a a�� 44m iol fu, I "I �. 2 00 I 17 �•� s .� r� --pr� 15 16 16 17, ' �� '•• J '` '20 ---- - -- <ir cam; �, >\ .13 � .�-. � {.. ` \_ E � � 24 25- nm cv j� 2¢; I- 27 L-C K ---- -N, 136 35 33 32 1 ii1 t 37; I 7 6 III 5 4 6 t 1 !I 1 +�' 1 R-1 G .Itl R-1 — --- I L� - y--J - - - - 3 4`- 5-. 6✓ER �/9 10 11 12. - 13 14 i .E �� �1 � 2 I ' fit Y 41y R—IX _—B-L 0 C K 4 41 26 29 !. .-- 24 23 � 22. '27 20. 19 LY /6 15 A 27 I Bff R�1 2 , ,31 J2 33 34 35 3B 7 3B 39 40 { 7 I ` �41 �9 I� UhJPLATTE� ' Alto. . 0 N e) m 7 .l I a I 'I o �I N I 1 O S4'6 << o + I I I I I: I o 1 I I i i I I - a I. I I l i i I 'I ! I 1 'o 1 b b N N V I I i i !I II I 1 ♦ O b N m Y I b b N Y) Y < Page 5 City Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Hearing Date: August 22, 2001 jg" / Mr. Ken Boyer, of 5300 Highway 3 South, Rochester MN, addressed the Commission. He stated that he owns the property a utting the proposed site to the south. He stated t he staff report indicates that there is nacc ss from the proposal going to his property, ever, there is mention in the report statingo That cess to Highway 63 will be removed in future. He explained that he will need access to t. Bridgets Road and that it would b asiest to get access through the proposed general evelopment plan. Therefore, h quested to receive access to the proposed plan. Ms. Petersson stated that the item wculc\be continued to Seg.Amber 12, 2001. Ms. Wiesner moved to c Associates to be known seconded the motion. T x Ms. Petersson asked if Main Street lllpvelopi motion'carrie 6-0, #01-09 by R. exu ximatelv 2.6 ac s r e wished to be heard. m #165 by,l eptember 1 one came forward. Mr. Staver moved t ontmue Zoning District Amen ment 401 09 by R L Hexum and ; Associates to Se mber 12, 2001 Ms Wiesner sec ded the motion Theme motion 3 q C8rfled 6 0= Preliminary Plat #01-31 by Southern Woods Development Corp to be known as Southern Woods Fourth Addition. The plat proposes to subdivide approximately 36 09 acres into 46 lots for single family development 50 lots for a townhouse development and 1 outlot j The Plat also includes the dedication of right-of-way for a number of new public V, roadways. The applicant is also requesting approval for a Substantial Land Alteration permit to allow for changing grades more than 10 feet in certain areas within the development. The property Is located along the east side 11` Avenue SW (Co Rd 147) south of 48` Street SW and south of Southern Woods First and Third Additions. Mr. Brent Svenby presented the staff report, dated August 17, 2001, to the Commission. The staff report is on file at the Rochester -Olmsted Planning Department. Mr. Mark Welch, of GGG Engineering located at 14070 Highway 52 SE, Chatfield MN, addressed the Commission. Mr. Welch made the following comments on the staff -recommended conditions: Condition 3: He stated that there is rock on both sides of 111" Avenue SW. He explained that it would not be feasible to put a 10 foot wide bituminous path along the roadway, as they would have to cut into the side hill more. He stated that he would like to work with Public Works on a different way to get a path in. Page 6 Cii\ Planning and ZOMW2 Commission Minutes Hearing Date: Aueust I;, 2001 pry Mr. Quinn asked if there was supposed to be a bike path along Willow Creek Golf Course on 11 `r Avenue. He stated that he understood that it was not constructed due to the rock. Mr. Svenby responded that, when the golf course expanded, a condition placed en the canditicnal use permit required them to construct a path along the east side of 11th Avenue SW. He stated that he was not sure if the condition was removed but would check on it. He stated that he would work with the applicant and Public Works on the issue prior to the City Council meeting. With no one else wishing to be heard, Ms. Petersson closed the public hearing. no c: ALL-AMEpjCA CITY R O CHE S TER —✓�i�crie�aLa --- DATE: July 31, 2001 TO: Jennifer Garness, Planning FROM: Lyle Feisch, Deputy Chief 0\ yOCHE ETEk. ,rr�1 Tf D •d L'G U57•`� DA"' A. ZP"LER, C Rhief ochester Fire Department 201 41h Street SE, Room 10 Rochester, MN 55904-3726 72 FAX #( 07) 2850--8256 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat #01-31 Southern Woods Fourth, to St. located south of 48 SW and Southern Woods 1st and 3rd Addition and east of 11 Ave. SW. With regard to the above noted general development plan, the fire department has the following requirements: 1 • An adequate water supply shall be provided for fire protection including properly located and installed in accordance with the specifications of the Water Division. The hydrant locations shown a hydrants prior to commencing building constructionpPearacceptable and must be in place 2. Fire department, access streets and roadways shall be as provided in accordance with the fire code, RCO 31 and the Zoning Ordinance and Land Development Manual including approved cul-de-sac dimensions and street widths. All fire department access roadways shall be serviceable prior to and during building construction. All street, directional and fire lane signs must be in place prior to occupancy of any residential buildings. 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. Donn Richardson, RPU, Water Division GGG Engineering, 14070 Hwy 52 SE, Chatfield Mn. 55923 Southern Woods Dev. LLC , 3552 W. River Parkway, Rochester, Mn. 55901 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING 159 DATE: 9/ AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING I Reports and Recommendations I Administration . __I DESCRIPTION: Establishment of Preliminary Property Tax Levy for 2002 PREPARED BY: Stevan Kvenvold Pursuant to State law the City is required to certify a preliminary property tax levy for the budget year 2002 by September 17, 2001. I recommend a 2002 preliminary property tax levy of $22,800,000, The City is also required to adopt a proposed budget amount for 2002, which may be increased or decreased at the time of budget adoption. I recommend a preliminary 2002 budget amount of $120,000,000. Additional information on these recommendations is attached for your review. Council Action Requested: Request a motion establishing the 2002 preliminary property tax levy at $22,800,000 and the 2002 preliminary budget amount of $120, 000,000 JNCIL ACTION: Motion Second r /W, Memo TO: Mayor and City Council From: Stevan E. Kvenvold Date: August 31, 2001 Subject: Preliminary Property Tax Leery for 2002 State law requires that the City Council adopt a preliminary property tax levy for the budget year 2002 by September 17, 2001. The City Council may adopt a final 2001 property tax levy, which is less, then the preliminary levy, however, the final 2002 property tax levy may not exceed the preliminary levy amount. Due to the late action by the Legislature this year, truth in taxation hearings are not required for the 2002 budget and the truth in taxation notices will be substantially different from previous years (see attached for additional information.) The State Legislature did re -impose property tax levy limits for the 2002 budget year. The City of Rochester's levy limit for 2002 is $23,224,131. Rochester's property tax levy for 2001 was $18,970,957• It is difficult to establish a 2002 property tax levy without spending some time reviewing and discussing the departments' service needs for 2002. Therefore, I will be recommending a preliminary property tax levy, which allows the Council some flexibility in maldng the final documentation or the appropriate property tax levy for 2002 after you have had a chance to review the budget requests for 2002. Some factors to be considered while establishing the preliminary 2002 property tax are reviewed in the attached memo form Dale Martinson. I recommend a preliminary 2002 property tax levy of $22,800,000. This would allow for the preparation of a 2002 budget that would accommodate some of the increased service demands that are placed on the City organization by the rapidly growing community. I plan on scheduling this matter for discussion by the Committee of the Whole on September 17, 2001 or until official council action taldng place at the September 17, 2001 City Council meeting. SEK: db attachment 1 6 / / FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: August 3, 2001 TO: FROM: Stevan Kvenvold Dale Martinson, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Preliminary Levy and Budget The City is required to set a preliminary 2002 tax levy and budget by September 17 of this year. Departments are just now working on the details of their budget requests. The newly adopted tax law has everyone scrambling to make estimates of its final impact on property owners. However, based upon what we do know, and understanding that we can always make our final levy less than the preliminary, I recommend adopting the following for pay 2002: Preliminary levy: $ 22,800,000 Total Budget: $120,000,000 This recommended preliminary levy represents a significant increase from the prior year, yet I believe property owners in all property classifications should see a reduction in total taxes for pay 2002 under the new law. (See attachment "A" comparing pay 2001 to House Research estimates for pay 2002). A significant portion of the recommended increase is due to recovery of lost aid under the new tax law while another portion is due to the need to tax new growth (both newly annexed property and new construction). This recommendation it is still more than $850,000 below the re -imposed State levy limit (limit plus allowable special levies). (Attachment "B"). We will not be able to provide extremely accurate estimates of tax impact this year since we do not yet know what the new total City tax capacity is are under the new law. The estimate noted in attachment "A" is as good as we can get for now, but it should be noted that those estimates do include the assumption that cities will levy back the amount they lost in State aid. The State is even suspending the requirement for a truth -in -taxation hearing this year because they realize county auditors cannot possibly re -program their tax systems with all the changes in time to get parcel -specific notices out. Our county assessor has explained that it may be well into next year before their software vendor has completed and tested all the changes. We do, however, know enough about a) expected City operations in 2002, and b) the new tax law to make the following general statements and recommendations. A. City Operations for 2002 1. New construction increased total market valuation in Rochester by 5.2%, or $47.3 million for pay 2002. This new construction signifies real growth of the community that requires real additional costs for the City to service. As I have stated before and will continue to do so, this additional growth provides absolutely no new tax dollars from which to serve them unless the council levies more total dollarsl We do not levy a tax rate to apply to each new property. Instead we levy a /& R Preliminary Levy Page 2 dollar amount that is simply split among the City's property valuation by class rate. This new growth must be taken into account when considering how much is needed tc serve the community. 2. The annexation of 451 Rochester Township parcels creates real additional costs to the City in serving its residents. Richard Freese has previously provided information to you on this impact from an operational basis. In addition to these new operating costs for 2002, however, we are also required to pay back to the township, 90% of the property taxes these parcels generated for the township in pay 2001. That bill for 2002 amounts to around $120,000. Again, we get no additional tax money from these parcels if we do not increase our total tax levy amount. Refusing to do so means we will be paying the township cash at the expense of serving existing residents to the same service level as the prior year. The State recognizes this burden in their levy limit calculation and provides that we should be allowed to levy an additional $401,621 to cover this burden (Attachment C). 3. Pension costs increase for coordinated plan members. Both employees and employers will realize a 0.35% contribution rate increase for coordinated plan members beginning in January 2002 to meet shortfalls highlighted in new actuarial studies. We estimate this to cost an additional $70,000 in 2002. This amount is not yet included in the State's 2002 levy limit calculations, but is allowed as an additional ,.special levy." 4. Total employee services costs will increase by over $1 million in 2002 for existing employees. Employee services costs are the largest portion of our tax - supported budget. Health care costs are expected to increase a minimum of 15% and, depending upon union contract settlements, the total increase to cover existing employees could reach $1.3 million. Additionally, there are significant requests this year for new positions as departments try to meet the new demand of the previously noted growth. Though not all requests will be approved, the total annual cost of new staffing requests is $1.3 million (Attachment D). 5. New annual debt service costs on the PFA street bond is expected to total $358,000. The council recently authorized staff to proceed with its final application for participation in the State's Public Facilities Authority bond pool for 50th Avenue improvements and other large projects that are beyond our capacity to cash flow through our regular CIP program. Though the interest rate is quite favorable in this financing (1.5% below triple A muni rates), we still must cover the annual debt payments. This levy will also qualify as a special levy under the limit law set by the State. B. The New Tax Bill 1. The takeover of the school district general education levy should reduce total property tax for pay 2002. House Research Department estimates lists net decrease in total levy in the City for the three jurisdictions (Rochester/Olmsted/[SD 535) of over $13 million, or about a 15% reduction in total levy from pay 2001. This estimate is Preliminary Le/63 ' Page 3 after assumed additional levy for annexations, lost City LGA, and PERA pension cost increases due to law changes. (Attachment E) 2. More and more shifting going on. The state further reduced class rates for commercial/industrial and high value homes, but then added a new State property tax to apply only to commercial / industrial properties. (Attachment F). In general, it gives further relief to high -value homes, apartments and, to a lesser extent, commercial/industrial. However, a new State property tax applies to commercial/industrial and seasonal recreational properties. With the school general education levy off the property tax, these properties are still expected to see a net reduction in total tax. 3. The City will see a net reduction in LGA/HACA aid (HACA goes away completely) of over $746,000. However we will now receive a new State aid to pay for our tax - burden share of mass transit costs. This transit aid amounts to $234,102 for 2002. The State is providing allowance for the City to recover this net loss of aid through additional tax levy. Presumably the State understands that by not recovering that loss, the City would be lowering its level of service to the community in 2002 and all future years at an ever -compounding rate. (Attachment B). 4. Levy Limits Are Back. The reinstated levy limit will not be an issue for the City because we have been more conservative than what was previously allowed. The law goes back to 2000 as a base year and applies community growth and inflation factors for each year forward. It also allows for the City to make up for lost aid and to increase its levy to serve newly annexed property. As stated, this calculation (including special levies) is still more than $850,000 higher than this recommendation. (Attachment B). I believe this preliminary levy, when considering the new construction growth, annexation growth, and shift of general education levy will still provide the tax relief that legislators expected, while assuring the City does not fall further behind in its efforts to serve an ever-growing community. ATTACNMk A T 7 (U J y L U rn m N 7 Q. . O f0 `C F cc U Q m 9? � N R r � � M N O ++ N w y :3 o W O N = j o C 04 a E E N N Q L C 0 C O E t Q U DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) N O r q to Cl)N - r N N r r r r r r r i i r i M N r O OO M O7 N CO In N to N Ln to LO V VN vto r h et n M M M n omrIntmomw w 0 N n w r r N CO --i Cl L6 Cl) r Co W w W= M n ODD N M O a NN M eM9 r N le Q1 le r N r � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OLO000000 r� Ln V 0 0 0 0 r,-rOmOmOO r N M M O r 00000000 00000000 O Ll7 O O O O O O r�LO�r0000 r N OM , OM O_ r c6 > > = d t0 O r O > •- X f M J Q 2 LU > a> v ti o g 0 2 EEEEpcj-CCC _ 2 2= E E E E m w w m m E E E x w Q 0 U U Pay 2002 Levy Limit Calculation Attachment B (Using House Bill Estimates for Factors) 1. Pay XXX Certified Levy & Aid: Pay 2001 Calc Details Pay 2002 Calc. Levy or Max A)lowed in 2001 17,841.326 2001 Levy Lim 20,388,077 LGA (after State costs) 6.861.950 2001 LGA 7.075,935 HACA 4,369,974 2001 HACA 4,370,953 LPA Subtotal Adjusted Levy Limit Base 2. Plus Special Levies Cops Grants Annexation (Roch Twp) 3. Adj Base 4. Multiply by change in implicit price deflator 29,073,250 549,864 29,623,114 31,834,965 401,521 32,236,586 3/30/2000 - 110.02 110.02 _ 1.043 113.69 1.033630 3f3011999 - 105.48 105.48 110.02 1.043041 1,03336 (State & Local govt consumption exp's and gross investment by bea) 5. Multiply by one plus percent of household growth In City 6. Multiply by one plus one half of the percent of growth in comm'llindustrial market value due to new construction over last year. a. Pay 2000 total market value b. Pay 2001 new c,l & u construction c. Adjustment Ratio 1+( a I b.) d. Times 50% 7. Adjusted Levy Limit Base 3X4X5cX6c Less Adjustment to State (rounding) 8. Less: Pay XXX Certified Aid & Excess Increment LGA (after State costs) HACA LPA New Const. Low Income Housing Aid Transit Aid Total Pay Aid 9. Payable Levy Limit Before Reductions for TI's 10. Reduction for Tax Rate Execess Tax Increments 11. Certified Payable Levy Limit Before Special Levies vs. Actual 2901 1 Recommended 2002 Margin to Maximum (before special levies) 12. Plus: Special Levies (estimates) P ERA Increase (1998 support less 1997 support) Debt Service Levy (PFA Bonds) 13. Final Maximum Levy Including Special Levies vs. Actual 2001 1 Recommended 2002 Margin after Special Levies 1_027204 1.003081 31.835.210 (245) 6,603.649 7,075,935 4.368,552 4,370.953 94,784 1.019758 1.005661 34,171,408 10,700,664 12,511 234,102 11, 446,888 10, 947,277 20,388,077 18,970,957 1,417,120 23,224,131 22,800,000 424,131 70,000 358,000 20 388,077 23,652,131 18,970,957 22,800,000 1,417,120 852,131 (746,224) (499,611) 021imitwork3.xls M112001 M OD x r m c x U m o toN M o mo .c } O Lr)Q) fD O F X 0) N N N N U m coo o co C f6l U~ M 0 U ro CD m m x m " ° a O f6 �F O.F-... O) R p yLo to l9 } O f O O) o M O) O m U t O co N -00 0) Z F-I � � } a) Z 0 c U w _ 6 � O J h- O � ~ 0 0 a) O a) O r i E J 0 y U C E J m C U 0 EL o a J J F O o o 0 o _' N I � m E a fo- � F z m ` w Fa %�rnrc�r.nF,.✓ c-z New Payable 2001 Levy Limit Base for the /G 1 City of Rochester after Annexation 1. City's Payable 2001 Levy Limit Base Before Annexation Adjustment S 31,834,965 2. City of Rochester: Total Payable 2001 Net Tax Capacity Before Annexation S 67,692,765 3. Town of Rochester: Total Payable 2001 Net Tax Capacity of Area Annexed S 853,993 4. City of Rochester: Total Payable 2001 Net Tax Capacity After Annexation (2 + 3) S 68,546,758 5. Adjustment Ratio: Line 4 Divided by Line 2 1.01261572 6. City's Payable 2001 Levy Limit Base After Annexation Adjustment (1 x 5) S 32,236,586 ,Ve 14 rrf+r.trnE✓ T City of Rochester, Minnesota 2002 Operating Budget Scenario #1 Assumes 3% increases in Contractual Services & Material and Supplies Includes Requested Positions with No Change in Temporary Salaries or Overtime Requests 8/30/2001 9:48 Employee Services Contractual Services Materials and Supplies Other Charges Capital Outlay Bond Prin & Int Allocated to Other Activ Total Operating Budget Transfers to CIP Total Budget w/ Transfers Internal Service Outlay Capital Improvements Debt Service Funds Adopted Projected Projected 2001 2002 2002 Budget Budget Budget +3% Reg +3.5% Reg Salaries Salaries 39,358,363 42,294,407 42,460,776 13, 388, 345 13, 789, 995 13, 789, 995 3,156,867 3,251,573 31251.573 8,642,832 8,642,832 8,642,832 650,645 650,645 650,645 543,839 543.839 543,839 1,665,480) 1,715,444 (1,715,444 64,075,411 67,457,847 67,624,216 3,777,516 3,777,516 3,777,516 67,852,927 71,235,363 71,401,732 1,872,461 1,872,461 1.872.461 44,033,271 44,033,271 44. 033, 271 2,137,300 2,137,300 2.137,300 L115, 895, 959 119, 278, 395 119, 444, 764 Projected 2002 Employee Services includes 15% increase in medical insurance premiums and a 0% increase in dental insurance premiums. Finance Department Bruce Atkinson 8/30/2001 0:%FlnExoeit9RUCE\BUDGET12002 BudgetlOperBudgetProjecLion#1.x151Sheet1 e �b IVO — ryaN Nn a OON N� V'MVa �(�j d C I� n ✓ fl vv1pi `� �n vvvna rLL NP n a 'Da c'e'u Q n a m l ts_ n n a of 3Ippm11 c, ti m m ebp �p n 3.9 E aka' eec ec a eae av��a a m � � �o o 00 0o c, o, o,o o a -t m�n NNN nn N nNri tih N vi vi �9 P � � h NON ml ryNm —N � N N [y N h IVN _Oc a � Ck § § 8i oo a� n a N N LLp 88 8 88 S S8 ��[f S8 p O O S pp O, O $�8 pp Qp ZS O O pp S i O w €V d S6 U �U O «J w4 3wQQ R gg� W C C U ieyJ� S d 4 Q W �- Vl 3 F n o m p$ C5 a a a a P a Rur: ,o*savC3 5/27/C1 :aur. ty City Net :hanye levy i ak covers (2) -------................... ........... .......... Ncr.-metro OLM STED `,Y ROCHEST ER __ 85805 -17,958409 BTEWARTV. LLE---5111-374782 CREDITS UNDER 6/27 CMN13L'S TAX BILL (BASED ON CCMPRCMISE AGREEMENT) Net Change New State Neu in City Prop. Tax Credit. 2002 Aids (3) (4) (5) .......... .......... ........ 10685971 202992 Total C/ Tata Net Change Net C-..3ns in Pr -?.Tax Per Caoi t: (6=2.3.4.5) t5/1) - • 5<5 ,385 695735 _D51 , 088 J ~ • 1 i2. 1: '._ •367953 --- -- •51553 •591,306 306-109.28 County Total 97682 •18778341 11057734 -T64801 797413 -14,287,995 OTTERTAIL BATTLE LAKE 686 •103889 60977 -58825 36518 •65,220 BLUFFTON 21D •6021 6625 •13626 -3932 -16,954 CLITHERALL 118 -3836 2516 -4101 130 •5,291 DALTON 258 •14290 9431 -15331 •923 -21, 113 DEER CREEK 328 -4647 $547 -17642 1463 -12,279 DENT 192 -11135 8160 -11093 -2505 -16,573 ELIZABETH 172 -6132 3751 •8851 -1839 •13,071 ERHARD 150 -7007 5598 -9823 -1035 •12,267 FERGUS FALLS 13471 -1890062 13891D2 -862573 -786216 -2,169, 749 HENNING 719 -50686 33800 -43480 -8255 -68, 621 NEW YORKMILLS 1158 •10389C 85342 •56673 -13029 •88,249 OTTERTAIL 451 •130567 92618 -37448 20563 -74,834 PARKERS PRAIRIE 991 -60651 41332 -64369 -16649 -100,337 PELICAN RAPIDS 2374 -182455 231203 •105673 -105758 •162, 703 PEERHAM 2559 •405361 384028 -152375 -49217 -222,925 RICHVILLE 124 •4846 3362 •5872 377 -6,999 UNDERWOOD 319 -26623 17979 '-19358 •3641 •31, 643 URSANK 59 -2424 2032 -4876 464 -4, 803 VERGAS 311 -34639 17191 -20169 716 •36, 900 VINING 68 -6393 4957 -4907 -23 -6,871 Cm:n:y Total 2471E -3075055 2408552 -1537105 -933096 •3, 137, 704 PE.VNiNGTCN OOOORIDGE 93 •2256 1634 •1999 •158 •2,779 ST HILAIRE 272 -23095 15369 •11Ci1 9545 -9,193 THIEF RIVER FALLS 8410 -740334 410523 •459815 -105579 -903,205 County Total 8780 -773685 427526 -472526 -96192 -915,177 PINE ASKOV 368 -32967 13680 -22581 -6263 -48,130 BROOK PARK 156 -9692 6688 •7715 -382 -11,1 01 BRUNO 102 -9116 4817 -4504 -1270 •10,0 72 DENHAM 40 •15857 11038 -3238 340 -7,716 FINLAYSON 314 -31454 20432 -22019 1544 •31,497 HENRIETTE 101 •3028 1707 -4380 -575 -6,5 76 HINCKLEY 1291 -363458 369640 -77426 788 •70,4 56 KERRICK 71 -7017 3965 -4044 -410 .7,5 O6 PINE CITY 3043 -48ZB36 341323 -187385 -28230 -357,1 28 ROCK CREEK 1119 -132905 65877 •101986 -5634 -174,648 RUTLEDGE 196 -14863 5729 -12015 3600 •17.5 50 1:.i. !. F _.-- �"r1-�r�mE✓r Section - :..: .. -.:'. cd`:.r 1 Y'.: - -yes.- • �! . t'-': y� �+. �_ __UeB��S}°�"n vci -iea.,.- . �:J�_ le�,ax�, � Res{dermal Hom-estead - `"" ��, L p fo Sd6;000,* ° 1.0 % S So00 1.0 % ib;0D0'' 000';; 1.65 1.0 Over.S500�000, 1.6> 1.25 Res�denhalNonbomestead �"'`R ' Up to 576 000,1r w 1.0 S9b,000 SSOO,000 1.65 1.0 : r Over 550D;DOfl 1.65 1.25 ? 3 umtand',S�dwgyelopedland ;u_ 1.65 1.5' apartments � 4-4 r ,...r mx z- 2.4 1.82 Small.cty 2.1_ 1.82 Low 9s fn income as 1.0 0.93 Commeictal Indiistsial Pubhc Uhli�t�-^��' J Lp to 5154,7)00� i Ov�r 2 .4 1.0 1.0 El c c ahoa 2.0 2.0 gene mac linery r 3.4 2.0 _ Seasoaal Recreational Coha errm j il st wE i-Io��ea-edzesors- Seanalr sots (�c) 1 Up to S500 ODO 1.c5 1.0 1 asonal Recreational ResidenttalYS Ln _o G` ...... 1? 1.04 0.4 S e=000 SoQG= =QO s�rw' 'Over,S5. 1.65 1.0' 1.0 0, " 1.65 1.25' 1.25 Disabled homestea-d,!�14. 0.45 ,. 0.45 �'��rtculriiralland"8c�uildrnos -y'' Hoaiesfead -� ' =r.,:r LD to 511 000 - 0.15 0.55' 5115=000 �60G OG0', 0.8 0.55' O�ei'S6u�000 " 1.2 1.01 �DB}IOmeStPAij,"-`'^ .'' 1.2 1.0' .1.1c : wuuuUU- w i.-.. /o m Day wv-i ann ttlerea.*ter. Rate reduced to I.5910 in pay 2003 and 1.25% in pay 2004 and thereafter. Rate Licreased to L.00io in pav 2003, classification abolished in pay 2004. Exempt fia n r6erendum- market value tax. Article 3: Property Taxes MINNESOTA Department of Rex,ent.te Property Tax Division Mail Station 3340 St. Paul, VN;iI46-33,0 Phone (651) 296-31:: Fax (6= 1) 297-2166 Jule 6, 2001 To: School District Superintendents, City Finance Officials of Cities over 500 Population, and Metro Special Taxing Districts Re: Truth in Taxation Law Changes for Payable 2002 Special Session Laws 2001, Chapter 5, Article _, Sections 91 and 96 provide the following changes for Truth in Taxation for levy year 2001, taxes payable in 2002: Due to the late enactment of the Omnibus Tax Bill and the massive changes in the property tax system for the taxes payable year 2002, Truth in Taxation public hearings in 2001 for taxes payable in 2002 are not required. You do not need to publish or post a notice of a public hearing, nor do you need to hold a public Truth in Taxation hearing this year. These hearings will once again be required for taxes payable in 2003 and subsequent years. The elimination of the requirement to hold a Truth in Taxation public hearing in 2001 does not prohibit a taxing authority from holding a Truth in Taxation hearing if it wants to. If your taxing authority chooses to hold a Truth in Taxation hearing this year, you should follow the normal procedures for publicationposting of a notice of a Truth in Taxation public hearing and the normal procedures for discussion of the proposed budget for payable 2002 (2001 budget in the case of school districts) and proposed property tax levy for payable 2002. You should not submit a Form TNT-2002, "Certification of Truth in Taxation — Payable 2002" to the Department of Revenue. Since Truth in Taxation hearings are not required this year, there is no reason to complete and submit this form. You may toss the Form TNT-2002 that you previously received from our office. Four taxing authority must still submit its proposed property tax levy for payable 2002 to the county auditor by September 17, 2002 (October 1 for school districts). The county auditor still needs this information to prepare parcel specific notices of proposed property taxes for each parcel of real property for the taxes payable year 2002, Continued... An equal opportunity employer 7TY/TDD. (651) 297-2196 h �o Ln Q IT r�l o co O [i N N' V � 'o co 3 V Z' Ln n 00 tC i31 p p cg Yp 110, { ..= Q p U O, O O U �= r— N U .01 C�1, p` r+ i tG �'e= O r= 04 2 3 CC r O N i X I i jw - 000z -- 6661 _ Q 9661 _� ■� u' L661 9661 o a■i — i766 L a Ij £661 ii Z661 1661 — —�� 0661 L fo r. W) M -c r 6 �= a2 to %C G'S RT tl7 a. Ci t3� O ON 0 O M cl� 4M— O R1 ON 011 O N U e= r N v r s: A� 000z - _ - 066L L66L 966 L 966L b66 L F -.. T 1W I ,._ 66L tv � , ed C LbbL .�. 066 L • r1 y 4!4 b4 r V} 104 #f} if? kAl � O L El /1 Q i = V= i Ci � V Rs s= C� Ln %T d- 'T er "- Ln 'It IT Ln Ln cu E O r N M �7 Ln %O h 00 01 o C Off' O1 01 C% O1 C? Q) O� O1 C1 O IM is is OOOZ _ -- — 6661. �_-- L66t 966t 566t -- - — -I £66t 7tiG 1 t66t 066t r 4, 4A.. 600� 404. 0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING M-P DATE: 9/17101 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. REPORTS and RECOMMENDATIONS Public Works _.A DESCRIPTION: Land Acquisition - Badger Run Trunk Line (J9745) PREPARED BY: M. Nigbur�l The City is in the process for the design and construction of the Badger Run Trunk line which is intended to service a large portion of the existing residences in Marion Township that are currently on private wells and septic systems. The project is moving forward and timing is such that acquisitions of various portions of property are needed. Staff would request authorization to retain consultants for the real estate acquisition process. Staff also requests the authorization to negotiate and settle with the land owners for the needed land rights for a value not to exceed 15% of the appraised value. We anticipate that several property owners will not reasonably negotiate with the City Staff. If negotiations do not progress Staff would also request authorization, at the direction of the City Administrator, to begin the 90 Day Quick Take eminent domain process. This process may be needed to maintain the project schedule. Staff will continue to negotiate towards a settlement during the condemnation process. I __a a'. SewerRoute ,.• R� �i W. V i COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adoption of a resolution authorizing the staff to retain consultants, negotiate/acquire the needed real estate at a value not to exceed 15% appraised value, and authorize the use of the 90 day "Quick Take" for land acquisition associated with the Badger Run Trunk Line project (J9745). .. UNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: FElUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING J77 ' DATE: 9/17/01 AGENDASECTION: ORIGINATING DEPT: ITEM NO. RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE G 4 DESCRIPTION: PREPARED BY: RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES TERRY ADKINS G. 1. RESOLUTIONS G. 2. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES, as appropriate. r)&,,,p G. 3. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES (for adoption). nZ None Scheduled G. 4. MISCELLANEOUS i I 641-4 I JNCIL ACTION: Motion by: Second by: to: